Cut the crap already
I made a comment in a relevant Feedback thread expressing my disapproval of TimeLine inexplicably being made a mod on this forum.
I am not entitled to receive any answers, seeing as though this forum is privately managed, but I will ask several questions all the same and appeal to @jamalrob in particular to answer them.
1) Who made TimeLine a mod and why?
2) Why was the thread I made my comment in closed?
3) Why were my recent comments in the Shoutbox deleted and who deleted them?
4) Is there any assurance that TimeLine will not censure posters and posts with whom and which she disagrees?
It has been a real battle of late getting certain of the mods to begrudgingly, but to their credit, acknowledge their biases and attempt not to let them affect their moderation. Promoting TL now seems to torpedo that progress.
I am not entitled to receive any answers, seeing as though this forum is privately managed, but I will ask several questions all the same and appeal to @jamalrob in particular to answer them.
1) Who made TimeLine a mod and why?
2) Why was the thread I made my comment in closed?
3) Why were my recent comments in the Shoutbox deleted and who deleted them?
4) Is there any assurance that TimeLine will not censure posters and posts with whom and which she disagrees?
It has been a real battle of late getting certain of the mods to begrudgingly, but to their credit, acknowledge their biases and attempt not to let them affect their moderation. Promoting TL now seems to torpedo that progress.
Comments (201)
+ Re where to put complaints - From the guidelines:
"When it comes to moderating decisions, however, [mods] are not like other posters, because they have powers other posters don't have. In these cases, the Feedback category, or, again, a private message, can be used to complain about moderators' actions in their capacity as moderators. When it comes to moderating decisions, however, they are not like other posters, because they have powers other posters don't have. In these cases, the Feedback category, or, again, a private message, can be used to complain about moderators' actions in their capacity as moderators. Do not use other discussions to do this or your comments will be deemed off-topic and will be subject to deletion."
(Which is why I deleted the Shout box comments and asked you to take your complaint here.)
We don't have an exhaustive set of rules to cover every occasion. Use your common sense and open a new discussion about a new topic.
Here is the new thread in question. Care to provide any answers?
I have to go to real world work now actually, so I'll leave it to someone else for now. Anyway, the mod team as a whole agreed on making @TimeLine a mod.
As predicted.
Quoting Thorongil
Only an administrator can make someone a moderator, so it must have been either Baden or jamalrob. She was made a moderator because her name was suggested and there was a consensus.
Quoting Thorongil
Personally, I wouldn't have closed it. It was relevant to the topic, and I've never really understood why people view it as an issue if an old discussion is revived. If I was going to take action, I would have moved your comment, and subsequent related comments, into a new discussion, rather than close the discussion. (Then I could have given it a better title than the one that it has ended up with).
Quoting Thorongil
As Baden rightly pointed out, that is against the guidelines.
Quoting Thorongil
I'm not going to give any assurances on behalf of anyone else. And, as long as the right call is made, I don't mind who makes it, or whether it is made by someone who happens to disagree with the member in question.
I've said this before - TL is passionate but also evenhanded and principled. I am really curious how she will handle being a moderator.
Edit - I have no clue why she would want the job.
Stop beating around the bush. Why was her name suggested? Why also did there need to be another mod? I suppose it doesn't seem so inexplicable when one takes into account the fact that she shares the same antipathy for certain posters and certain ideas that most of the other mods do. I can surmise in this manner, but I would like a straight answer.
Quoting Sapientia
Maybe so, but you and I both know that discussion of moderation has occurred in the Shoutbox quite frequently in the past, discussion the mods engaged in and didn't choose to shut down, so appeals to the guidelines don't have much affect on me.
Quoting Sapientia
I don't mind that either. But the ability to make the right call is my concern here. After her vile accusations directed toward me in a recent discussion, I don't have much faith in said ability.
Not in my recent experience.
Quoting T Clark
So am I. But I'm not optimistic.
I believe she asked.
TPF politics are riveting. It's like being thrown back in an end-of-19th-century US Election.
"A vote for TL is a vote for moral degeneracy! She wants beastiality to be taught in highschool!"
Quick comment on this as I have a minute. I think it benefits the complainant too to have a dedicated discussion in Feedback for their particular complaint rather than have it interspersed with other comments that have nothing to do with it. And it's debatable how relevant the old discussion was but I don't think it's too much to ask to start a new discussion on a new complaint if it's more than just a one-off protest comment.
More can kicking.
Regardless of whether or not it was necessary, we obviously thought that it would be a good idea, and we obviously thought that it would be a good idea because we thought that Timeline would make a good moderator based on her qualities and behaviour.
Obviously you don't agree, which comes as no surprise. I'm under no obligation to discuss this in detail with you, and I've decided against doing so, for reasons that I'm at liberty not to disclose.
Quoting Thorongil
We are not unaware of what has happened in the past. We review these things, discuss them, and sometimes make changes on how we go about things in future. And that's exactly what's happened here.
Quoting Thorongil
No one's perfect. I do have confidence in her ability to make the right call. That's why she got my vote.
Anyway, she's now a moderator, whether or not you approve. My advice would be not to jump the gun.
Right, sorry, don't know the answer to that. Only that she was considered because she asked.
Fine, don't talk. As you say, you don't have to. But you must know that your silence only raises my suspicions about how it went down and why.
This is how it went down:
You know a significant segment of the shoutbox is about constant flirting and we all know the dynamics of that. I am not suprised at all that she became a moderator.
Second, because Sap just got done spending a paragraph telling me how he wasn't going to tell me anything, but now is okay with your posting this evidence. Strange little about face there.
I don't think it's very mysterious. Timeline is an intelligent sophisticated person. She asks to be a mod. She's female. You've probably noticed that some of the male mods are concerned about the balance of estrogen and testosterone in the Body Philosophic. They might like it to be 50/50. In fact, nothing runs on 50% T and 50% E, except Title IX regulation of college athletics. It's mostly one or the other.
Time will tell whether she is a good moderator or a bad moderator. It's sort of like appointing a supreme court justice. Sometimes appointments backfire, and the justice doesn't rule the way the appointing president hoped. The difference is, this appointment isn't for life and bitching about decisions can be incessant as well as up close and personal.
I don't know why anybody would want this unpaid, thankless, and slush-mucking job. I'm glad somebody does.
My main complaint about TimeLine is that I feel she could do a better job proofreading her posts, and that she is a fan of pasta salad. Pasta Saladorians should be suppressed.
That's an erroneous inference. That pros and cons were not expressed does not entail that none of us could think up any. I just cut to the chase and voted in favour as soon as I'd reached that conclusion, as, I would surmise, did others.
Quoting Thorongil
Of course we are aware of your opinion, which is why your reaction did not come as a surprise.
Quoting Thorongil
No, don't take things out of context. There has been no about face on my part. As indicated by the preceding paragraph, I meant that I do not care to go into details regarding what it is about Timeline that makes me think that she has the potential to be a good moderator.
I would expect my views on uncontrolled migration of Arabs and Africans into Europe or uncontrolled migration of Mexicans, Central Americans, and South Americans into the US to be characterized as an "apology for genocide" and "racism" and be threatened with banning. Migration should be controlled. Look at what uncontrolled migration of Europeans into North America did to the American Indians, or uncontrolled migration of the English into Australia did for Aboriginals.
They really are; I can never bring myself to look away.
I made her a mod, because she is a good thinker, a good writer, and shows good judgement.
I don't know anything about 2 and 3.
I don't understand 4. Can there ever be such an assurance? Why would you expect one? Why do you have a concern about it in this case? What is your problem?
Well, I beg to differ.
Quoting jamalrob
See here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/129749#Post_129749
Also, think about what you're saying. "So she didn't follow the guidelines she's now supposed to moderate and accused you of apologizing for rape, but so what, that's no big deal, get over it." In no way is that an appropriate response, but hey, I suppose you're welcome to it, owner-man.
So.
We went from justifying TL as a mod to simply stating she flirted her way into the role.
I mean.
Beyond the fact that this just expresses so well how little you know about flirting. :P
Maybe I will start flagging now, though I doubt it will do much good.
Well, he doesn't spend his days flirting with me in the Shoutbox, so...
Your fellow mods laugh at my and other posters' alleged "persecution complex." Okay, let's put the nail in that coffin by making Agustino a mod, and then threads like this will dry up.
Well, I can neither deny or lend credence to the belief that flirting with me will help you getting on the modding team. So I guess it's kinda like Pascal's wager. Do you really want to take the chance that flirting with me won't be the way to get on the modding team?
I vote darth for modship.
I agree we should have as much diversity as possible on the mod team. I would rather have @ArguingWAristotleTiff on board next time than some of those you mentioned though.
So what's holding you back, hmm?
Did you type this with a straight face?
So why not do it? What precludes him from being a mod? Whatever you say against him, I'm quite sure the same could be attributed to the current mods. So that leaves me with the notion that you just like seeing all this drama unfold and people like me endlessly complain.
All I did was make someone a mod. You created the drama.
Good god man, you do realize this confirms precisely what I'm concerned about?
Quoting jamalrob
This sentence implies that it's not a big deal to make someone a mod. And yet, apparently it is. You casually decided to make TL a mod on the basis of her requesting to be one, but are now obstinately refusing to do the same when I and others request that someone else be a mod. You cannot fail to understand how infuriating you are being here.
For a start, we don't have any vacancies now. And there are better potential candidates when we do imo.
Again, what is your problem?
So what is? The whim of the mods? Do the mods work in mysterious ways us mere mortals cannot fathom?
Right. Well, at least your irrationality is on display for all to see.
Unless you tell us what your issue is, I can't see this discussion going anywhere.
Stop can kicking and tell us why we conspired to bring her aboard. I'm curious as to what havoc we can now rain down that previously we couldn't. Do you really think we sit around thinking of ways to annoy you?
How about this: you don't like her so you're mad about the decision, so you're arriving at irrational nonsense to suggest some sort of incoherent impropriety.
In summary: We think she's qualified. You don't. Good chat.
Let's then say I complain about what I take to be unjust treatment and she confers with the other mods about whether she's in the right. Well, 1) the mods are predisposed to like and agree with her and 2) not a single mod thinks very highly of me. So what then? She gets away with it. There is no countervailing force among the mods, as Agustino would be, to dissent from the witch hunt. That's how Emptyheady got banned. That's how Baden could threaten Buxte with a ban on the dubious charge of sexism while turning a blind eye to the foul insults SLX spewed.
You have done less than nothing to reassure me of this. But let me guess: "I don't owe you any reassurance." Fine, then learn to live with my complaints of your ridiculous double standards.
Thank you!
Ah chucks. I'm no closer to the dark hallways of power. :’(
But, jokes aside, @Thorongil, I hear you and appreciate your feedback and I would like to publicly acknowledge why you felt it wrong to have me on the mod team particularly relating to the comment. I retract it accordingly and apologies for any offence that you have taken to it, it was rhetorically cruel and it stemmed from an anger that I felt at the time towards the judgement and accusations being made against women who protested for feminism. If there are other concerns relating to any of my posts to you, please both past and future, flag them either with me or to others and we will proceed from there.
"Much ado about nothing" you might alternatively say, and have said by referencing mountains and molehills. This is true. It is much ado about nothing in the grand scheme of things. Under ideal circumstances I would more or less be off the grid and not engaged in such petty squabbles. But I have obtained a fair amount of value and perspective by interacting with others on both the old and now this forum, and so long as I'm here, I might as well speak my mind and tidy up as best I can this one small corner of the Internet.
Sorry, yes I am at work and only just had my lunch break. I am glad you accepted my apology because I do feel bad; I tend to make jokes in the "Shoutbox" thread that are more or less intended to provoke in some way and should recognise the differences in what some would constitute as humour. I respect you enough to acknowledge that. While my posts in many other threads probably reflect more of who I am, I will attempt to convey a bit more decorum. It is something I should learn nevertheless being a tad bit too emotional for my taste for certain subjects. If anything, my editing would probably be more or less the PhiSci stuff.
Of all the nasty little pastas in this thread, you offend me the most.
That better mean it's good. I will not tolerate the defamation of pasta salad, you monster.
All this explains why you don't want TL to be a mod, but it was unresponsive to my question as to what our underlying motive was for making her a mod. You think we made her a mod because we just wanted to make your life difficult, as if (1) we are that petty, and (2) we couldn't make your life just as miserable without bringing her aboard? We all understand you don't like her and don't want her exerting any amount of control over your life, but your comments weren't limited to an expression of displeasure, but seemed to suggest something more.
Sounds like you were just pissed off and saying whatever. Anyway, you got your say. It's the holidays. Let's all get along.
Quoting Hanover
You say this after you get in a nice dig at me, lol. Okay, sure, let's get along.
This need not be a permanent judgment, by the way, as I just got done saying to TL, and as indeed I said on page two of this thread.
Your question is absurd, as if one poster has the right to solicit public feedback from the moderators as to their opinions about the potential qualifications of another poster for a particular position, even one he never requested?
And none of this is to suggest that anyone is or isn't qualified to be a mod, but it's just to comment on your question.
Okay I lied. Get in line.
Quoting Hanover
I'd read it.
Appreciate your help on that. (Y)
Flirting with Hanover is pretty ineffectual because a) he's a two-timing lizard and b) not an administrator.
Let's not tell them that while we've got them chomping at the bit. ;)
If nominated I will not run, if elected I will not serve.
Fair enough. It's not for everyone. But I hope I speak for most of us here when I wish Timeline the best in her new role.
I plead the fifth. :-x
Oh and second Baden above. it’s quite a task.
(Y)
I wouldn't.
Funny, especially the judgement part.
Quoting Sapientia
Right. If the North Korean people don't like Kim Jong Un they should go vote. It says it's a democratic people's republic afterall, so it must be true. It's sad to see you defending the status quo, I thought better of you. You do lack class consciousness in this regard.
Quoting Sapientia
>:O, sorry, I can have no other reaction.
Quoting Hanover
Because of your friendly alliance with her and shared mutual interests, that's why. She agrees with the whole host of POMO ruling beliefs, she hates Agustino and other conservative posters and will continue the status quo.
And you should stop being so belligerent because we both know that the only reason you're a mod is because you publicly expressed a desire to see me banned (in other words, you were doing what you do best, being a servant to those in power and kissing butt while trying to step over everyone who is underneath you)
Quoting TimeLine
Quoting TimeLine
So by her own admission, TimeLine is incapable to control her anger, is impulsive, and takes decisions she later regrets. That's what you @jamalrob, @Baden, etc. like to see in a fellow mod yes? It should come as no surprise remembering how impulsive @Baden showed himself to be when banning Emptyheady or warning @Buxtebuddha, @Thorongil and myself about sexism, based on nothing, no evidence whatsoever.
But I forgot to add the most important piece of the puzzle. TimeLine is easily the most manipulative poster to have graced this forum. She will change her colors as she has to in order to obtain what she wants. She wants to stop this discussion and keep her mod position. So she will apologise and do whatever it takes to achieve that aim. But don't be deceived - be very VERY careful.
This is not an indication she will change now that she already has the power. She couldn't control herself before, what makes you think she can control herself now? This is all a farce set up to deceive you. We have many decent women on these boards who are not given modship. Tiff or Lone Wolf come to mind. So if the moderators really want a female, they could certainly pick a reasonable choice.
Quoting StreetlightX
Good, so why don't you give it up then? Multiple people have asked for your resignation already. And if it's such slimy janitorial work, I'd like to see you give it up - it should also be in your interests, so what are you waiting for?
Quoting Thorongil
Quoting Lone Wolf
Pff - you'll never see them make Agustino a mod, are you kidding me? >:O
Thank you for your support and confidence, I really appreciate it. As for wanting to be a mod. I have already said in the past that I do not want to be a mod. However, if you and many others think that I can fulfil your interests - the public's interests - in that position, and that I can balance the power in this community to represent you and not private interests of a small clique then I will gladly accept it. Though my acceptance itself is useless. The mods do not want Agustino there. The fact that there are no "spaces" left is a petty excuse - spaces can always be made. The thing with me is that I cannot be controlled - I cannot be a puppet, so I cannot represent the interests of a small clique.
Good god, dude. I've had some spates with the mods, and with TimeLine, and with yourself, and I can honestly say that I'm just about as much phased by any of you as I am by anyone else. Keep puffing out those cheeks, and you'll have plenty of lung capacity to out-post us all in perpetuity.
:-O Copycat.
Quoting Agustino
I suspect mods don't get worked up much about any conservative poster to the point that they'd feel hatred towards them. In my view, the mods are on average more progressive than our more vocal conservative members but then you, Thorongil and Hanover are the outliers here that don't really represent the average member. I suppose SSU is another conservative but not that vocal about it, other than that other conservative posters do not come to mind. One conservative in the mod team therefore seems a sensible reflection of the membership population.
Mods are active on the boards and then it is likely that they will participate in discussions more often than most members; so they have a relatively high visibility compared to others. Running into them at different ends on any discussion becomes statistically more probable as a result as well.
In other words, I think this is a lot about perception and not about actual facts.
So, do you really feel hated or despised or was that an exaggeration? If the former, I think there's something the mod team could engage as I think it's neither intended nor wanted (I'm assuming nobody is in here going out of their way trying to make other people feel bad).
Quoting Agustino
He was a mod before you were a member.
Quoting Agustino
This is mostly conjecture. Suffice is to say you can flag her posts and decisions. Generally though (as a former mod myself) most serious decisions are run by a few other moderators before they are made definitive. There's an informal checks and balance there that by and large works.
Also, it's still human work so there are bound to be inconsistencies. Nobody's perfect. So far, I don't think egregious mistakes have been made that warrant this thread.
Although I love Tiff to death, she's too nice to be a mod. Lone Wolf could be an option but I can't really say as I don't recall any of her posts.
Hanover? I don't think so. He wasn't a mod at the old place. And he wasn't a mod here before I was a member.
Really? Well, I must have it backward in my memory then. I thought he was a moderator before I remember you becoming active here. Did you lurk more before?
No, he was made a mod right after he said he'd like to see me banned in one discussion, and that he would have done it were he a mod. Not right after, but soon after, in about a month. I was surprised to see him made a mod. He wasn't one of the original mods, he was however an editor.
Fair enough. Still, don't you think it's unlikely his willingness to ban you was a factor considering you're still here? ;)
Well it's obvious that he cannot take that decision himself (but he has made it clear which way he wants to go). No doubt that there are reasonable mods in the team, I don't have issues with all mods. But some of them, perhaps a majority now, are definitely questionable in my eyes. For example, I think people like SLX, Hanover and TimeLine are clearly biased, don't keep a cool head and really do not make great mods. I'd go as far as saying that SLX and TimeLine especially are a danger to the diversity of this community. Hanover tends to get stuck on certain people (like myself in this case), but he hasn't shown dangerous ideological and unquestioned presumptions like the other two I've mentioned.
I think it would be good if you became a moderator. It might not work, but it would be interesting. You can be intemporate, but the same can be said for TimeLine.
Thank you for your love dear friend, as I treasure that more than any moderator position, as goes with many of my fellow forum members that I call friends. However I must admit that this is the third time in my life that I have been told that "Tiff" is not capable of a, b or c because "she's too nice".
Do you really think I am incapable of being a bitch?
So let's work out the conspiracy angle, considering it's all about you. Who was it that added me in the hopes of gaining enough votes to get rid of you? I mean, if we all hate you, why bring me aboard? We could've banned you long ago without the Hanover and now TL court packing scheme.
You saw the screenshot. Jamal asked to bring her on. I'm pretty sure he can ban without me or TL.
Here's my position: I couldn't care any less if you were a gun toting right wing conservative or a communist. No one really cares. My views have been unapolegetically pro American and pro Israel before a crowd often hostile to that sentiment. I've been snarky, perverse, and stubborn, yet on zero occassions have these or the prior mods had to moderate me. The reason being I don't sidetrack our valuable space with drama like this.
My question always is pragmatic. Would this place be better without you and this constant immature stupidity promoted by you and others with the social ineptitude to interact appropriately with others. I've answered that question aloud before, and it wouldn't change even if you joined me a rousing rendition of the Star Spangled Banner. My concern remains that if a serious minded philosopher logged on and read this bullshit, she'd say, "this is bullshit" and walk away.
The mods here simply are not as conservative as me and all the law and order such a personality entails, and for that you owe your continued existence. There is no ideological persecution.
No, I think you'd make a great mod :D - you're both caring, but you can be stern too when you have to. Like when you reprimanded me for invading your thread :P
No, it's all about the diversity of this community, and I'm only relevant when it comes to that. I'm a particular example of how that diversity is threatened, and I'm by far not the only one.
Quoting Hanover
Who is "you all"?
Quoting Hanover
The segment of the moderator team who was looking to get rid of me (in that context, and of other conservatives in a larger context) and failed to garner sufficient support amongst themselves for that when the opportunity arose.
Quoting Hanover
Yeah, quite frankly I think this place would be much better off without butt-kissing and vindictive mods like yourself, who seek to take vengeance on other members because they disagree with them.
Quoting Hanover
You're only conservative on some economic issues, you're nowhere near a conservative religiously or socially, so stop being silly. You talk of yourself as if you were the arch-conservative of the forum. Yesterday you even had the audacity to say that conservatives aren't also socially conservative on sexual issues for example and other perverse fantasies of yours.
Quoting Hanover
Yes, and for that reason, you should be off the moderating staff. You are a pernicious influence, who seeks to get rid of those you disagree with by other means. You don't have the courage of a real man to talk through things, you're petty minded, vindictive and hold grudges. You're also manipulative, intolerant, impulsive, and extremely rude, especially to those you perceive yourself to be above. You're the textbook example of the kind of person who bows his head to superiors and steps over those who he perceives as inferiors.
Not to mention that your philosophical knowledge is abysmal, and your actual contributions - philosophically - to this site are very few. The only relevant things you've really contributed were with regards to some economic issues and Cartesianism (of which you do seem to have a decent understanding) - the rest is you playing around like a kid in the Shoutbox. You're free to do that, don't get me wrong, but that doesn't recommend you as a mod. There's many others here, like Janus, who have contributed a lot more philosophically, but they don't have as loud (and dirty) a mouth as you do.
Ah man, you don't want to know the discussions I've had with Hanover that got me fuming (and hopefully him too but he's so aloof, probably not). The last discussion with TimeLine ended up with us both considering it a waste of time. I still get to have a laugh with either of them. With Hanover I just don't discuss the ME any more as we'll never see eye to eye there. That's fine. There's more to a person than his political convictions, their stated positions on wanting to ban you or whatever you might not like about them.
SLX funnily enough strikes me as one of the most emotionally balanced persons. That suggests to me it is as much about where we ourselves are coming from that influences how we perceive others. So whatever annoyance I might have about person X, about 50% is me to begin with.
You may be right, and I certainly admire your perspective, however, I believe that for there to be any kind of relationship between two people, there must be mutual respect. Without mutual respect, it is impossible to have any kind of relationship.
So take me and you. I don't agree with some things you think, but I've come to see and understand that you're a nice man with good intentions at heart, and I respect you for that. And I think you've come to a similar understanding. When we talk together, I can see that you respect me too - we can have a relationship even if we disagree.
But take Hanover for example, who still, even today, says that if he was in charge, I would be banned. He said it right above. I do not believe that it is possible to have a relationship with such a person. They are clearly vindictive by nature.
Quoting Benkei
Yeah, and I can have a laugh with her too, that's fine, but she's not the right person to be a mod. TimeLine is very talented and skilled, but she doesn't have the cool head it takes to be a mod, nor the right personality, since she's very self-conscious and personally minded in her actions. By her own admissions, she's impulsive and takes decisions she later regrets. She's not balanced enough to be a mod.
But she can absolutely be a great contributor.
Quoting Benkei
What about when he says that the fact that there are biological differences between men and women which are reflected through testosterone, for example, is a myth that is sexist and should be a reason for being banned? Is that emotionally balanced? If SLX had complete power, he would have banned anyone who thinks there are biological differences between men and women. That is clearly very dangerous, and while he can be articulate in some matters when I presented him with scientific evidence to the contrary, he refused to even acknowledge it. He is arrogant through his nonchalance, impulsive and again doesn't have the personality that it takes to be a mod. But he can absolutely be a great contributor, just not a mod.
I don't see why we need to make people like SLX mods. Why? They're fine as contributors. What recommends them to be mods? :s Someone like BC, or Tiff, or even you yourself would make much better mods than them. A certain degree of tolerance of other views and open-mindedness is absolutely necessary in a mod. A mod isn't supposed to be just a contributor with special privileges to impose his views on others.
Hanover is fine as a member, although I find him extremely rude, I don't think he should get banned. But definitely not as a moderator, it puts a bad name on all the mods.
Ok so to the rest of your post, I think it's quite clear you would appoint other people to the position of moderator. Here at my current work I see a lot of people appointed to positions I don't think they should be in. I still need to work with them and although I have at occassion complained when the proper procedures weren't followed, by and large it is a waste of my energy. I do my thing, they do their thing and we only meet when we have to. It works. I think, considering the level of influence we can exert here, I would suggest the same - you can use these forums without interacting too much with any of them and still have enough other posters going around to enjoy the site.
Quoting Agustino
I can only advise you to flag these posts. I read that post of Hanover and didn't think much about it back then but now seeing you repeat it from your point of view I can see how that's a pretty shitty thing to have to read. That said, your comments about TimeLine's manipulation is quite similar - also pretty shitty to read for her.
Quoting Benkei
Sorry to burst your bubble, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with Hanover saying that you've got a questionable work ethic. Even if it's entirely false, he's entitled to express his opinion, and that's not against the guidelines. If I had seen that comment flagged, I would have marked it off unchanged.
Well, let's not get into another discussion about decorum... so it's within the rules, I can see that. Nevertheless, I can still understand it's not fun to read for him and it's likely to trigger a reaction from him that won't be conducive to the quality of this site either. I think Agustino has written plenty that isn't fun to read for others either, an example of which I pointed to above.
Where it concerns Hanover and Agustino I'm not even sure who started it and I don't think it matters - bit of a chicken and egg kind of thing by now.
Let's all take a chill pill and try a reset. We're all strangers, nobody knows anybody here and this is a philosophy forum... go. :D
Amen.
Making you a mod might be their perfect revenge?
One of the things the management of this outfit probably keeps in mind -- they should anyway -- is traffic count. You may (you can; you shall! you must; you will) annoy the mods, but you also generate considerable traffic which is important. And, more to the point, you are not dishing up idle chatter. Some posters are much better at this than others, and traffic generators are an essential piece of success here, and in most other sites.
A forum such as this needs diversity, and you and Thorongil (among others) help keep the door open to conservative views. Without diversity what one would find here is an echo chamber.
Yes, it's win-win really. No one need feel insecure. It's not like we ever listen to Hanover anyway. (Y)
:-}
No, there's nothing wrong in the sense of "Hanover must be banned", but there IS something wrong in terms of the 1) the attitude a moderator has with regards to someone he knows nothing about, and 2) the sheer rudeness of it. Hanover knows nothing about me. If he was a simple poster, it wouldn't be such a big deal. But it's not acceptable behaviour for someone who wants to be a moderator. Someone who goes around making stuff up about another poster, initiating character assassinations, and the like is not fit to be a moderator. That doesn't mean it's anything against the guidelines. It's not against the guidelines for me to start swearing at you. But that would certainly be uncivilised, and not welcome, especially in a moderator.
Work ethics comes under ethics. Ethics comes under philosophy. It's therefore not out of bounds, given the context. Why should he refrain from saying what he thinks just because Agustino finds it offensive? I don't think that Agustino would hold back if the shoe was on the other foot, and I don't think that he should, moderator or not. That's displaying integrity, in my opinion.
Quoting Agustino
Yes it is. That'd be flaming.
Do you believe that your posts are overly moderated?
~
Also, I'm still puzzled by what exactly all eight of the moderators have to do for "janitorial duties." What role does TimeLine now fulfill that wasn't before? Being female? Grabbing Agustino by the balls? What exactly? It's comical to me that we have so many moderators, now half of whom are complete dicks to other posters more often than they are cordial and even-handed.
In the end, I don't think the moderating dilemma here will be smoothed out anytime soon. When the owner of the site himself doesn't even think it's a big deal for someone to be falsely accused of rape apologia, sexism, whatever else, then the forum will continue to have strife among its members. In the real world, being falsely accused of something like sexual assault, rape, etc. ends up not only tarnishing someone's reputation and career, but their life as a whole. For this passive-aggressive, hypocritical behavior to be allowed and in some cased encouraged here on this forum beggars belief, really.
All of the moderators here need to reflect on the state of the forum as it is right now. It's not good enough for you all to act like nothing here matters and that you all have better things to do if, on the other side of the coin, you do care enough to strawman, warn, and threaten bans for members that you haven't given the time to understand or appreciate intellectually. This is hypocritical and goes against the whole point of having a philosophy forum. If you moderators don't want a fair environment wherein lots of different people can come together to discuss a wide range of topics, perhaps this ghost ought to be given up.
Sure. We're like Kim Jong Un. Or Hitler. Why not?
And you're like... Ché? Jesus?
If Hanover would have said something based on what I said, there would be no problem there. If he wasn't a moderator, that wouldn't have been an issue either. But when he makes an unsolicited personal attack based on nothing but his pure imagination, an attack that is aimed to insult - that is a problem, and it's called as you rightly recall flaming. I wasn't talking with Hanover in that thread, I don't understand why he had to reply, and reply with insulting intentions.
I don't think you are in any position to speak about "disrespectful trash" considering you have on numerous occasions violated what you seem to ask of everyone else; you have flagrantly iterated how much you 'hate' the mod team prior to me and while I understand your frustration, in the end a complete overhaul of the mod team to suit you is not really going to suffice. If you are so unhappy, why not start your own forum? The internet has a lot of space.
No, that can be philosophy. Character is relevant to ethics, and ethics is a branch of philosophy. Philosophy doesn't have to be respectful to be philosophy. A philosophical response to such a claim could consist in asking whether it can be substantiated or cutting straight to an attempt at refutation, as Agustino did.
Quoting Buxtebuddha
I wasn't. Why would you think that? That's beside the point.
Maybe I'm lazy at work, and maybe you're not. Maybe, in light of that, you think that I have a questionable work ethic. Maybe if you told me that I'd find it insulting. Maybe the truth hurts. Maybe we shouldn't always pussyfoot around the truth.
Maybe it's not true that I'm lazy at work. But that still doesn't necessarily mean that you shouldn't speak your mind.
This poor root is getting pulled up to see how well it's doing too often for it to be do as well as it might. There must be posts for the mods to be busy checking for spelling, punctuation, grammar... something.
Claiming someone's an unethically lazy person without evidence? A-OK. Have a differing opinion to that of the mods about public decency? You will be warned and then possibly banned for such behavior!
Yeah, I'll be right back, I think my eyes just rolled out of my head.
Hmm, yeah, good point... I think that I may be mustering some attention soaking ire now myself.
There are a few things that are clear:
(1) Mods probably have to have a high degree of tolerance for heat in debates.
(1a) mods should also be allowed to heat up.
(2) Mods should curate posts that are offensive for little to no reason, unjustifiably charged or poorly constructed.
(2a) mods should curate each others' posts for the same reasons and reprimand/correct each-other, talk about disagreements.
Flames and pointedness in discussion, ridicule - these are fair game. Most of the good discussions on here are filled with this kind of thing (eg me and apo in SLX's recent thread, I'm no different, and I started it!). Perhaps it's a shame, but it is the reality.
If a mod acts to censure or censor opinions which aren't their own unjustifiably, in a consistent pattern over time, this should be brought to the attention of the rest of the staff who can make an informed judgement. Nevertheless, personal standards for posts and etiquette will differ from person to person - so will whether they decide to delete a thread.
If there is such a problem, a consistent pattern of moderation bias with Timeline (or Hanover, but Hanover's been a mod much longer), I'm sure it will leave some traces on the website. I'm sure it would be noticed and discussed among the staff. It will eventually be found out and Timeline would have their position revoked. If they don't, it's a mark on the forum, and we would expect to lose whatever posters know of it and care.
Give the new mod time. If it turns out their behaviour as a moderator will be unduly influenced by either their personal opinions or their philosophical ones, you'll turn out to be right in the end.
Buxte, I am not sure where your constructive feedback is and I am happy to listen; are you saying that I would be incapable, for instance, of being able to edit the content of a post without being prejudicial or bias? Just so you know, I am currently a graduate student in astrophysics, having studied to masters level law and political science and my issue has long been the lacklustre nature of some of the philosophy of science threads bordering the pseudo-science. In the former forums, I was responsible for bringing in philosophers like Graham Priest, David Chalmers etc to have discussions with the posters. If that is your grievance with me, I hope I have clarified enough to tell you that perhaps first allowing me to fill the role and prove to you all that I will be capable would be a much more logical approach. This works in line with my character that you may or may not like, but that is the nature of forums as long as I do not impinge on your right to speak freely. You may not remember or were unaware, but I am for freedom of speech. I am not the type of person who will delete posts.
Or, is your grievance in general the overall capacity of the moderation team?
If I may ask you, this is written on the site guidelines page which you posted, so my guess is you are the best to answer it.
Let me first say that there is a motto in NY and America in general, called "See something, say something" and although I agree whole heartedly, I have often wondered exactly what I am looking for because it is often an existential threat, not a visible backpack with wires hanging out.
So I read this: [b]Tone matters:
A respectful and moderate tone is desirable as it's the most likely to foster serious and productive discussion. Having said that, you may express yourself strongly as long as it doesn't disrupt a thread or degenerate into flaming (which is not tolerated and will result in your post being deleted).[/b]
And so here too I wonder what the difference is between "flaming" someone and with speaking with someone in a "condescending" manner? Could you please offer me an example of what would be considered "flaming" as opposed to speaking to someone in a "condescending" manner? I ask this in all seriousness, so please answer in kind. It will allow myself and others to clearly understand what it is that we can be banned for.
Buxtebuddah may be the proverbial black kettle, but that's really irrelevant to his points. It is reasonable to expect better behavior from moderators than from the unwashed masses. Unwashed dozens. It bothers me that the moderators in general don't see that. This forum matters to us. Even if you don't care what PosterX thinks about your actions, even if he is a pain in the ass, worse, It matters to me how you treat him, whether you handle the situation responsibly.
I am interested to see if you bring a different tone to the moderating. I'm an engineer, you're an attorney. We know what professionalism is. I recognize that the obligations associated with managing this forum do not rise to the level of our professional responsibilities, but the principles are similar. With [s]great[/s] some power comes [s]great[/s] some responsibility.
Have you spoken to @jamalrob before making this comment or have you already assumed ownership of the forum? Knowing you, I can see where this is going. Too bad almost everyone else is blind.
Yes, we can absolutely start our own forum. A forum where moderators are elected, where the guidelines are voted upon, where new moderators are approved by the community. Sure, we can do that, and we'll see where the people flock to. Not a place where a moderator is chosen in the middle of the night, in a closed room of 7 people - that sounds like a community for the moderators, not for the posters. One gets a request, and who gets to agree on it? Oh, the moderators. Fantastic! As if you are going to moderate the moderators, not us the people.
Textbook belittling right here.
I've already posted enough of my thoughts in this thread already. For those with good reading comprehension, it's clear what my points have been. Even poster(s) who don't often agree with or like me have granted me my position.
It is what it is, as Posty might say. We will see how your personality and discussion style works as a moderator. Personally, I think it will result in a dumpster fire, and unfortunately, I doubt I'm the only one here who suspects that.
I understand this, but this really boils down to the interpretation of what you consider to be better behaviour. Is it the same decorum as per the other thread on this subject? I personally find some comments from Buxte to be distasteful, for instance, but I will defend his right to say it. My attitude is very much from a Voltaire angle. Ultimately, the way I see moderation is content based; for me, what is pseudo science should be carefully explored in a respectable forum and it will certainly be interesting how I approach this. For a start, from personal experience, I would in all likelihood speak to the person in PM first with my suggestions and why. I would not blatantly delete or edit without a prior discussion.
My intended remarks were in no way meant as any belittling to you Buxte, I am just curious as to whether your concerns were with me directly or generally the overall moderation here and I merely hoped to ameliorate that my capacity should probably be questionable following the next several weeks as I give this a shot. I am actively open to your feedback but your entire post contains insults that seem targeted and defensive making it difficult to ascertain what it is you want from me.
I am unsure of what your intention is behind this remark, but assumptions that I consider myself an authority or better than others is false. Look, some people are haters, they go around creating discord in different ways, such as sending PMs with very negative attacks on people, trying to change opinions and generally are just not nice people. I appreciate that you speak openly here and dont resort to such behaviour because I see this place as a community. Speaking openly is important. Some people on here have posted in my blog, or shared their personal stories with me, and have even asked for help. These relationships are not seen, and if indeed you don't like my character, just as much as I may not like yours, it will never interfere in how I approach you or anyone else.
Not quite. The claim would be that someone has a questionable work ethic. If they didn't provide evidence, then the other person could respond to that by requesting evidence. (That's generally how these things work).
All this fuss over an omelet.
Work ethics in general are worth discussing, but not anyone's particular work ethic, unless they laid out their work ethic and their work experience and asked for comment. I gather Buxtebuddha didn't do that.
The original comment was made by Hanover and it was regarding Agustino, not Buxtebudhha.
The context was such that it was more appropriate than if Hanover had just come out with a comment like that completely out of the blue. They were each already talking about the other. It's just that Hanover touched a nerve.
Of course false claims are false. What a pointless thing to say. I've already said that one ought to be careful before making accusations. Don't preach to the choir.
Saying your blue shirt is red is in principle the same as saying that someone who's not a pedophile is a pedophile?
I said that they're not on the same level. I didn't say that they're not of the same type.
I trust your judgment and I think you'll be a good moderator. You also like to get in the ring and knock some blocks off. I expect it to be fun to see you in this new role.
Why does it make a difference if the accusation is false or not? What value is there in accusing someone of anything on the forum? The rule is "attack the argument." I can't say I'm without sin in this regard, but I'm working on it. Moderators have a greater responsibility for temperance than the rest of us.
Regardless, I don't expect you or anyone else in moderating power to agree with me, otherwise many of you would need to apologize and change your behavior in future. Moderators like Hanover won't be on board with that, though, because it's so, so easy to pettily reply with, "Oh sweetie, but I didn't insult you as badly as if I accused you of being a rapist. So hur dur, stop complaining mister mongoloid pseudo man!"
Hopefully TimeLine can live up to the person of character that she's propped herself up to be. Nothing from her has led me to believe she'll be a good moderator or is a person of much character. It's up to her to prove me wrong, though.
I don't know what that value is for everyone. Maybe Hanover enjoys making fun of Agustino. Perhaps Sappy gets off to having circular semantic games for no real reason. Beats me, Clarky. All I do know is that if I'm serious with an accusation against someone then I do, or can, supply a wealth of evidence in support of my claim. Not everybody can do that, however, which is why it's so frustrating discussing topics like these with people who obstinately refuse to back up their claims.
Edit: Also, and I forget the thread, but several mods weren't even crediting someone for having made an argument merely because they disagreed with the poster's claims. That's a madness to me. That sort of snobbery and disingenuous behavior is really sad and I see it all over the place here.
I think it would be a loss to this forum if you left. @Bitter Crank said something similar in a previous post. There is really no one else who brings your perspective to discussions.
I don't agree. I find that absurd to the point of being humorous. You effectively made a false accusation against me only moments ago by suggesting that I had not been reading what you've been saying, but I would nevertheless defend your entitlement to say that if that's what you genuinely believed based on our discussion. Claims of a more serious nature are a bit different.
That's T Clarky to you. I'll reiterate - I don't think there's any value, on this forum at least, in attacking someone as opposed to their ideas or behavior. It doesn't matter what evidence there is. As I said before, I don't claim to have always lived up to that ideal.
Attacking one's behavior, rightly or falsely, tells you a lot about their person and their character. Can't really get away from that. Digging at Agustino's work ethic is also a dig at his character, which is of his person.
I agree.
Dear diary...
And there'd be nothing wrong about that, even if it turned out to be false. If you don't know that it's false in advance, you've taken care to assess the evidence, and you're convinced that you're right, then it makes no sense to say that that's wrong and that you should not have acted as you did.
I read what you said, and I also read between the lines. As I said, it was effectively an accusation, and a false one at that. It comes as no surprise to find that, once again, you're guilty of the very crime that you condemn.
Speaking of which, do you remember what you said earlier on about belittling people?
In Hanover's case: He didn't know, assessed no evidence because he had none and was provided none, probably wasn't convinced that he was right but didn't care either way, and so it makes no sense for him to have gone at Agustino.
Quoting Sapientia
Can you teach me how to do that? I want to misrepresent others too!
I will teach you how to do that if you teach me how to employ implausible deniability, as you do so effectively. What's the title of this discussion, again?
The problem with accusations and insults is that the force the accuser or insulter intends to pack into an accusation or insult might feel much worse to the receiver. Or, as likely, it may be misinterpreted altogether, or may upset someone else who wasn't the intended target.
We really don't know much about each other, even those who open up about their personal lives, because we don't know how realistic or complete the disclosure is. Agustino says he leans very strongly left. That seems surprising to me, but I don't know what Agustino's life actually looks like. I only know what he writes here. What he writes doesn't feel like leftist thinking to me. But I don't have to make a federal case out of his self-description, because I won't have any evidence beyond what he has written. One can debate about what someone has written (it's there, in black and white) but one needn't accuse the author of anything worse than inconsistency, or maybe a lack of clarity.
A second principle would be that if you think somebody is accusing you of something (really, whether they are right or wrong) or is saying insulting things to you or about you, please remember that the real you is not under attack. Your representation here might be, but that's not where you live. For your own mental health, don't take things too seriously here. This is just a small forum; it's not the Federal Reserve, it's not the UN Security Council. There are no earth-shaking issues at stake here.
Agreed. And thanks to all who have publicly and privately expressed their support for this decision. I know the majority here wish TimeLine well and it's much appreciated.
Now though, this thread is being closed as sufficient discussion has occurred for the moderator group to understand and note the perspective of the few complainants we have had. If any members wish to raise issues that relate to this topic but which have not yet been raised in this discussion, they may be communicated by PM to one of the moderators.