Limits to Free Speech

[Godot]

I'll make this one simple:

what are the limits that you're imposing on free speech? What sort of lattitude are you permitting of people?

The byline says "think waht you like, and say what you think..." but how far does that really extend?

What will the intervention process be? How will an aggrieved person seek redress for whatever offends them? I would think that reporting the post to the admins would be the course of action to take right now, given that the voting system has been disabled. But what happens if one of the admins is insulting, abusing and inappropriately speculating on the motives of others? What redress then?

[viscousmemories]

I'll make this one simple:

what are the limits that you're imposing on free speech? What sort of lattitude are you permitting of people?

The byline says "think waht you like, and say what you think..." but how far does that really extend?
The only limits we impose on free speech are those outlined in our rules (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=49) in the sticky in this forum.

What will the intervention process be? How will an aggrieved person seek redress for whatever offends them?
At this time the only administrative intervention will be if one of our rules is broken, and we will intervene as described in the thread I referenced above.

I would think that reporting the post to the admins would be the course of action to take right now, given that the voting system has been disabled.
You may of course report posts as you wish, but again we will not take any administrative action on posts that are not in violation of our written rules.

But what happens if one of the admins is insulting, abusing and inappropriately speculating on the motives of others? What redress then?
I'm not sure what you mean. We have nothing in our rules that prohibits insulting, abusing, or inappropriately speculating on the motives of others, so I'm not sure what kind of 'redress' you would expect. However, it is of course not our intention to treat our members that way, so if you feel we have then I would encourage you to start a thread on the subject in this forum, and we can discuss it like we discuss any other forum administration issue.

[Godot]

That there is nothing in the rules prohibiting or even discouraging such behaviour is laudable but naive. Given the extra anonymity of the internet, many people feel that they can be that much more rude to one another. Take a look at how users treat each other when playing UT. That sort of shit is juvenile, but it does happen.

It will happen here too. The only thing you can do to stop pissing contests between users will be to lock the thread, but I suspect that that approach is too top down for the forum you envisioned. The problem is, people generally cannot restrain themselves as much on the net as they could in real life. Half of the insults tossed around casually on boards wouldn't be dreamed of being used to someone's face. The chance of a fist breaking your nose acts as quite the deterrent.

But under the current rule structure, I can call you (or any other user of the board) a cat-fucking, dildo-breathed cretin and there's nothing you can do to stop me. You can censor my posts, or ban me, but neither or those options are legitimate under your rules. So you either ignore me, or respond. No doubt, someone will respond on your behalf even if you don't. But what then? How do you stop the ensuing flamewar? Why would the person that is insulted out of the blue, and has no means of seeking redress for the poor behavious of others, even want to return to the board after such a display?

[LadyShea]

Hi Godot. I think the hope (my hope anyway) is that people will ignore total idiots and trolls, and that disputes between non troll members will be handled directly.

For instance, during a recent dispute I was involved in at HH, you let us go at it and work it out ourselves for the most part, and in the end, we came to a peace of sorts. I am only aware of one edit. Why did you choose the hands off approach, and do you regret your choices in the matter?

[viscousmemories]

That there is nothing in the rules prohibiting or even discouraging such behaviour is laudable but naive. Given the extra anonymity of the internet, many people feel that they can be that much more rude to one another. Take a look at how users treat each other when playing UT. That sort of shit is juvenile, but it does happen.
I don't think you have to worry that livius or I created our rules and policies by the seat of our pants, intoxicated by naïve optimism though we may have been. Fortunately we have extensive experience with discussion forums, as moderator, administrator and participant, and we've seen a vast array of behaviors and methods of addressing such.

It will happen here too. The only thing you can do to stop pissing contests between users will be to lock the thread, but I suspect that that approach is too top down for the forum you envisioned.
Fortunately we have no intention of trying to stop pissing contests between the users unless their behavior violates our written rules.

The problem is, people generally cannot restrain themselves as much on the net as they could in real life. Half of the insults tossed around casually on boards wouldn't be dreamed of being used to someone's face. The chance of a fist breaking your nose acts as quite the deterrent.
True enough.

But under the current rule structure, I can call you (or any other user of the board) a cat-fucking, dildo-breathed cretin and there's nothing you can do to stop me.
Exactly. You are free to say whatever you want to say provided you do not violate our written rules.

You can censor my posts, or ban me, but neither or those options are legitimate under your rules.
That is correct. We will not censor a post or ban a member for anything short of a rule violation.

So you either ignore me, or respond. No doubt, someone will respond on your behalf even if you don't. But what then? How do you stop the ensuing flamewar?
Why should it be our responsibility to "stop the ensuing flamewar"? We are all adults here with the ability to speak freely. We will not babysit you.

Why would the person that is insulted out of the blue, and has no means of seeking redress for the poor behavious of others, even want to return to the board after such a display?
There are many reasons I want to be here, and I hope there are as many reasons others will want to be here. Speaking for myself, I value my ability to speak freely enough that I can tolerate being called a cat-fucking, dildo-breathed cretin if need be. If someone cannot handle being called such things they can place anyone who does on their ignore list and continue enjoying themselves here.

Bottom line, our members will stay or go as they choose based on their own assessment of the value of being here. We are not playground monitors. We have no desire to try to ensure that a large group of thoughtful adults play nicely with each other. There are in fact plenty of other forums that offer such an environment to anyone who wants it. This isn't one of them.

[Godot]

Hi Godot. I think the hope (my hope anyway) is that people will ignore total idiots and trolls, and that disputes between non troll members will be handled directly.
It is a lovely thought, LS, and I too hope that something like this comes to pass. From what vm says in the post below yours, it doesn't look that any intervention will come to pass in the least.
For instance, during the <personal details removed> fiasco at HH, you let us go at it and work it out ourselves for the most part, and in the end, we came to a peace of sorts. The only edit I am aware of were the descriptions of <really nasty things>. Why did you choose the hands off approach, and do you regret your choices in the matter?*
Honestly though, this is hardly the place to discuss the private matter on a private board. All I will say about that situation is that the dispute was between long-standing members and was following a recurring theme. I just allowed it to play out again. As you say, I do have something of a hands off approach to moderation. I think that adults can and will get along fine for the most part, but I am prepared to step in if I feel that something crosses the line. Where you and I draw the line may differ, but I aim to be consistent in where and how I draw it. And I think that a certain type of gory description certainly goes too far.

There is one aspect I think I would have handled differently about it. At the time, I was out on the farm and was lucky to get one hour on the net per day, so I was extremely limited in what I could accomplish. Quite a bit can happen in the other 23 hours. As I'm currently in the city on a cable connection, I am better suited to handling flare-ups of tha nature. Had that happened at a time I could check the boards at will, I guarantee things would have been different. How, I don't know.

*Bits in angle brackets deleted by me.

[LadyShea]

Honestly though, this is hardly the place to discuss the private matter on a private board.

You're right and I didn't even think about it, my apologies. I will edit the specifics on my post if you do the same in your quote please.

[Godot]

I don't think you have to worry that livius or I created our rules and policies by the seat of our pants, intoxicated by naïve optimism though we may have been. And as I have never suggested otherwise, you have nothing to fear from me. Fortunately we have extensive experience with discussion forums, as moderator, administrator and participant, and we've seen a vast array of behaviors and methods of addressing such. And you have concluded that a completely hands-off, unfettered approach is best?


Fortunately we have no intention of trying to stop pissing contests between the users unless their behavior violates our written rules. Why is this "fortunate"?

Exactly. You are free to say whatever you want to say provided you do not violate our written rules. And this is what you mean by freethought?

Why should it be our responsibility to "stop the ensuing flamewar"? We are all adults here with the ability to speak freely. We will not babysit you. I'm sorry to hear that you think a relaxing environment requires constant babysitting by you.


There are many reasons I want to be here, and I hope there are as many reasons others will want to be here. Speaking for myself, I value my ability to speak freely enough that I can tolerate being called a cat-fucking, dildo-breathed cretin if need be. If someone cannot handle being called such things they can place anyone who does on their ignore list and continue enjoying themselves here. And this completely sidesteps the issue, that I have raised. So what's the fucking point of my even continuing?

Bottom line, our members will stay or go as they choose based on their own assessment of the value of being here. We are not playground monitors. We have no desire to try to ensure that a large group of thoughtful adults play nicely with each other. There are in fact plenty of other forums that offer such an environment to anyone who wants it. This isn't one of them.
Good luck with that. If the place turns into a cesspool of flamewars and bullshit like PWOT (pointless waste of time), will you be content to let that happen or will you step in at some stage to guide the forum to what it is you want it to be?

[Godot]

You're right and I didn't even think about it, my apologies. I will edit the specifics on my post if you do the same in your quote please.
Will do, and thanks.

[LadyShea]

I am a member of a pretty much "anything goes" forum that is quite large (5000+ members and over 2 million posts) and one of the most active I have seen in my 10+ years on the 'net. Yes, there are flame wars, but they are not the norm, and basically it is no different than any real life community/society. When someone is blatantly out of line, the other members confront them in an effort to change their behavior.

Basically, unmoderated forums CAN work, it is just a matter of letting the community evolve to some extent. Edited to add: Oh yeah, and it's a paid membership site, if that makes a difference i am not sure.

[Godot]

I would say that the paid aspect of it makes for quite a difference.

Right away you have a biased sample: the people involved on that board have all paid for the privilege to be there and are liekly there for a particular purpose. While tempers will flare, I don't think that anyone there wishes to jeopardise their posting status unnecessarily. As such, it is far from comparable to this site, if a valid comparison could be made.

[HelenM]

But under the current rule structure, I can call you (or any other user of the board) a cat-fucking, dildo-breathed cretin and there's nothing you can do to stop me. You can censor my posts, or ban me, but neither or those options are legitimate under your rules. So you either ignore me, or respond. No doubt, someone will respond on your behalf even if you don't. But what then? How do you stop the ensuing flamewar? Why would the person that is insulted out of the blue, and has no means of seeking redress for the poor behavious of others, even want to return to the board after such a display?

If the forum rules/description make no provision for redress, perhaps it's unrealistic to expect that redress can be sought.

Isn't it inherent in a relatively unmoderated forum that one's choices when insulted are limited to responding in kind or choosing to ignore i.e. not to respond to the insult? In my experience, people who argue for less moderation do realize this and incorporate an appeal to posters to be 'more thick-skinned', because that's the only way to limit flame-wars if mods/admins are not assigned to intervene by editing, deleting, banning, etc. Well, and not starting them in the first place, of course ;)

Helen

[livius drusus]

Well, the voting system won't be disabled forever, but meanwhile we're going to have to deal with cat-fucking cretins pretty much as Helen suggested: respond or ignore. I know at least some of those responses won't be in kind, but rather reasoned critiques. I hope to encourage such positive responses with my own behavior. I wouldn't call it particularly laudable or naive; it's just what we're trying here.

If a people prefer an environment of active moderation in which insults, motive speculation, etc. are edited/deleted, then perhaps eblaforum (http://eblaforum.org/main/index.php) or Internet Infidels (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/index.php?s=) or the mother of all general discussion boards, Offtopic.com (http://forums.offtopic.com/), would be more to their liking.

As for the board LadyShea mentioned (http://www.sybermoms.com/forums/index.php), it does indeed offer an upgraded membership with access to cool shop features and some favorite fora, but registration is free and by default all registered users can post in some 35 extremely active and lively fora. So the whole biased sample thing doesn't really apply. I think Sybermoms is a large, vibrant community and I would be proud to have such a membership here. The gloves are most definitely off, but it's no cesspit.

Others might disagree, of course. That's why there are so many other fora out there to pick from.

[LadyShea]

I would say that the paid aspect of it makes for quite a difference.

Right away you have a biased sample: the people involved on that board have all paid for the privilege to be there and are liekly there for a particular purpose.

As livius mentioned, the paid membership is not necessary to post. I paid on day one because I wanted access to all fora and so didn't realize how many were available to free registrations.

There is no specific purpose to the board, it is a general discussion board with an emphasis on parenting. People choose to post at Sybermoms because they aren't censored, because they can discuss anything, I read it time and time again there. From their home page

"If you’ve got thick skin, the brains it takes to back up your opinions, and a love of message boards you’ll fit right in! Oh, and before you ask, we do kiss our kids with these mouths!"

While tempers will flare, I don't think that anyone there wishes to jeopardise their posting status unnecessarily. As such, it is far from comparable to this site, if a valid comparison could be made.

As I stated, anything goes, and so posting status is never in jeopordy. Trolls and wackos are addressed directly by the community, not mods or admins. They are not banned, or censored, they are taken to task, ridiculed, made to defend their actions by the members themselves.

[LadyShea]

Godot, I guess my question for you is this: What redress does one have in a real life social situation if someone is offensive or rude?

[Scotty]

I am sorry, I couldn't help a derail, sorry Godot, but LS, what does Sybermom mean? Cold-hearted bitchy syberian moms? What?

-Scott

[LadyShea]

I am sorry, I couldn't help a derail, sorry Godot, but LS, what does Sybermom mean? Cold-hearted bitchy syberian moms? What?

-Scott

Well, I think it was a play on cyber :) They are a bunch of foul mouthed, yet still delightfully real, bitches. Jumping in there ass first is not recommended.

[Godot]

Godot, I guess my question for you is this: What redress does one have in a real life social situation if someone is offensive or rude?
LS: the redress that I can seek can take any number of situationally dependant forms. If some toff insults me while out on the town, I'll likely tell him to fuck off or plainly ignore him. If the insult is severe enough, I may be moved to have words with the person.
If I am in my own home and someone insults me, they better find the door damn quick and not expect an invite to return anytime soon. If I am in someone else's house and am insulted, my reaction will likely be the same as above. However, there is the added stipulation that I may shun the houseowner if they do nothing to stop it form continuing; if they feel that the insulting of their guests is appropriate behaviour and do not think they should get involved to stop it from happening, my chances of continuing a relationship with that person are very small indeed.

I can appreciate some slack being allowed in all situations though; when I am with my friends, we insult each other terribly, but we all laugh as it is part of the game. If a stranger were to do the same, my reaction would be much, much more severe. I hope that answers your questions sufficiently well.

[tamiO]

Hi.
Free speech rules.
Censorship drools.
Thank you.
That is all... for now. :wink:

[viscousmemories]

And as I have never suggested otherwise, you have nothing to fear from me.
My apologies, then. I must have misunderstood you when you said:
That there is nothing in the rules prohibiting or even discouraging such behaviour is laudable but naive.
If you weren't implying that livius and I were naive in the construction of our rules, what exactly did you mean by that?

And you have concluded that a completely hands-off, unfettered approach is best?
No, actually. We have not reached any final conclusions. We have adopted a particular approach and we are trying it out.

Why is this "fortunate"?
You said:
The only thing you can do to stop pissing contests between users will be to lock the thread, but I suspect that that approach is too top down for the forum you envisioned.
And I said it is fortunate, then, that we have no intention of trying to do so.

You are free to say whatever you want to say provided you do not violate our written rules.
And this is what you mean by freethought?
Luckily we have not attempted to define 'freethought', as monumental a task as that would obviously be. Instead we have come up with a short list of principles we seek to uphold here, as described in our Introduction to the Freethought Forum (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=51). From there:
To this end, the Freethought Forum is inspired by the following four principles:

1. Freedom of thought
2. Freedom of expression
3. Community
4. Self-determination

I'm sorry to hear that you think a relaxing environment requires constant babysitting by you.
I'm sorry, can you quote me where I said that?

And this completely sidesteps the issue, that I have raised. So what's the fucking point of my even continuing?
Unfortunately I am unclear as to what issue you feel I've side-stepped. If you care to try rephrasing it perhaps I can do a better job of addressing it.

Good luck with that. If the place turns into a cesspool of flamewars and bullshit like PWOT (pointless waste of time), will you be content to let that happen or will you step in at some stage to guide the forum to what it is you want it to be?
I have seen no indications that we are headed for anything like the gloomy scenario you seem to think is inevitable. However as I have said repeatedly, we are trying an approach to forum administration that is largely untested, and as such I'm sure we'll have quite a few opportunities to rethink our strategy and management. In the meantime why don't you kick back and try to enjoy yourself. Maybe things won't turn out as badly as you fear.

[livius drusus]

Okay now I know you really need to get some sleep, tami. ;)

[LadyShea]

LS: the redress that I can seek can take any number of situationally dependant forms. If some toff insults me while out on the town, I'll likely tell him to fuck off or plainly ignore him. If the insult is severe enough, I may be moved to have words with the person.
If I am in my own home and someone insults me, they better find the door damn quick and not expect an invite to return anytime soon. If I am in someone else's house and am insulted, my reaction will likely be the same as above. However, there is the added stipulation that I may shun the houseowner if they do nothing to stop it form continuing; if they feel that the insulting of their guests is appropriate behaviour and do not think they should get involved to stop it from happening, my chances of continuing a relationship with that person are very small indeed.

I can appreciate some slack being allowed in all situations though; when I am with my friends, we insult each other terribly, but we all laugh as it is part of the game. If a stranger were to do the same, my reaction would be much, much more severe. I hope that answers your questions sufficiently well.


Yes, thank you.

I envision this place much like a real life town square where the only enforced "law" is against physical violence. You may have people chatting quietly, or singing to themselves, or reading, or on a soap box ranting, or insulting each and every passerby. There is no "host" to get redress from, there are no security guards censoring speech, the people using the square determine their own experience.

[Godot]

If you weren't implying that livius and I were naive in the construction of our rules, what exactly did you mean by that?
Naive in the sense that they do not appear to have been fully thought out to their logical conclusion. Naive in that no (publicly accessible) contingencies exist to deal with any number of situations that could potentially arise. Naive in the sense that you seemingly expect everything to come up roses with minimal hiccups along the way. Naive in that you ask for ruthless criticism and then get defensive and distant when it is sincerely offered. Naive in that as a result of your defensiveness, I have had to withhold from being fully ruthless; an action that may save a friendship (or two) but may harm a website. Naive in that you are attaching a pejorative meaning to the very term "naive" when it is clearly not called for.

No, actually. We have not reached any final conclusions. We have adopted a particular approach and we are trying it out. But why choose this approach over the next? What was so appealing as regards this one? What exactly are the benefits of choosing this one relative to any of the others that you have meticulously and rigorously investigated?

And I said it is fortunate, then, that we have no intention of trying to do so. Please desist in making a circular argument and address the question honestly.

Luckily we have not attempted to define 'freethought', as monumental a task as that would obviously be. Instead we have come up with a short list of principles we seek to uphold here, as described in our Introduction to the Freethought Forum (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=51). From there: To this end, the Freethought Forum is inspired by the following four principles:

1. Freedom of thought
2. Freedom of expression
3. Community
4. Self-determinationAnd this too doesn't address my question. I asked you what you mean by "freethought" and you replied by providing me with four "principles", all of which are wide open to interpretation. What are the operational definitions you are using when you use those terms? And why are they important above all else? As I said earlier: naive.


I'm sorry to hear that you think a relaxing environment requires constant babysitting by you.
I'm sorry, can you quote me where I said that? The relevant bit that I quoted reads thus: Why should it be our responsibility to "stop the ensuing flamewar"? We are all adults here with the ability to speak freely. We will not babysit you. Later on in that post, you also said this: We are not playground monitors. We have no desire to try to ensure that a large group of thoughtful adults play nicely with each other. Apparently a civil environment resembles a playground to you, or one that requires babysitting. Now that I've answered your question, address my concern.

Unfortunately I am unclear as to what issue you feel I've side-stepped. If you care to try rephrasing it perhaps I can do a better job of addressing it. There really is no point in my doing so; I have stated my case a calmly and clearly as I can, multiple times even. Either my concerns are too esoteric or you just do not comprehend them. I dislike having to repeat myself at the best of times, so I will not do so again.


I have seen no indications that we are headed for anything like the gloomy scenario you seem to think is inevitable. I never once said that it was inevitable, and you certainly have no idea what it is I'm thinking. It Is a possibility, and it is readily apparent that it is one that you have not considered. As I said earlier: naive. However as I have said repeatedly, we are trying an approach to forum administration that is largely untested, and as such I'm sure we'll have quite a few opportunities to rethink our strategy and management. You would well do to read my comments about lifelong learning, particularly in the thread that warrenly started where I describe the Kolb Cycle. I'm certain that it would be of use to you.

I am quite aware that your approach is untested and unorthodox; that is why I can criticise it so easily. I have yet to see a case put forth as to why this approach is more desirable than any other. Why this approach is better suited to having you achieve your goals than any other. Above all else, why? In the meantime why don't you kick back and try to enjoy yourself. Maybe things won't turn out as badly as you fear.
I'm sure you meant this kindly, but I am reading this as a message to go fuck myself. I have been kicking back and enjoying myself when the time is available: look at my stats in the arcade, for fucks sake. That alone should tell you that I'm relaxing. But there is a time to relax and a time to be vigilant. I have no intention of letting you guys of so easily.
Telling me to "kick back and try to enjoy [my]self" tells me that while you may have read what I've been writing, you certainly haven't been paying attention. It has already been suggested to me that I should just relax and let it be, and let the problems sort themselves out when they arise.

Fuck that.

I've been arguing against that the entire time. To reassert such tripe is nearly enough to make not want to bother at all. I really think that I am wasting my time here.

[Godot]

Yes, thank you.

I envision this place much like a real life town square where the only enforced "law" is against physical violence. You may have people chatting quietly, or singing to themselves, or reading, or on a soap box ranting, or insulting each and every passerby. There is no "host" to get redress from, there are no security guards censoring speech, the people using the square determine their own experience.
I agree to some extent, but your analogy is flawed in that there are certain boundary conditions imposed on public places and interactions. In your hypothetical town square, the unwritten rules are enforced by certain societal taboos, or even by the policeman wandering the perimeter. Above all else, the townspeople can beseech the town judiciary or the mayoralty for redress if needs warrant. Even if those taboos are largely societal, they do exist and they dictate what our interactions are going to be.

To think that it is a good idea to eliminate all such boundaries, is itself a boundary.

Edited to add: Take a look at the parliamentary system in place through much of the Commonwealth: You can propose whatever ideas you like but there are prescribed limits to decency, politeness, and so on. How exactly is this a problem?

Do you know what it's called when we insist on politeness, respectfulness, kindness, charity, and so on in dealings with others, preventing them from swearing and insulting each other? Insisting on these things is called civilisation, and that it sets us apart from those who don't have a genuine commitment to lifelong learning and mutual understanding. The insistence on no rules it itself a rule; saying that people decide on the way they will interact is also a rule.

[LadyShea]

I agree to some extent, but your analogy is flawed in that there are certain boundary conditions imposed on public places and interactions. In your hypothetical town square, the unwritten rules are enforced by certain societal taboos, or even by the policeman wandering the perimeter. Above all else, the townspeople can beseech the town judiciary or the mayoralty for redress if needs warrant. Even if those taboos are largely societal, they do exist and they dictate what our interactions are going to be.

To think that it is a good idea to eliminate all such boundaries, is itself a boundary.

Edited to add: Take a look at the parliamentary system in place through much of the Commonwealth: You can propose whatever ideas you like but there are prescribed limits to decency, politeness, and so on. How exactly is this a problem?

Do you know what it's called when we insist on politeness, respectfulness, kindness, charity, and so on in dealings with others, preventing them from swearing and insulting each other? Insisting on these things is called civilisation, and that it sets us apart from those who don't have a genuine commitment to lifelong learning and mutual understanding. The insistence on no rules it itself a rule; saying that people decide on the way they will interact is also a rule.

Yes, but the community and society decides those types of boundries, not some individual or committee, correct? All I was asking for here is to let the community evolve and grow and set it's own boundries. I know of no real life community that has laws about being polite or chartiable.

What you are talking about is a community culture, and that culture is determined by the members. Take for instance a commons area on a University campus, you might expect a far different experience at Harvard than at CU Boulder, correct? Both are simply open public areas, but the people determine what happens there.

[Godot]

I have no problem with that idea either, only that there are pre-existing boundaries built into the system. Asking the community to evolve and set it's own boundaries is a boundary itself. That a certain frame of mind is needed to determine what you feel are appropriate boundaries, is a boundary itself.

[LadyShea]

I have no problem with that idea either, only that there are pre-existing boundaries built into the system. Asking the community to evolve and set it's own boundaries is a boundary itself. That a certain frame of mind is needed to determine what you feel are appropriate boundaries, is a boundary itself.

I am sorry, but I am not following your line of thinking. Culture and community develop from individuals getting together and talking. There are no rules of interaction that I am aware of.

[Godot]

I am sorry, but I am not following your line of thinking. Culture and community develop from individuals getting together and talking. There are no rules of interaction that I am aware of.
But simply getting together to talk is itself a rule of interaction! Why talk about it instead of killing each other? Even in anarchaic societies, taboo serves the same function: to restrict the extent of dialogue and behaviour. Just because the rules aren't formalised and written out a la Hammurabi, does not mean that they do not exist. Unconscious, even subconscious rules dictate how we interact with one another.

Edit: the parliamentary analogy used earlier is one such example wherein a society dictates rules for being charitable and polite for other members. These rules do get broken on occasion, but they exist for a reason.

[HelenM]

Do you know what it's called when we insist on politeness, respectfulness, kindness, charity, and so on in dealings with others, preventing them from swearing and insulting each other? Insisting on these things is called civilisation, and that it sets us apart from those who don't have a genuine commitment to lifelong learning and mutual understanding. The insistence on no rules it itself a rule; saying that people decide on the way they will interact is also a rule.

Insisting on civility does not prevent incivility. Editing out incivility does not either. And banning people who persist in being incivil doesn't prevent them from reregistering and doing it all over again. Having people assigned to check for civility and do editing and banning if necessary takes significant time. And it doesn't produce foolproof civility.

In any case, why would a rule make someone behave civilly on a discussion board who doesn't want to behave civilly? It's not as if anything worse can happen to them than banning, after all.

Since people cannot be made to be civil on discussion boards in a way that is foolproof, what do you suggest?

I suspect that if it were possible to make a board civil in a foolproof way, the IIDB admins would have done it. They seem to be strongly in favor of civility, as best I can tell.

Helen

[LadyShea]

But simply getting together to talk is itself a rule of interaction! Why talk about it instead of killing each other? Even in anarchaic societies, taboo serves the same function: to restrict the extent of dialogue and behaviour. Just because the rules aren't formalised and written out a la Hammurabi, does not mean that they do not exist. Unconscious, even subconscious rules dictate how we interact with one another.

Edit: the parliamentary analogy used earlier is one such example wherein a society dictates rules for being charitable and polite for other members. These rules do get broken on occasion, but they exist for a reason.

Okay, so what is it you would like to see done here from an administrative viewpoint? Each member still carries their own subconscious, unwritten rules of social interaction to the table, and the community can react against those who cause problems based on those societal rules. Why is that a problem?

[Godot]

Insisting on civility does not prevent incivility. Editing out incivility does not either. And banning people who persist in being incivil doesn't prevent them from reregistering and doing it all over again. Having people assigned to check for civility and do editing and banning if necessary takes significant time. And it doesn't produce foolproof civility. It does not, but this problem hardly calls for throwing the baby out with the bathwater as seems to be the case in this site.

Insisting on civility is one standard that is rather common is Western culture. People do react in an uncivil manner, but by and large, it does work. Saying it is just too much work to enforce is absurd; once the standard of conduct is put in place and enforced with extreme prejudice and no waffling, then those in that community will respond accordingly and improve their demeanor. Setting the bar as low as you can by suggesting that no rules are a good idea is asking for trouble.

In any case, why would a rule make someone behave civilly on a discussion board who doesn't want to behave civilly? It's not as if anything worse can happen to them than banning, after all. This has largely been my point. There are rules in place even if some people choose not to see them. Creating a rule enforcing civility on pain of banishment will result in just that: banishment. If someone insists on being a cock anyways, they know what the response will be. Allowing them carte blanche will only cause the more sensitive members of the community to leave or to never post for fear of ridicule.

Since people cannot be made to be civil on discussion boards in a way that is foolproof, what do you suggest? There is no foolproof way to ensure civility since the internet is mainly populated by assholes, present company included. Look at it this way: would you accept being treated poorly in real life as some people are treated on a message board? If yes, why? If not, why not? Why should the same rule structure not be imposed equally?

My suggestion is to find a balance that best suits both purposes and also suits the mission of this site. People will always complain about it, and that is their privilege. But to deny that a boundary of sorts exists is hopelessly naive.

I suspect that if it were possible to make a board civil in a foolproof way, the IIDB admins would have done it. They seem to be strongly in favor of civility, as best I can tell. I disagree. The II admins have done the best that they can under the combined weight of the BoD and the userbase. They aim for civility as best they can, but do not apply it equally to all parts of the board. That is their problem. If you wish to see a board where the rules are applied evenly, look no further than Ebla. And I think a discussion of that sort should be taken to a different thread as to not derail this one.

[Godot]

What I would like to see is for the admins to acknowledge that rules and boundaries do exist, despite their best efforts to assert otherwise.

I would like them to try to list those pre-existing rules as best they can, with the input of the community.

I would like to see a lengthy and productive discussion take place regarding expectations and rules.

I would like to see what amounts to being something of a general consensus on this from the userbase as well as from the admins.

That's just for starters.

[LadyShea]

What I would like to see is for the admins to acknowledge that rules and boundaries do exist, despite their best efforts to assert otherwise.

Yes, the rules exist in the minds of each individual member of community. The admins here simply see no reason to codify them or list them.

I would like them to try to list those pre-existing rules as best they can, with the input of the community.

I see no need for this. the community should develop naturally in my opinion

I would like to see a lengthy and productive discussion take place regarding expectations and rules.

Is there any particular reason you are against the natural evolution of a community?

[Godot]

Yes, the rules exist in the minds of each individual member of community. The admins here simply see no reason to codify them or list them. The admins have to acknowledge that they exist.

I see no need for this. the community should develop naturally in my opinion And how would you define a natural development? What constitutes natural? Without guidance?

Is there any particular reason you are against the natural evolution of a community? Who said I was against it?

[LadyShea]

The admins have to acknowledge that they exist.

Each person's rules are slightly different until they are able to apply them in a community setting at which point the cutlture of the community will begin to emerge. My personal "rules" of social interaction aren't the same as yours, so effectively they don't exist on an objective level.

And how would you define a natural development? What constitutes natural? Without guidance?

Yes, without guidance. Just like someone may design and build a park, but how people interact in that park has nothing to do with the architect, there are no posted rules of how to talk each other.

Who said I was against it?

Well, in all honesty, I find myself completely unable to empathize or comprehend where you are coming from with regards to this issue. I apologize if I am misreading you, but I really am trying to understand your viewpoint.

[livius drusus]

The admins have to acknowledge that they exist.

An example of us acknowledging them in a some depth is the list of criteria we proposed for the voting system. As I said above, although the default system is currently disabled, the discussion is not and Inshallah, will lead to a fruitful solution.

And how would you define a natural development? What constitutes natural? Without guidance?

I consider those criteria to be guidance, just not of the editing and deleting variety. Unfortunately, some people did not wish to be guided by them; that too is standard fare online where incivility wears many, many faces, some of them impenetrable disguises. I just don't think the board is in any danger of turning into a cesspit while we work on developing a system more likely to implement those standards effectively without requiring deletions or authoritarian admonishment.

I've tried that and it sucked for me. Pretty hard, in fact. I want to try something else now; but it is something, Godot. It's not nothing.

On a personal note, I'm not sure what we've done to engender this reaction from you. We've thanked you repeatedly for your many contributions; we've implemented several of your ideas, sometimes within hours of your suggesting them. Your participation here hasn't been a waste of time from our perspective.

Tom said something along these lines in Ronin's thread yesterday, but just to be sure you know it comes from both of us, if I've treated you badly in any way or made you feel unwelcome I apologize unreservedly as it was certainly not my intent.

[viscousmemories]

Naive in the sense that they do not appear to have been fully thought out to their logical conclusion. Naive in that no (publicly accessible) contingencies exist to deal with any number of situations that could potentially arise.
In what way do you believe our rules have not been fully thought out to their logical conclusion? What are the situations that could potentially arise that you feel require contingency planning? If you could give specific examples of problems that might occur and how you recommend we address them that would be helpful.

Naive in the sense that you seemingly expect everything to come up roses with minimal hiccups along the way.
I'm not sure what either of us has said to give you the impression that we expect to have no problems or not at some point possibly have to reassess our methods. In fact I think I've stated the contrary numerous times now. As I said, livius and I have a lot of experience as moderator, administrator and participant in numerous forums. We have seen how many are formed, on what basis they structure their rules and policies, how they enforce such, and the result of their doing so in both short and long term. Does that mean we have all the answers? Not by a long shot. But we have a lot of ideas, most of which are outlined in our rules and policies.

Naive in that you ask for ruthless criticism and then get defensive and distant when it is sincerely offered. Naive in that as a result of your defensiveness, I have had to withhold from being fully ruthless; an action that may save a friendship (or two) but may harm a website. Naive in that you are attaching a pejorative meaning to the very term "naive" when it is clearly not called for.
I don't understand what you mean about me being "defensive and distant". Obviously I am trying to address you and every other member with a certain degree of professionalism, but I think anyone who knows me can easily understand that doing so doesn't come naturally. You know I have a short temper and a tendency to overreact from time to time. If I am to avoid doing so here it may unfortunately have to be at the cost of some warmness in my speech. I apologize for taking your 'naive' comment as a pejorative term, but it seemed a reasonable interpretation given the exceedingly aggressive tone of your posts here. When we asked for "ruthless criticism", we were in fact asking for you to be thorough and unrestrained in your critique. I don't think either of us wanted or expected you to be ruthless in your presentation.

But why choose this approach over the next? What was so appealing as regards this one? What exactly are the benefits of choosing this one relative to any of the others that you have meticulously and rigorously investigated?
I'm sure I can't possibly summarize our months of research and planning for you, but we weighed all of it and chose the approach that seemed the best possible way to accomplish what we wanted while upholding the principles most aligned with our desires and beliefs.

Please desist in making a circular argument and address the question honestly.
I don't appreciate your accusations that I am being evasive or dishonest, as I have given you no reason to believe I have been. If I have said I don't understand your point, it is because I don't. It is entirely up to you if you want to reiterate your argument or insist that I am being deliberately obtuse. However I would think you'd prefer to avoid the latter, as it seems to be exactly what you are accusing me of doing.

And this too doesn't address my question. I asked you what you mean by "freethought" and you replied by providing me with four "principles", all of which are wide open to interpretation. What are the operational definitions you are using when you use those terms? And why are they important above all else? As I said earlier: naive.
No you didn't. You asked me if my comment "You are free to say whatever you want to say provided you do not violate our written rules" is what I mean by 'freethought'. My response was that we have made no attempt to define freethought, but that we have a short list of principles we seek to uphold. I should have added then, as I will now, that my comment that you are free to say whatever you want within the rules most closely reflects our second principle, "Freedom of expression".

The relevant bit that I quoted reads thus: Later on in that post, you also said this: Apparently a civil environment resembles a playground to you, or one that requires babysitting. Now that I've answered your question, address my concern.
Again, I honestly don't appreciate your hostile tone. I will address your concern because you have taken the time to express it and because I'm interested in the development of this forum, not because you demand that I do. My "playground monitor" and "babysitter" analogies were meant to express our belief that it is entirely possible for adults to have "civilized" interaction without the need to be restricted in how they are allowed to interact with each other. It seems we disagree on that point, but if I misunderstand then I encourage you to restate your case if you are so inclined.

There really is no point in my doing so; I have stated my case a calmly and clearly as I can, multiple times even. Either my concerns are too esoteric or you just do not comprehend them. I dislike having to repeat myself at the best of times, so I will not do so again.
Fair enough. Obviously I cannot compel you to persist here. If you feel I am incapable of understanding your reason, perhaps we truly are at an impasse.

I never once said that it was inevitable, and you certainly have no idea what it is I'm thinking. It Is a possibility, and it is readily apparent that it is one that you have not considered. As I said earlier: naive. You would well do to read my comments about lifelong learning, particularly in the thread that warrenly started where I describe the Kolb Cycle. I'm certain that it would be of use to you.
I see. So you sincerely believe that livius and I spent months researching and participating in forums, as staff and members, and never once considered the possibility that the forum might eventually degenerate into a cesspit without some kind of moderation. Then you reiterate the word 'naive' for the third time, and imply that by a reference to your "lifelong learning" comment that I have abandoned any effort to learn. But then you want me to believe that you didn't mean naive in a pejorative sense. Okay.

I am quite aware that your approach is untested and unorthodox; that is why I can criticise it so easily. I have yet to see a case put forth as to why this approach is more desirable than any other. Why this approach is better suited to having you achieve your goals than any other. Above all else, why?
Obviously there is no way we can prove the effectiveness of this untested method short of testing it. I'm not sure what else you expect us to do at this time. If you want to ask such broad questions as "why this approach?" I really can't answer that. What specific issues do you forsee that you feel we have not anticipated or addressed?

I'm sure you meant this kindly, but I am reading this as a message to go fuck myself. I have been kicking back and enjoying myself when the time is available: look at my stats in the arcade, for fucks sake. That alone should tell you that I'm relaxing. But there is a time to relax and a time to be vigilant. I have no intention of letting you guys of so easily.
Well I'm very glad that you're enjoying yourself here, but I'm not sure what you mean about "letting us off so easily". What was our crime, exactly?

Telling me to "kick back and try to enjoy [my]self" tells me that while you may have read what I've been writing, you certainly haven't been paying attention. It has already been suggested to me that I should just relax and let it be, and let the problems sort themselves out when they arise.

Fuck that.

I've been arguing against that the entire time. To reassert such tripe is nearly enough to make not want to bother at all. I really think that I am wasting my time here.
I honestly don't have the slightest idea why you are so angry and hostile. As livius said I don't know where we have been even remotely as aggressive toward you as you have been toward us since the day we opened, but if you can point out where we have been we will try to explain and/or apologize for whatever it is we said or did. On the other hand, by all means if you think you are wasting your time here I will not try to insist that you do so.

As I said before, I'm quite sure you have a lot to contribute to this community. Hell, we've already adopted at least a couple of your suggestions and your arguments were instrumental in our abolishing the default voting system. Meanwhile, I have tried to respond to your every comment as respectfully and attentively as possible. What more can I do for you?

[Petra]

Telling me to "kick back and try to enjoy [my]self" tells me that while you may have read what I've been writing, you certainly haven't been paying attention. It has already been suggested to me that I should just relax and let it be, and let the problems sort themselves out when they arise.

Fuck that.

I've been arguing against that the entire time. To reassert such tripe is nearly enough to make not want to bother at all. I really think that I am wasting my time here.

How very passive-aggressive.

Textbook, almost.

[dave_a]

I don't get it.

What's the problem?

What we have here is a shiny new forum; the admins want to try some things out and see how they go.

If there are problems down the road things can be revisited.

Peace, love, happiness and all that stuff,

Dave

[Petra]

My view exactly, Dantonac.

All this pre-empting crap reminds me of a certain President and a certain Mid-east country. And as people said then, once that precedent has been set it will make it easier for anyone to pre-emptively attack any threat; real or imagined. Even on internet forums. God, how right they were. :D


Perhaps instead of spending so much time early on nit-picking every last foreseeable thing that may or may not go wrong, how about we just create and contribute to actual topics of discussion in the various fora supplied here, and dive into our journals, and write any articles we would like to submit, and go into the chatroom and just chat with people, and play games in the arcade, and all that other normal human community stuff. :yup:

[HelenM]

Insisting on civility is one standard that is rather common is Western culture. People do react in an uncivil manner, but by and large, it does work. Saying it is just too much work to enforce is absurd; once the standard of conduct is put in place and enforced with extreme prejudice and no waffling, then those in that community will respond accordingly and improve their demeanor. Setting the bar as low as you can by suggesting that no rules are a good idea is asking for trouble.

Speaking for myself, it doesn't take stated rules for me to be civil. I aim to be civil anyway. Rules saying 'be civil' don't make me more civil and the absence of civility rules doesn't make me less civil. And I suspect a lot of other people are the same way too. I think that anyone who is going to be incivil enough to offend others more than occasionally is not going to change their ways just because a forum rule says "be civil".

This has largely been my point. There are rules in place even if some people choose not to see them. Creating a rule enforcing civility on pain of banishment will result in just that: banishment. If someone insists on being a cock anyways, they know what the response will be. Allowing them carte blanche will only cause the more sensitive members of the community to leave or to never post for fear of ridicule.

Well, maybe this forum is not going to cater to people that sensitive and so they'll leave. Whatever. Choices have to be made. In the focus group there was strong sentiment in favor of as little moderation as possible, if I recall correctly.

There is no foolproof way to ensure civility since the internet is mainly populated by assholes, present company included. Look at it this way: would you accept being treated poorly in real life as some people are treated on a message board? If yes, why? If not, why not? Why should the same rule structure not be imposed equally?

Because it's unenforceable on the Internet - I think you yourself pointed out that physical retaliation is possible in real life which is an effective deterrent to many types of offensive behavior. And there are other real-life responses which can't be done on the Internet where we don't necessarily know anything about the other person.

My suggestion is to find a balance that best suits both purposes and also suits the mission of this site.

That's fine. Would civility rules here have made any difference to what you've posted on this forum so far? I'm just asking.

I disagree. The II admins have done the best that they can under the combined weight of the BoD and the userbase. They aim for civility as best they can, but do not apply it equally to all parts of the board. That is their problem.

Exactly. However you describe the problem, I don't think it's one they choose to have i.e. if they could I think they'd either solve it or swap it for some other method they could apply to produce foolproof civility. The point is, IIDB in no way proves that it's possible to have moderator intervention that eliminates incivility. And - see below - I'm not aware that Ebla can be used to show moderator intervention can produce foolproof civility either because in my experience their response to persistent determined incivility has not been tested.

If you wish to see a board where the rules are applied evenly, look no further than Ebla. And I think a discussion of that sort should be taken to a different thread as to not derail this one.

I'm not aware that Ebla has had any members be persistently incivil to the point that they have had posts repeatedly edited or have been banned. Perhaps it has happened and I just don't know about it. But if it has not happened then Ebla's contingency plans for a person determined to be incivil have not been tested so we don't know whether they are effective or not yet.

Anyway, I don't see that it's off-topic to talk about the strategies other boards use to achieve civility goals and how effective they are.

Helen

[Larry]

Perhaps instead of spending so much time early on nit-picking every last foreseeable thing that may or may not go wrong, how about we just create and contribute to actual topics of discussion in the various fora supplied here, and dive into our journals, and write any articles we would like to submit, and go into the chatroom and just chat with people, and play games in the arcade, and all that other normal human community stuff. :yup:
Not a bad idea lunachick.

:popcorn:

This discussion has been interesting.

Being an Administrator of two Boards I'm always interested in reading through these type of threads. Still, I wonder just how many pages it would take before most members (and the Admin. themselves) would just stop feeding it.

Oops! I guess I just tossed another morsel out on top of the heap. I think I'll go play some games. ;)

Larry :)

[Ronin]

Being an Administrator of two Boards I'm always interested in reading through these type of threads. Still, I wonder just how many pages it would take before most members (and the Admin. themselves) would just stop feeding it.



I've declined to respond to this thread at all for that very reason, Larry.

Shit.

[HelenM]

I've declined to respond to this thread at all for that very reason, Larry.

Shit.

I hate when that happens :D

[Ronin]

I hate when that happens :D

Me too!

Next thing you know...mongrel, kwigibo, zeroangel...and the like start showing up with their smartass selves.

Like moths to flame.

The whole thing becomes destined for post-slut purgatory.

Good thing we have better sense about us.

You play curveball yet, Helen?

[viscousmemories]

Being an Administrator of two Boards I'm always interested in reading through these type of threads. Still, I wonder just how many pages it would take before most members (and the Admin. themselves) would just stop feeding it.
Well there's a little history here, Larry. I for one have a bit of a reputation as being a relentless critic of various forum administrations, so I expect to take a fair amount of heat myself and it would be downright hypocritical of me to not at least try to respond to any critic as thoroughly and honestly as possible. That I have been able to do so thus far without the top of my head blowing off is something of a miracle. :)

Oops! I guess I just tossed another morsel out on top of the heap. I think I'll go play some games. ;)
Oh well, me too. :D

[Godot]

I heartily withdraw my criticism.

After a lengthy deliberation with a certain redheaded lass, I also withdraw my presence. Perhaps I shall return in a few weeks.

[Larry]

Well there's a little history here, Larry. I for one have a bit of a reputation as being a relentless critic of various forum administrations, so I expect to take a fair amount of heat myself and it would be downright hypocritical of me to not at least try to respond to any critic as thoroughly and honestly as possible.
It is a challenge when you find yourself on the other side of the table. I think you've done quite well in explaining your pov, while maintaining your patience.

Now, I have a rascal out there trying to one-up me in Blackjack, so I better get back to the table. The nerve of some people. :doh:

Larry :)

[livius drusus]

I heartily withdraw my criticism.

Sigh... I'm sorry, Godot. Again, your participation in these threads was of great value to me personally and, given the changes you already effectuated, to the site as well. I wish I had done a better job responding to your concerns.

After a lengthy deliberation with a certain redheaded lass, I also withdraw my presence. Perhaps I shall return in a few weeks.

Even though my hair is merely brown, I hope you do too.

[Ronin]

Now, I have a rascal out there trying to one-up me in Blackjack, so I better get back to the table. The nerve of some people. :doh:

Larry :)

Bring IT on, homey!!

[Larry]

Bring IT on, homey!!
Damn, you're good! I was playing fair by just increasing my take by $100 increments and you have to go and surpass me by more than a $1000. :( :happycry:

I'll get ya! You just wait and see. :fuming:

:wink:

Larry :)

[HelenM]

Me too!

Next thing you know...mongrel, kwigibo, zeroangel...and the like start showing up with their smartass selves.

Like moths to flame.

The whole thing becomes destined for post-slut purgatory.

Good thing we have better sense about us.

Absolutely ;)

You play curveball yet, Helen?

You think I'm going to try another game? I'm having enough trouble on the games I already tried! But now you've got me curious...maybe I'll go take a look in due course...

Helen

[Larry]

Geez! Just when I was closing in on ya Ronin, lunachick has to make it harder. Hey lunackick! See if I ever say your suggestions are any good again. ;)

P.S. My apologies for derailing this thread, but since we're free to speak our minds, that was on mine. :D

Larry :)

[Petra]

Geez! Just when I was closing in on ya Ronin, lunachick has to make it harder. Hey lunackick! See if I ever say your suggestions are any good again. ;)

P.S. My apologies for derailing this thread, but since we're free to speak our minds, that was on mine. :D

Larry :)

You don't stand a chance, Flower.
:wink:

[Larry]

You don't stand a chance, Flower.
:wink:
We'll see about that, little grasshopper! :cool:

Larry :)

[Kare]

So then this would be the requisite post-slut thread?

:banana: <-- For you, liv. :D

[godfry n. glad]

I heartily withdraw my criticism.

After a lengthy deliberation with a certain redheaded lass, I also withdraw my presence. Perhaps I shall return in a few weeks.

Damn!

I always get there just a little too late.

I wanted to converse with Godot about his arbitrary and capricious, as well as hypocritical, moderation at HH.

Well, from my pov, he's shown his true colors, as a petty moralist censor, in this whole thread.

From a victim of Godot's authoritarian delusions...

godfry n. glad

"Censorship causes blindness." - ACLU poster

[Godot]

Damn!

I always get there just a little too late.

I wanted to converse with Godot about his arbitrary and capricious, as well as hypocritical, moderation at HH.

Well, from my pov, he's shown his true colors, as a petty moralist censor, in this whole thread.

From a victim of Godot's authoritarian delusions...

godfry n. glad

"Censorship causes blindness." - ACLU poster
I've only actually seen this since it was brought to my attention. I am also moved to come out of my self-imposed exile to offer but a single, poignant comment:

Go fuck yourself with a sharp knife, godfry.

[viscousmemories]

I've only actually seen this since it was brought to my attention. I am also moved to come out of my self-imposed exile to offer but a single, poignant comment:

Go fuck yourself with a sharp knife, godfry.
Do you need a rule telling you it's not acceptable to talk to people like that, Godot? Unbelievable. If that's what you consider civil interaction I truly hope we don't suffer from an excess of it around here.

[godfry n. glad]

I've only actually seen this since it was brought to my attention. I am also moved to come out of my self-imposed exile to offer but a single, poignant comment:

Go fuck yourself with a sharp knife, godfry.

:biglaugh:

Typical...

Can't deny it, so he goes off on an unrelated tangent.

Would you care to post up the "abusive" PM I posted to you in response to your refusal to explain yourself in censoring my post at HH? Then we could talk about what consistutes "abusive" and what the appropriate approach might have been, or should have been, or could have been.... particularly given the prevailing atmosphere at HH.

I'd point out that your actions are vastly at odds with the registration statement at HH...not with me, that _was_ in line...but what remains is a stark contrast to the unacceptable behaviors outlined in the registration statement.

Which makes you a hypocrite. And since you decided to enforce it upon me, and not others who had been far more egregious in their violation of the stated expectations, that makes you arbitrary and capricious.

I think you're just pissed because I not only confronted you with your hypocrisy, I also pointed out that you were a less than adequate moderator in completely missing two subsequent repeats of the same comment - online. (By the way, I see you've retroactively repaired that now....good boy....now try making your registration agreement match your arbitrary and capricious style.)

I still think it's mighty Christian of you...Big daddy and all. Your approach to moderation is "because I say so."

godfry

:poke:

[dave_a]

Please, please, please, would all persons here whose handle begins with the letter 'G', just step away from the keyboard and be the better person?

Just walk away, please.

[pescifish]

I wanted to converse with Godot about his arbitrary and capricious, as well as hypocritical, moderation at HH.

Well, from my pov, he's shown his true colors, as a petty moralist censor, in this whole thread.

From a victim of Godot's authoritarian delusions...
From my pov, I just wish everyone would check their past crap from other boards at the door. That includes the vitriol that we know many can spew about IIDB and that some very few have built up against FF/GH/HH.

Personally, I appreciated Godot's attempts to get answers about the running of this board. His questions were reminiscent of the same sort with which viscousmemories has challenged other boards. Also, there was much discussion prior to the opening of this board regarding how the software, the rules and guidelines and board government will somehow solve all the ills we have encountered in the past. It was worth it to me to see some of these questions play out. (All in all, not too badly I think, though as might be expected, somewhat painfully.)

As I've stated countless times before, in my opinion, government, rules, policies, guidelines and the like really can't stop assholes/crazies/trolls/etc. from building acrimony and terrorizing any board -- ultimately I don't think there are any solutions except hope those undesirables stay away, to the point of being "banned" if they just don't "get it". But these issues have always been very important to viscousmemories and livius and I would think they would also appreciate the users here who care enough to ask questions and join discussions: about this board, not previous ones.

I hope no one gets villified instantly for standing up, especially when the bulk of that hostility was built at another board.

It has been my impression that most of the parties involved in these discussions are generally good friends and I really hope that no long term damage has been done.

[godfry n. glad]

Sorry, dantonac...this is no fucking joke.

Pesci...What I saw in this thread concerned me. I viewed it as an authoritarian from another site advising the administrators of this site to abandon their commitment to free speech here. Thus, my insight as a "free speech victim" of said authoritarian has a distinct bearing on what happens here.

I would also note that you never answered my question in the thread on HH...Do _you_ support arbitrary censorship?

Because I certain got that impression at HH. If that's the case, don't you feel a little ill at ease here? I mean, somebody might say something nasty about you or your friends. Then what?

godfry

[viscousmemories]

From my pov, I just wish everyone would check their past crap from other boards at the door. That includes the vitriol that we know many can spew about IIDB and that some very few have built up against FF/GH/HH.
I agree completely, but I honestly don't think it's a realistic expectation and I'm fine with that. Every new online community I've been a part of has come with a certain amount of bad blood from battles in prior arenas.

Personally, I appreciated Godot's attempts to get answers about the running of this board. His questions were reminiscent of the same sort with which viscousmemories has challenged other boards. Also, there was much discussion prior to the opening of this board regarding how the software, the rules and guidelines and board government will somehow solve all the ills we have encountered in the past. It was worth it to me to see some of these questions play out. (All in all, not too badly I think, though as might be expected, somewhat painfully.)
I agree completely, and I know that livius does too. We both felt (and said) that we thought his approach was a bit unnecessarily aggressive, but we did specifically ask for ruthless criticism and of course I'm typically a relentless critic of forum administrators myself, so I don't think any of his questions or concerns were out of line at all and I agree that the results were overall good for the forum.

As I've stated countless times before, in my opinion, government, rules, policies, guidelines and the like really can't stop assholes/crazies/trolls/etc. from building acrimony and terrorizing any board -- ultimately I don't think there are any solutions except hope those undesirables stay away, to the point of being "banned" if they just don't "get it". But these issues have always been very important to viscousmemories and livius and I would think they would also appreciate the users here who care enough to ask questions and join discussions: about this board, not previous ones.
I agree. The problem, IMO, is how to deal with deliberately anti-social people. People whose only interest in the community is how they can most efficiently disrupt it. In my experience these people are actually very few and far between. Most people, it seems, participate in these communities for perfectly legitimate reasons, but may have a dramatically different temper, style, etc. from some or many others. However I don't consider such a person an "undesirable" personally, because I find that most interesting people are not conventional.

But since other's may not be as tolerant, we have tried to empower the members with every available option for ignoring the elements they dislike. The missing piece, of course, being a way to prevent excessive 'ugly' content overpowering the 'good' content. We thought the voting system would do that but it proved to be flawed.

I hope no one gets villified instantly for standing up, especially when the bulk of that hostility was built at another board.
If any vilification goes on it isn't going to come from livius or me. Not intentionally, anyway. I have made a very sincere effort to avoid insinuating my personal opinions about people in any of my comments here, and I intend to continue trying to do that. As always, though, I think I have something of a moral obligation to speak out when I think someone's behavior is grossly inappropriate. Whether I should, though, is a question I haven't figured out the answer to. Because I'm sure it's not possible for me to post without my comments being somewhat colored by my biases.

It has been my impression that most of the parties involved in these discussions are generally good friends and I really hope that no long term damage has been done.
I think that's probably too broad a generalization for me to agree with, but I do agree that some friendships have been strained, if not broken, by some of the discussions in the last week. But I too hope no permanent damage has been done.

[pescifish]

Do _you_ support arbitrary censorship?
I do and I don't. I suspect, once you and I agreed on terms, my answer to that would be "Yes". Most people will view censorship of their own works as "arbitrary" since they apparently thought it was appropriate in the first place and anyone who doesn't agree must, therefore, be "arbitrary".

Here is my feeling about limits to speech on bulletin boards, in a nutshell:

For a board such as IIDB, which has some sort of business/charity/idealogical goal/etc. entity status to maintain, there needs to be rules and guidelines and fairly strict standards. All of which are nearly impossible to define and/or uphold and won't satisfy anyone.

For a privately run, personal and social board, such as HH and here, I very firmly believe that the people running it should have free reign to do as they please. I think the only thing that a board administration needs to publish is a statement such as "We reserve the right to edit any old damn thing we think is inappropriate at any time -- take it or leave it." Ok, maybe the admins could add something along the lines of "We hope you stick around long enough to build enough trust to our judgment and hope that we can prove that our actions are not arbitrary or capricious but are, in our best judgment, in the best interests of the board and the community."

I trust viscousmemories and I trust livius drusus. If they ever start acting as if they have personal vendettas or are allowing more crap than I can handle, then I'll leave. {Err... unless, perhaps, I agree with their vendettas and like the kind of crap they are allowing...}

Because I certain got that impression at HH. If that's the case, don't you feel a little ill at ease here?
No, I do feel at ease here. Because I trust viscousmemories and livius drusus, two individuals I have come to know over time. If they had published countless rules and policies dictating their every action, I would feel less at ease because then they would be hobbled and unable to act in some instances that might require it. I believe (and they have already proven this on this board in several cases) we are on similar wavelengths regarding these things. If we were of radically different minds, I wouldn't begrudge them their space to do as they wished, but I probably would not hang out on their board.

I mean, somebody might say something nasty about ... your friends. Then what?Then I step in and stick up for them, same as I have proven to do online and would do IRL.

I mean, somebody might say something nasty about you ... . Then what?Then I either stick up for myself or leave. If the rest of the community is willing to allow that person to attack me, then it's probably not a community in which I belong or wish to be.

[edit to add that vm's post came in while I was composing this one. I don't want to give the impression I've ignored it but I'll have to come back to respond. I will say that I agree with what he has said.]

[livius drusus]

Pesci...What I saw in this thread concerned me. I viewed it as an authoritarian from another site advising the administrators of this site to abandon their commitment to free speech here. Thus, my insight as a "free speech victim" of said authoritarian has a distinct bearing on what happens here.

I don't think Godot was advising us to abandon that commitment so much as justify it in terms of what we owe to our membership. It's a huge question, one Tom and I have discussed at length on all kinds of board, and one we discussed with Godot and the other members of the focus group back in April when we began to get this together.

For instance, I don't think your saying that Godot has "authoritarian delusions" is appropriate. Question how he would apply his ideas of moderation in a consistent fashion, by all means, but his mental health is not up for debate here, imo. His "fuck yourself with a sharp knife" suggestion is far beyond that same pale.

So what do I do to ensure that you and he both feel comfortable posting here? Since there are no behavioral requirements, either I just sit back and adopt a position of "neutrality" entirely indistinguishable from cowardice, or I speak up and seek to direct discussion with my admin-level social currency. Is either of these options free speech? Surely not saying anything is tacit approval. Surely anything I do say is bound by my prejudices and preferences. What are our options here?

Still, people argue in a myriad different ways, particularly when important principles are at stake, and in the end, we see little point in outlawing certain approaches. Even setting aside the question of whether free speech is a laudable goal in and of itself, in my experience, when mandating civility either nastiness sneaks through in more insidious ways or people are so concerned about what they say that they end up saying very little indeed.

I would also note that you never answered my question in the thread on HH...Do _you_ support arbitrary censorship?

Because I certain got that impression at HH. If that's the case, don't you feel a little ill at ease here? I mean, somebody might say something nasty about you or your friends. Then what?

From what I've seen, pesci is no fan of people treating each other like shit, period. That doesn't make her a censor, but given the way online interactions frequently devolve, it certainly makes her weary.

[Dingfod]

Two things:

1. Fuck, Godot, that was over the line.... that invisible line that doesn't exist in this forum.

2. Fuck, godfry... I didn't invite you in here to start shit.

It's just a fucking message board. There is nothing important enough on a stinking message board to get that bent out of shape over.


Warren

P.S. My apologies to the powers that be for the "fucking" and "stinking" comments about the message board.

[livius drusus]

P.S. My apologies to the powers that be for the "fucking" and "stinking" comments about the message board.

Sokay, warren. One inevitably leads to the other (when done right, at any rate). ;)

[LadyShea]

Godfrey, this isn't HH nor is it II...you seem to have a problem with carrying grudges as well as making philosophical disagreements personal. Maybe you can work on that, because in all other aspects I like having you around.

Godot, it seems pretty obvious to me that you are testing the admins committment to free speech here. I still have been unable to fathom why you are so vehement on this issue and seem to take the lack of rules of interaction as a personal affront. Your "go fuck yourself with a knife" was rude, and you will probably now get shit for it from the rest of the community, and may even be put on ignore, which is how community policing works, and how free speech works. Why this solution is not acceptable is beyond me.

[JoeP]

Too fucking right, Warren

[godfry n. glad]

From what I've seen, pesci is no fan of people treating each other like shit, period. That doesn't make her a censor, but given the way online interactions frequently devolve, it certainly makes her weary.

Yet, it seems to me that she stood idly by and watched me be treated like shit. I guess I just don't stand in the same little elite group with her and her friends....is that the deciding element?


For instance, I don't think your saying that Godot has "authoritarian delusions" is appropriate. Question how he would apply his ideas of moderation in a consistent fashion, by all means, but his mental health is not up for debate here, imo. His "fuck yourself with a sharp knife" suggestion is far beyond that same pale.

He's entitled to his opinion. The thing is, he doesn't think others are entitled to theirs, particularly if they are in sharp distinction to his and his friends'.

I'll stand by my typification of Godot, because I was treated as such. I asked for a justification of his act of pending censorship and was treated with "If you have to ask then I'll delete it." He wanted an apology outright without any explanation. Now... Given the abuse I was subjected to (notably by vm and in clear violation of the stated expectations in the registration agreement), I felt I was at liberty to respond in kind. Indeed, my censored comment was not even a profanity, but a sly jab at my correspondent's ability as a prospective parent based upon his demonstrated inability to exercise sound judgment skills. I most certainly did NOT tell him to fuck himself with a sharp knife.

Godot's reliance upon "because I said so" rationale is the epitome of authoritarian action...That's what he demonstrated. So, my PM to him pointed out that he was inconsistant and arbitrary in his censoring...I suspect he didn't even like being referred to as a petty censor...or fucking petty censor. I also noted that his style of "because I said so" was very Christian.

So... I'm to be banned for challenging a moderator, eh? That certainly smacks of authoritarian delusions to me.

Guess I'll just have to get myself my own little elite set of pals so we can get together and kick around everybody we don't agree with...?

That's the answer?

godfry

"Censorship causes blindness." - ACLU poster

[Dingfod]

Sokay, warren. One inevitably leads to the other (when done right, at any rate). ;)While the inverse may be true, stinking will almost never lead to fucking, believe me, I know.


Warren

[livius drusus]

Yet, it seems to me that she stood idly by and watched me be treated like shit. I guess I just don't stand in the same little elite group with her and her friends....is that the deciding element?

I'm not going to speak for pesci, but couldn't she just plain disagree with your approach which is why she didn't defend it? It's certainly not her own, nor is it mine. Also, I don't think your analysis of the social dynamics is particularly accurate. pesci is not in any kind of elite group with elite friends. She's very much her own person.

I'll stand by my typification of Godot, because I was treated as such.

I didn't expect you to retract it; I don't doubt that it is genuine and based on your interpretation of events. I'm just saying in my view, such comments are blunt discursive objects - weapons, not arguments - and I don't like them.

So... I'm to be banned for challenging a moderator, eh? That certainly smacks of authoritarian delusions to me.

Okay. It smacks of very common administrative action on discussion boards to me. It's not a delusion that owners of a board have complete authority over it; it's quite real. Do I think it's the best way to run a community? Well, no. I think there are way too many pitfalls, no checks and balances - which, as Godot pointed out, was the main problem with our voting system - and ultimately, allows very little room for growth.

Guess I'll just have to get myself my own little elite set of pals so we can get together and kick around everybody we don't agree with...?

That's the answer?

Somehow, I doubt that would suit you.

[dave_a]

So... I'm to be banned for challenging a moderator, eh? That certainly smacks of authoritarian delusions to me.



Dude, you are the most well liked asshole I know. I already know I am going to regret even getting involved, but here it goes.

On II you had a problem with another poster. You felt that you were well within your rights to point out to her and everyone else what a manipulative bitch she was.

Your doing this violated the rules of the site so you had an encounter with the mods and admins.

Then you had an issue with CrazyFingers over how he dealt with you and ultimately you ended up getting banned from IIDB.

Then it's off to HH where I made the mistake of trying to discuss the issue with you in hopes that we could have a meeting of the minds and you would return to IIDB where I valued your presence. You pretty much jumped down my throat and assigned uncharitable motives to me and referred to me in some derogatory terms. I told you then I felt shit on for just trying to be nice. OK, so we settled that issue amicably.

Then you go off on a poster presumably because she has "I voted for Bush" under her name. Something she didn't even choose to have put there. From where I am sitting you just went ape on her. Even after it was explained to you that she wasn't even old enough to vote in 2000 you went on this holy tirade about how it's not funny to say you voted for Bush (note: I actually did vote for Bush. Not proud of it, but the past is the past).

This led you to an encounter with the admins.

You then had a falling out with the administration. Seeing the pattern here?

So now you come here, what a day or two ago? And already you are stirring up more shit.

The difference here is that I really doubt you will be banned. Rather I think here your fate will be far worse. You will exhaust the genuine affection people have for you and will end up written off and in everyone's killfile.

Lastly, you may think you don't have the genuine affection of people, but you do. I know you do because after your banning at IIDb and HH there were threads about you and I don't recall anyone blasting you, rather all participants that I remember expressed warm feelings toward you, but also some concern.

Bottom line here (and I sincerely hope you take this as coming from a friendly person rather than one who wants a fight) is that you have a clear (to everyone else) pattern of hostility. In some cases your concerns may be objectively valid, but in others it is my opinion they have not been valid.

I am not saying anything about Godot or whether he has said or done anything inappropriate to you because 1. other than this recent sharp knife comment I really don't know your history with Godot and 2. I don't think it matters. In all cases you have a choice in how you will respond.

Ok, lecturing mode off. Carry on.

[viscousmemories]

Quick note: In my personal opinion nobody is here trying to start shit. godfry is pissed about having been banned from HH by Godot, and he expressed as much. Godot responded. Etc. As far as I'm concerned there's nothing wrong with godfry expressing himself or Godot expressing himself. Of course I'd prefer it if everyone could do so respectfully and sans nastiness, but alas not everyone shares my values and/or is capable of as much.

[livius drusus]

Okay, this is wandering far off-field. dantonac, I appreciate what you're trying to do, but your post above reads to me far more like a private communication than a contribution to the subject of free speech and engendering civility, and Tom and I need the latter.

I very much want to hear yours and godfry's opinions on the matter of how a board with our 3 rules can encourage rich discussion and positive interaction. godfry's concerns over what went down at HH may serve as a fresh in his mind example, but they are certainly not the material point of this thread.

I am dead serious when I say that we need y'all's ideas right now but Tom and I are genuinely concerned about how to have a structure of civil interaction in place instead of a lead blanket of rules.

[dave_a]

Okay, this is wandering far off-field. dantonac, I appreciate what you're trying to do, but your post above reads to me far more like a private communication than a contribution to the subject of free speech and engendering civility, and Tom and I need the latter.

Ok well here is how I see it. The lack of civility is due to individuals not behaving in a civil manner. Yes, my comments to Godfry are of a somewhat personal nature, but then again so is "go fuck yourself with a sharp knife" as is 'you are an authoritarian moderator who wronged me'. Ultimately incivility in general is of a personal nature. You say things are wandering far off field (off topic) and they are. It is the lack of civility that began getting things off topic. If you wish to try and save this particular thread and steer it back on course then you have the same goal as I do. Well, not really as I don't care about the topic of this thread per se, I just would like to see the lack of civility cease and this would result in your seeing the thread get back on topic.

I very much want to hear yours and godfry's opinions on the matter of how a board with our 3 rules can encourage rich discussion and positive interaction.

There is no opinion offering necessary. This board has, does and will encourage rich discussion, but not all interaction is going to be positive. To expect such is (I mean this as nicely as possible) naive.

godfry's concerns over what went down at HH may serve as a fresh in his mind example, but they are certainly not the material point of this thread.

No they aren't, but since he gave them anyway it is very unlikely that from here on out this thread will be about anything other than godfry's concerns. Judging from past situations anyway.

I am dead serious when I say that we need y'all's ideas right now but Tom and I are genuinely concerned about how to have a structure of civil interaction in place instead of a lead blanket of rules.

Don't expect the impossible. On balance I prefer this board to HH and IIDB. I like the lack of formal moderation. I don't want to see it change although personally I think it will as the population of members grows and becomes less possible to deal with via community pressure. If this board grows it will eventually fracture into sub communities that don't accept the pressure of other subcommunties to self moderate. That's my opinion of what the potential future holds, but for right now I think there is no problem at all.

Godfry and Godot have some issues. In godfry's case he has issues with lots of people, in Godot's case he appears to have issues with this board and it's policies in general.

Since the goal here is free speech both will continue on their present course for as long as they desire.

As for me I will tolerate what I consider annoying and from a spectator sport point of view as entertaining until such time as I no longer find it enjoyable. At that point those I don't wish to hear from will be blocked.

If things get to a point where I am being inundated with other people responding to posts I no longer see then I will gravitate somewhere else.

I honestly don't see how it can be any differently. I have no suggestions whatsoever on how to make it different.

Well I do have one. It is my perception that both you and VM are castrating yourselves in terms of expressing your honest opinions. You both come over to me as being overly concerned with how you appear to others. I understand why this is (at least I think I do) since you feel responsibilty to making this board work, but I think in some cases you are both overdoing it.

Stop trying so damned hard.

Let's be perfectly honest. If Godot had come onto a board I started with his "this isn't going to work, what are you going to do about this, and this ,and this" stuff I would tell him to go fuck himself. Well, if I was in a good mood I might just say "Hey look, I hear your concerns, but enough already." At some point constructive criticism just becomes annoying and is nothing more than disguised incivility.

I really doubt that you or VM feel differently about it despite saying you do. Could be wrong, but I doubt it.

[godfry n. glad]

First, I'd like to thank both Pescifish and dantonac for even being willing to engage in this exchange. That's what I value more than anything, discussion of what it is that is desired, not fiat actions of some largely arbitrary authority.

Try "authoritative" rather than "authoritarian".

And that's the problem I have with the actions taken at HH by Godot.

I would note that the actions of others, engaging in far worse incidents of verbal abuse than I did in either of the threads I lost my cool in, were NOT banned, nor even warned. I was subject to those kinds of posts from other HH posters and defended myself well enough, in my estimation. Yet, when I engaged in the same type of invective, I'm slapped down by what passes for an authority figure. When I ask why, I'm given no answer, but slapped down again. When I challenge the seeming arbitrary nature of the censorship, I'm banned.

Then, when I look at the registration agreement, I note that the moderator was well within his authority to ban me, as it states right in the agreement. But, y'know what? I'm pissed that I've been selected out arbitrarily on the basis of one non-profane, non-threatening comment. The expected behavior, according to the registration agreement, and the actual behavior of both members and moderator are quite a ways out of synch. In such circumstances, when members are basically operating without guidance, or more appropriately, with arbitrary and capricious, guidance, should augur for some other method of intercession than immediate ban.

HH and Godot's problem is inconsistancy in what moderation exists, combined with a registration agreement that is very misleading.

As for crazyfingers... I've been over this before, and I guess I just disagree that someone who promises one thing and delivers another, treats others with distain and patronization, belittles them when they attempt to communicate clearly and basically ignores the concerns of the poster in the process of moderation, should get off scott free. Several posters here have asked me why I've drug it into other fora. Well, I wasn't allowed to discuss it in that forum. He's here (as in HH), and it's reputedly an "open" forum (ha...now that's a laugh), and he's making smug statements like he had never done wrong. So if a person commits a crime in one state, they go scott free in another? Or, should I get some kind of extradition order to take him....where?

I now see that Godot has conveniently edited all my subsequent statements, leaving crazyfingers puzzling statement about "Take it to the Board."... Hey, I never had the chance, crazyfingers was my intermediary with "the board". So... What we now have in HH is creative editing by the moderator to make godfry look bad... more arbitrary and capricious moderating.

Several posters have noted that they don't like this stuff. It makes them uncomfortable...or uneasy...I'm not sure. If that's that case, go read some other thread. Nobody's holding you here making you read this stuff.

So... As an obviously short-fused poster who appreciates open discussions, what would I suggest?

I had no problem with the "suspension" in which I was placed at II. I actually thought it a good idea, particularly when the offer of "dialogue" was made. So, my first suggestion would be that when you offer to "dialogue", actually do so, don't proceed to browbeat the poster with demands to comply - or else.

Then, don't tell the poster that they cannot discern the motives of another poster and then, in the next post, tell them that you can read their motives. It's frankly hypocritical. That occurred in my exchange with crazyfingers. Cripes... He actually berated me for not knowing he was in his car, driving. How in hell was I supposed to know that two time zones away?

Make sure the behavior demanded on the registration agreement matches the behavior the poster will find on the board. Disparity in the two encourages behavior that somebody...but we don't know who...doesn't want. Moderation then looks to be arbitrary or geared to the idiosyncracies of one or more "moderators".

Violators should be given a warning, or warnings, and a chance to change, given adequate information about why what they have done is unacceptable. That was not done in either case for me. I resent that and I resent that the perpetrators can go elsewhere with impunity.

Lastly... Yes, dantonac, there is a pattern. It's a lifetime pattern for me. I don't like arbitrary authority. I also don't like people who lie to me. I particularly don't like it when arbitrary authority lies to me. I have the great disability that when I see either or both, I point it out, publicly.

This board, as presently constituted, is impressive. The authority is clear and based upon conditions I clearly understand. I said as much to liv after reading carefully through them. So far as I'm aware, I'm still well within them. I think the community is perfectly capable of dealing with its miscreants. I think that there will indeed be those who cannot conform and must be put out...for the good of the community. But I also think it does no good to veil all the correspondence in "nicey-nicey" warm fuzzies. Life ain't all nicey-nicey warm fuzzies. Believe me, I know.

godfry

[livius drusus]

Ok well here is how I see it. The lack of civility is due to individuals not behaving in a civil manner.
<snip>
If you wish to try and save this particular thread and steer it back on course then you have the same goal as I do. Well, not really as I don't care about the topic of this thread per se, I just would like to see the lack of civility cease and this would result in your seeing the thread get back on topic.

I think this post goes a long way towards that goal. Thank you, dantonac. Your bluntness is sometimes rather endearing.

There is no opinion offering necessary. This board has, does and will encourage rich discussion, but not all interaction is going to be positive. To expect such is (I mean this as nicely as possible) naive.

I can't believe how many people think I'm Polyanna! I swear, I'm really all street-wise and cynical. In all seriousness, I don't expect - nor do I particularly desire - all interaction to be positive. Fighting happens; sometimes it sucks, sometimes it's a shot in the arm. I just don't want it to characterize the forum.

Don't expect the impossible. On balance I prefer this board to HH and IIDB. I like the lack of formal moderation. I don't want to see it change although personally I think it will as the population of members grows and becomes less possible to deal with via community pressure. If this board grows it will eventually fracture into sub communities that don't accept the pressure of other subcommunties to self moderate. That's my opinion of what the potential future holds, but for right now I think there is no problem at all.

It's certainly a possibility and one I very much want to explore. If you don't mind, I'll quote this paragraph of yours again in another thread I'm working on.

As for me I will tolerate what I consider annoying and from a spectator sport point of view as entertaining until such time as I no longer find it enjoyable. At that point those I don't wish to hear from will be blocked.

If things get to a point where I am being inundated with other people responding to posts I no longer see then I will gravitate somewhere else.

Makes sense to me. God knows it's happened to plenty of boards. I want to talk about possible ways to prevent it, but again, that'll be another thread.

I honestly don't see how it can be any differently. I have no suggestions whatsoever on how to make it different.

That's cool. Pinpointing a trend or likely outcome is helpful in and of itself.

Well I do have one. It is my perception that both you and VM are castrating yourselves in terms of expressing your honest opinions. You both come over to me as being overly concerned with how you appear to others. I understand why this is (at least I think I do) since you feel responsibilty to making this board work, but I think in some cases you are both overdoing it.

Stop trying so damned hard.

/me laughs
I mentioned that thing about the endearing bluntness right? I'll do my best, dantonac, but I'm kind of a tightass on this shit, so I make no guarantees. You, of course, are more than welcome to whisper "Relax, tightass" when I'm being really annoying.

Let's be perfectly honest. If Godot had come onto a board I started with his "this isn't going to work, what are you going to do about this, and this ,and this" stuff I would tell him to go fuck himself. Well, if I was in a good mood I might just say "Hey look, I hear your concerns, but enough already." At some point constructive criticism just becomes annoying and is nothing more than disguised incivility.

I really doubt that you or VM feel differently about it despite saying you do. Could be wrong, but I doubt it.

No, I don't think we'd disagree on the general assertion. I imagine we might disagree on where the line of demarcation between constructive criticism and disguised incivility is, though.

[livius drusus]

HH and Godot's problem is inconsistancy in what moderation exists, combined with a registration agreement that is very misleading.

HH is small and informally run; it's private, exclusive nature ensures that it will remain so. Consistency requires clearly delineated policies, and I don't think HH lends itself to that kind of structure. The registration agreement is, I believe, boiler plate phpBB and is entirely pro-forma. Again, that's the informality of the small club.

Several posters have noted that they don't like this stuff. It makes them uncomfortable...or uneasy...I'm not sure. If that's that case, go read some other thread. Nobody's holding you here making you read this stuff.

On this we pretty much agree. However, since in my estimation the overwhelming majority of people who are willing to risk taking a hit to reduce friction are doing something courageous because they think it's right despite the discomfort it may cause them, I won't tell them to read something else.

So, my first suggestion would be that when you offer to "dialogue", actually do so, don't proceed to browbeat the poster with demands to comply - or else.

Check. That's a good point and one I agree with wholeheartedly. I prefer to aim for conflict resolution, whether in a thread or on a tendentious administrative issue.

Then, don't tell the poster that they cannot discern the motives of another poster and then, in the next post, tell them that you can read their motives.

I don't like trying to discern motives (it closes too many avenues) and on more than one occasion Tom has shown himself to, well, suck at it, to put it bluntly; so I think I can assure you neither of us will be posting any such thing.

Make sure the behavior demanded on the registration agreement matches the behavior the poster will find on the board. Disparity in the two encourages behavior that somebody...but we don't know who...doesn't want.

Done. Our registration agreement is customized to match our 3 rules.

This board, as presently constituted, is impressive. The authority is clear and based upon conditions I clearly understand. I said as much to liv after reading carefully through them.

Thank you, godfry. :) You did indeed say as much, which is why I haven't replied to your other 2 comments about appropriate use of authority, because I believe you know our positions match your own on those issues.

So far as I'm aware, I'm still well within them.

He he... I'm pretty sure all the nekkid pictures you posted are of adult marble.

I think the community is perfectly capable of dealing with its miscreants. I think that there will indeed be those who cannot conform and must be put out...for the good of the community.

Now that's a line worth exploring. Good thing I'm in a prolific mood lately (and there's a weekend coming up).

But I also think it does no good to veil all the correspondence in "nicey-nicey" warm fuzzies. Life ain't all nicey-nicey warm fuzzies. Believe me, I know.

Amen. I was a vicious brute to Consistent Thinker when he showed up at HH. It's just a question of what matters to you when.

[Clutch Munny]

Was this the thread on the putative limits to free speech? I must have taken a wrong turn.

Anyhow, until I have something constructive to contribute I'll just be shutting up.

(Or... is that something constructive itself? Hmm...)

[Blake]

I think that the deliberate choice in terms of "boundary limitations" to speech is one on which people can legitimately disagree. The administrators of this board have made a clear choice in favor of maximising speech. It is important that there be some consequences for speech beyond the pale, which is why a refined post voting system is crucial. (It is also the most logical--if the whole point of a discussion board is to discuss, then there is no greater penalty than being consigned to a level of invisibility so that no one answers what you say, continuing the discussion in the direction you've pointed it.)

I think the choice to maximise speech is justified by appeal to the model of philosophical investigation as a dialogue (and I mean a real dialogue, not Plato's barely authentic ones). The forum also has a zone dedicated to the rhetorical model, Articles. As icing on the cake, there are Journals. Doesn't that about cover it in terms of speechifying?

[godfry n. glad]

HH is small and informally run; it's private, exclusive nature ensures that it will remain so. Consistency requires clearly delineated policies, and I don't think HH lends itself to that kind of structure. The registration agreement is, I believe, boiler plate phpBB and is entirely pro-forma. Again, that's the informality of the small club.

Thanks, that just affirms my charge of arbitrary and capricious moderation. Moderation at HH, as I hear you saying, has nothing to do with the registration agreement at HH. It's more a situation of if you're not actually brown-nosing the moderator, you need to at least having the good fortune to not hold opinions which the moderator or his friends happen to dislike. They ought to just rename it "Godot & Friends" and be done with it.

That sounds like a real good reason not to go there in the first place and a real good reason to get the hell out if one is not real chummy with the authoritarian in charge. In other words, it augurs for a real tight little elitist clique. Welcome to group-think.

<sigh>

So be it...

As for requesting that my photos be removed, I have no direct means of doing that. Would you be so kind as to convey my wish that all my photos from my trip be removed from HH...up to and including those in the avatar so kindly generated by Scotty? (I have given my assent to the use of my photo in the Colorado Infidels gathering.)

The rest I have no particular attachment to...they can stay.

Thanks.

godfry

[livius drusus]

Wish conveyed, godfry.

[HelenM]

you need to at least having the good fortune to not hold opinions which the moderator or his friends happen to dislike.

Maybe your expectations were unrealistic. Any board which allows people with certain beliefs/opinions only to join has already given strong indication of how tolerant they will be about having opinions they dislike expressed on the board.

Furthermore, any board which links those not meeting their selection criteria to a site which such people are likely to find insulting and offensive has already indicated the level of respect you can expect if your opinions/beliefs do not meet with their approval.

Helen

[Dingfod]

I just want to say that I'm glad to be a member of a board where free thought and free speech rule, where disagreements can be played out to their natural end, even with insults intact, a place where a troll can be called a troll, an asshat an asshat, etc. For the most part, I'll only be a spectator to the conflicts, but I do enjoy the interplay sans heavy moderation.

Thanks, vm and ld.

"Can't we all get along?"--Rodney King


Warren

[livius drusus]

Thank you, warrenly. I'm glad you're glad. :)

[HelenM]

I just want to say that I'm glad to be a member of a board where free thought and free speech