Re: Forum-wide Rules and Moderation Discussion
Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:12 am
Perhaps using background colours instead of boxes? That would differentiate it from the Big Stompy Voice, and also make it look more informal.
Not really. I am using the prosilver surface, and both are very well visible.WearsHats wrote:The first one is almost invisible if you're set to ProSilver, though.
Controversy is a tricky one. For the most part, you're allowed to take any position you want, as long as you're not hurting anyone. But the definition of hurting someone can be sticky.ChuckDaRighteous wrote:And I feel like the mods for the most part have been fine. I do feel like they need more consistency on the controversy forum though. People's passions tend to get very inflamed on subjects particularly those they have some sort of personal stake or connection too. This creates a place where there is a much thinner line between expressing themselves and crossing the line. I think this has led to a lot of inconsistency. Not saying this is the mod's fault but perhaps you should have clearer guidelines on when to intervene in this particular forum. There are times where I feel like the mods stepped in to early and squashed a view point rather than inappropriate behavior and other times where they let someone get away with an absolutely horrible violation. I think more attention needs to be payed (by both users and mods) to the difference between criticism of a viewpoint and criticism of a user. There are times where I've seen people take any criticism of a viewpoint as personal insult and run to the mods.
Had the system been in place at the time, I would quite probably never have gotten to that point. I think it is somewhat unfair of you to not be willing to expand the benefits of this new structure to those who had already run afoul of the inadequacies of the old system (not just me, anyone who you banned or almost banned in the past, unless it was for outright crimes like spamming).SeeAMoose wrote:The bad news is that we aren't going to do it your way and even if we were you are so far past the point of where we would use probation that you wouldn't qualify.
Why, exactly? Chemical imbalances in the brain are a real thing, and this community has no controls whatsoever in place to verify that people who sign up for it are "of sound mind", whatever the heck that meant back when it was a common phrase in jurisprudence, before the science of psychology had even been invented.If in fact you are not able to control yourself then I do feel sorry for you... but we have to treat everyone like they are rational adult capable of making informed choices
Only if you were extremely insensitive in your rejections or suggested revisions. The whole point of my suggested system is to extensively work WITH the "unacceptible" person to help them become "acceptible". A system should be engineered to serve the needs of its most vulnerable sub-population; that's pretty much always been the logic behind how our social structures (not things like big businesses, but governments and nonprofits and various similar people-focused agencies) are operated.Moreover, if we were actually to follow through with your plan, people like yourself would flip out about how we were repressing them.
Well, I have been trying and I will continue to try, but I object to the condescending notion that I "need to learn". I am not some unruly child; I am a person with a serious mental health problem that has no real cure, and I have profound difficulties functioning in society, even without being constantly stigmatized, marginalized, and otherwise mistreated by people who refuse to understand the nature of the problem. Right now, it is extremely difficult for me to restrain myself from exploding with anger toward you, and keep this to a civilly-phrased objection to the fact I believe I am being treated unjustly.Sorry, but you will just need to learn to behave appropriately if you want to continue to participate in this forum.
Willpell, to be clear, this new policy will not apply to Controversy so it would have had precisely zero impact on your ban from that subforum. As you know, Controversy has its own stricter rules. Additionally, probation is meant to be a temporary thing, probably for a week to give someone one final chance before a final ban. You are the only one who has come this close to being banned permanently (with the exception of the person Thunt banned). If you will recall, I did try to work with you extensively prior to your ban from Controversy and we did try to explain to you what would be considered acceptable. Unfortunately, there were few changes in your behavior despite the time we invested. If anything, I think the fact that we haven't banned you is a testament to our restraint.willpell wrote:Had the system been in place at the time, I would quite probably never have gotten to that point. I think it is somewhat unfair of you to not be willing to expand the benefits of this new structure to those who had already run afoul of the inadequacies of the old system (not just me, anyone who you banned or almost banned in the past, unless it was for outright crimes like spamming).SeeAMoose wrote:The bad news is that we aren't going to do it your way and even if we were you are so far past the point of where we would use probation that you wouldn't qualify.
Agreed, chemical imbalances in the brain are a real thing. Everyone has some issues, myself included and we all need to deal with them however we can. I do sympathize with you, and I'm sorry that you have to deal with these issues. However, what we as moderators have to consider is behavior and how that behavior affects the community. If a forumite's behavior has a harmful impact on the community we have to take action, even if they say that they aren't responsible for their own behavior. Also, bear in mind that we do not have the resources of a government.Why, exactly? Chemical imbalances in the brain are a real thing, and this community has no controls whatsoever in place to verify that people who sign up for it are "of sound mind", whatever the heck that meant back when it was a common phrase in jurisprudence, before the science of psychology had even been invented.If in fact you are not able to control yourself then I do feel sorry for you... but we have to treat everyone like they are rational adult capable of making informed choices
By whose definition of acceptable? Your suggested system is unworkable in practice. What you suggest is for us to essentially keep adding moderators to edit your posts until you are happy with their revisions (and you expect people to edit your entire posts to make them acceptable which would by definition be by our definition of acceptable... and which you would undoubtedly consider insensitive). Now, I'm simply basing this on your past reactions to us telling you that your behavior was unacceptable, so I could be wrong. However, to me the cure would be worse than the poison. I am a firm believer in protecting vulnerable sub-populations... but there is a limit. You are talking about a subgroup of one, namely yourself. You want us to make accommodations for your poor behavior that will require significant investments of time and energy in order for you to be able to say whatever you want, possibly far in excess of the time you would have to invest to make the post.Only if you were extremely insensitive in your rejections or suggested revisions. The whole point of my suggested system is to extensively work WITH the "unacceptible" person to help them become "acceptible". A system should be engineered to serve the needs of its most vulnerable sub-population; that's pretty much always been the logic behind how our social structures (not things like big businesses, but governments and nonprofits and various similar people-focused agencies) are operated.Moreover, if we were actually to follow through with your plan, people like yourself would flip out about how we were repressing them.
Willpell, I am more than willing to work with people to help them learn to participate appropriately in this forum, and I have done so with you before. However, what I cannot do is continue to cater to the needs of one person who refuses to behave appropriately, regardless of whether they are fully in control of their actions. In fact, that's even more the case if they actually can't control themselves because that means that they're more likely to harm the community.Well, I have been trying and I will continue to try, but I object to the condescending notion that I "need to learn". I am not some unruly child; I am a person with a serious mental health problem that has no real cure, and I have profound difficulties functioning in society, even without being constantly stigmatized, marginalized, and otherwise mistreated by people who refuse to understand the nature of the problem. Right now, it is extremely difficult for me to restrain myself from exploding with anger toward you, and keep this to a civilly-phrased objection to the fact I believe I am being treated unjustly.Sorry, but you will just need to learn to behave appropriately if you want to continue to participate in this forum.
If you think you've been pushed past the point where you just don't care anymore, you've lost all sympathy for me and people like me and you just aren't going to listen to any complaints, then I respectfully submit that maybe you don't really want the responsibility of being in charge anymore, and should consider stepping aside, delegating someone else to shoulder the burden for a while. Because as long as you are in charge, you have a responsibility not to let your feelings - or your personal biases, which I believe you may be using in deciding what kind of person I am - interfere with your ability to objectively interact with members of this community. It's a tall order; there's no shame in you saying that you're just not up for it anymore. But you cannot do your job well if you're too jaded to take a complaint like mine seriously; I'm not saying you have to agree, but I think you at least owe me an apology for talking down to me so, as I do not deserve to have my problems belittled.
! | This is not an invitation to argue. I would remind you that you are already on thin ice and you should be mindful of what you say if you want to remain a member of this community. |
A mutually satisfactory one.SeeAMoose wrote:By whose definition of acceptable?
Possibly so; I definitely buy that you don't have the resources it would require to put it into effect, that's a perfectly sensible statement to which I have no counter. I still think it is theoretically what would be correct.Your suggested system is unworkable in practice.
You are. No one should ever assume that they can predict or understand me based on any incomplete data set. I know everything there is to know about me (except for what I've forgotten), and even I don't know what I was really thinking in the past or what I'm going to end up doing in future. But I think that in this regard, I differ from the vast majority of human beings only in the matter of degree or scale. Human nature is inherently incomprehensible, I believe, and human societies are too quick to make assumptions and categorizations, which should be done to the absolute minimum possible degree in all cases, I'm adamantly certain of that.Now, I'm simply basing this on your past reactions to us telling you that your behavior was unacceptable, so I could be wrong.
No, I am talking about a principle, and one which I believe would benefit everyone. Who knows how much more expressive some forumites, who currently only lurk or post infrequently, might become if they were more confident that they could speak freely and safely, without fear of retribution? Having rules against trolls doesn't stop actual trolls, it only stops people from posting earnestly in ways that they fear might cause them to be mistaken for trolls. Actual trolls will always find clever ways of working around any barriers placed in their path; it's better for everyone else just not to have more than the bare minimum number of barriers in the first place (and inflict extremely heavy sanctions on anyone who crosses those few lines, so that most people never stray even remotely close to them).You are talking about a subgroup of one, namely yourself.
There it is again, the condescenscion, which I'm making an effort to keep from getting to me. What makes you think you have the right to teach me anything? I'm not a child, I'm a person who's doing the best they can to get through their life - THEIR life, their own, their responsibility. As a public servant, it is your responsibility to cater to my needs, as you do to the needs of each other forumite; it is not in any way your responsibility to instruct or guide any of us unless we specifically request it. I (and various unspecified others, past and present and hypothetical future) cannot always control my own behavior, and so you should not inflexibly enforce the rules against me (and those same others); there should be leeway (and there is some, I know, I just think there should be more), enough that ALL situations can be resolved amicably, unless one party is clearly being completely unreasonable and not even trying to accomodate the other - which would include both a troll who never intended to follow the rules AND a leadership that unfailingly enforced them exactly as written.You would also be wise to think through your argument to its logical conclusion. You say that you cannot control your own behavior. What point is there in us trying to teach you when we have already tried before and you just told me it really won't matter?
That was not even me saying you should, it was just a hypothetical. As I said, your authority position means you must be held to an extremely high standard for your behavior, far more than would be reasonable to expect of me as just another forumite. I would never try to do your job, because I know I'm not capable of keeping my personal biases from influencing my performance. Whether you are capable of doing so, only you know...I'm merely creating an if/then statement, IF you aren't able to perform objectively, seeing to the needs of even someone you have a personal grudge against, THEN you don't belong in authority. I apply that principle to ALL authority positions, from the shift manager at Burger King to the POTUS or the chair of the UN. Nobody who would ever act in a less than perfectly objective fashion has a right to make decisions, period. Leadership roles are not about being in charge, they are the ultimate form of subservience, which only the most devoted, humble, and self-sacrificing person should hold - and I'm 99.999% certain that NO human who ever lived can be that charitable forever, so I think all leadership positions should regularly rotate out, to minimize the wear and tear that wearing a heavy crown takes on the psyche. Since this is not done in the world we have, little wonder that nearly all our leaders end up corrupt and the whole of society is pretty much circling the drain as we speak; it's the inevitable result of treating power as a privilege, when it was always a burden.As to your suggestion that I step down as admin because you don't think you're being treated fairly...
I still regard this as a debate rather than an argument, and I am being extremely mindful of what I say (and fortunately, my issues are not flaring up at the moment, so I am able to maintain that mindfulness without much trouble). I've more or less said my piece now, I think; if you still have things to say in response, I may find myself having things to say in response to those, but it appears likely that the conversation is largely wrapped up for the moment. (And in case anyone thinks this, no I'm not the kind of person who has to get the last word, just that I have to finish speaking whatever's on my mind, until nothing more strongly needs to be said.)This is not an invitation to argue. I would remind you that you are already on thin ice and you should be mindful of what you say if you want to remain a member of this community.
Becoming a police state is not something which we wish to become nor should we strive for, also please note that it would be a lot of hard work on our part to police everybody to beneifit only you.willpell wrote:Possibly so; I definitely buy that you don't have the resources it would require to put it into effect, that's a perfectly sensible statement to which I have no counter. I still think it is theoretically what would be correct.Your suggested system is unworkable in practice.
That does not excuse, Willspell, and honestly everybody else (or a vast majority) is capabable of following social codes and not throw insults.You are. No one should ever assume that they can predict or understand me based on any incomplete data set. I know everything there is to know about me (except for what I've forgotten), and even I don't know what I was really thinking in the past or what I'm going to end up doing in future. But I think that in this regard, I differ from the vast majority of human beings only in the matter of degree or scale. Human nature is inherently incomprehensible, I believe, and human societies are too quick to make assumptions and categorizations, which should be done to the absolute minimum possible degree in all cases, I'm adamantly certain of that.Now, I'm simply basing this on your past reactions to us telling you that your behavior was unacceptable, so I could be wrong.
You are correct that we do not know the number, but if they wished to speak they could have. And while rules do not stop them, we can prevent them from devistating the community as a whole. I find it somewhat amusing for you to say that trolls can try to breach borders, which you have done so many times before. And we gave you several warnings as a result. W are already have these barriers.No, I am talking about a principle, and one which I believe would benefit everyone. Who knows how much more expressive some forumites, who currently only lurk or post infrequently, might become if they were more confident that they could speak freely and safely, without fear of retribution? Having rules against trolls doesn't stop actual trolls, it only stops people from posting earnestly in ways that they fear might cause them to be mistaken for trolls. Actual trolls will always find clever ways of working around any barriers placed in their path; it's better for everyone else just not to have more than the bare minimum number of barriers in the first place (and inflict extremely heavy sanctions on anyone who crosses those few lines, so that most people never stray even remotely close to them).You are talking about a subgroup of one, namely yourself.
I am not the sole beneficiary; I am simply the self-appointed speaker for a silent legion of uncertain size.
No willspell. No we don't. We do NOT have to cater to you. We do NOT have to be pushed around like this. It is our responsiblity to guide you if you go to damage society on the whole. If you say you have responsibility in your own life then go with it, but it is obvious that you cannot and that you are being unreasonable.There it is again, the condescenscion, which I'm making an effort to keep from getting to me. What makes you think you have the right to teach me anything? I'm not a child, I'm a person who's doing the best they can to get through their life - THEIR life, their own, their responsibility. As a public servant, it is your responsibility to cater to my needs, as you do to the needs of each other forumite; it is not in any way your responsibility to instruct or guide any of us unless we specifically request it. I (and various unspecified others, past and present and hypothetical future) cannot always control my own behavior, and so you should not inflexibly enforce the rules against me (and those same others); there should be leeway (and there is some, I know, I just think there should be more), enough that ALL situations can be resolved amicably, unless one party is clearly being completely unreasonable and not even trying to accomodate the other - which would include both a troll who never intended to follow the rules AND a leadership that unfailingly enforced them exactly as written.You would also be wise to think through your argument to its logical conclusion. You say that you cannot control your own behavior. What point is there in us trying to teach you when we have already tried before and you just told me it really won't matter?
We are trying to be as objective as we could, and yes we all have our biases that does not mean we can't be authorities, especially with one that constantly goes out of their way to break the rules.
That was not even me saying you should, it was just a hypothetical. As I said, your authority position means you must be held to an extremely high standard for your behavior, far more than would be reasonable to expect of me as just another forumite. I would never try to do your job, because I know I'm not capable of keeping my personal biases from influencing my performance. Whether you are capable of doing so, only you know...I'm merely creating an if/then statement, IF you aren't able to perform objectively, seeing to the needs of even someone you have a personal grudge against, THEN you don't belong in authority. I apply that principle to ALL authority positions, from the shift manager at Burger King to the POTUS or the chair of the UN. Nobody who would ever act in a less than perfectly objective fashion has a right to make decisions, period. Leadership roles are not about being in charge, they are the ultimate form of subservience, which only the most devoted, humble, and self-sacrificing person should hold - and I'm 99.999% certain that NO human who ever lived can be that charitable forever, so I think all leadership positions should regularly rotate out, to minimize the wear and tear that wearing a heavy crown takes on the psyche. Since this is not done in the world we have, little wonder that nearly all our leaders end up corrupt and the whole of society is pretty much circling the drain as we speak; it's the inevitable result of treating power as a privilege, when it was always a burden.As to your suggestion that I step down as admin because you don't think you're being treated fairly...
Riiiiiiiiiight. And totally not a way to try to undermine us.I still regard this as a debate rather than an argument, and I am being extremely mindful of what I say (and fortunately, my issues are not flaring up at the moment, so I am able to maintain that mindfulness without much trouble). I've more or less said my piece now, I think; if you still have things to say in response, I may find myself having things to say in response to those, but it appears likely that the conversation is largely wrapped up for the moment. (And in case anyone thinks this, no I'm not the kind of person who has to get the last word, just that I have to finish speaking whatever's on my mind, until nothing more strongly needs to be said.)This is not an invitation to argue. I would remind you that you are already on thin ice and you should be mindful of what you say if you want to remain a member of this community.
We can never truly know anyone 100%, including ourselves. That's true. But you've established a very consistent pattern within these specific circumstances, and I'd say it's fair to make projections based on that.You are. No one should ever assume that they can predict or understand me based on any incomplete data set. I know everything there is to know about me (except for what I've forgotten), and even I don't know what I was really thinking in the past or what I'm going to end up doing in future. But I think that in this regard, I differ from the vast majority of human beings only in the matter of degree or scale. Human nature is inherently incomprehensible, I believe, and human societies are too quick to make assumptions and categorizations, which should be done to the absolute minimum possible degree in all cases, I'm adamantly certain of that.Now, I'm simply basing this on your past reactions to us telling you that your behavior was unacceptable, so I could be wrong.
So, hypothetically, there are a bunch of lurkers out there who are too afraid of the mods to speak up. Even though we go out of our way to let everyone speak, even when we strongly disagree with what they're saying, so long as they're not breaking the rules. And even when they do break the rules, we give them the benefit of the doubt, point out that the rules are being broken, and politely request that they amend their behavior in the future. But, somehow, these hypothetical lurkers for whom you are the self-appointed spokesman would be less afraid of us if we instead put them on indefinite probation and edited all their posts before anyone was allowed to see them. That seems highly dubious.No, I am talking about a principle, and one which I believe would benefit everyone. Who knows how much more expressive some forumites, who currently only lurk or post infrequently, might become if they were more confident that they could speak freely and safely, without fear of retribution? Having rules against trolls doesn't stop actual trolls, it only stops people from posting earnestly in ways that they fear might cause them to be mistaken for trolls. Actual trolls will always find clever ways of working around any barriers placed in their path; it's better for everyone else just not to have more than the bare minimum number of barriers in the first place (and inflict extremely heavy sanctions on anyone who crosses those few lines, so that most people never stray even remotely close to them).You are talking about a subgroup of one, namely yourself.
I am not the sole beneficiary; I am simply the self-appointed speaker for a silent legion of uncertain size.
You're asking us to teach you how to stay within the rules by working with you to individually edit each and every post you make so that it conforms to what's acceptable within the rules of the community, and now you're telling us that we don't have the right to teach you and that attempting to do so is condescending and treating you like a child.There it is again, the condescenscion, which I'm making an effort to keep from getting to me. What makes you think you have the right to teach me anything?
You just said it yourself. We're not inflexible. We have tried to work with you. But when you break the rules, you face the consequences for doing so. That's how rules work. That's how society works. (Also, when we do provide flexibility, people complain that we don't enforce the rules fairly and evenly.)I (and various unspecified others, past and present and hypothetical future) cannot always control my own behavior, and so you should not inflexibly enforce the rules against me (and those same others); there should be leeway (and there is some, I know, I just think there should be more),
I'll remind you that you've also explicitly said, after being punished for your behavior in Controversy, that you would, upon being allowed back in to that forum, behave yourself properly just long enough for tempers to cool and then go right back to what you were doing before. Which statement you followed up by doing exactly that. Which proves that you are aware of the limits and that you can stay within them when you want to. Also, that you will only accommodate the rules when forced to under threat of banishment.enough that ALL situations can be resolved amicably, unless one party is clearly being completely unreasonable and not even trying to accomodate the other - which would include both a troll who never intended to follow the rules AND a leadership that unfailingly enforced them exactly as written.
And yet, your response to a counterargument is to claim that Moose is being condescending and treating you like a child. You can't have it both ways.I still regard this as a debate rather than an argument
if you still have things to say in response, I may find myself having things to say in response to those, but it appears likely that the conversation is largely wrapped up for the moment. (And in case anyone thinks this, no I'm not the kind of person who has to get the last word, just that I have to finish speaking whatever's on my mind, until nothing more strongly needs to be said.)
Yes. Perhaps it's best that we just drop this. You've made your suggestion. It's been deemed unworkable. Let's move on.Possibly so; I definitely buy that you don't have the resources it would require to put it into effect, that's a perfectly sensible statement to which I have no counter. I still think it is theoretically what would be correct.Your suggested system is unworkable in practice.
Here's something for mods to perhaps consider as food for thought... you may not be speaking in mod voice, and you may not be giving a formal warning, but a declaration or order from you will often be received just like a declaration or order from a uniformed police officer, which will be received as a statement from authority. And that's true regardless of whether someone is acting in an official capacity in any given situation or not.RocketScientist wrote:Um. Did I give you warning? Did you get in any sort of trouble at all? Did I even suggest that you were in trouble? It was a "please don't do this" reminder.
It's also implied that what is said outside of a Mod voice or the Info box is informal and not a smack on the hand. It's like your mom reminding you speak nicely to your brother. Did the request come from authority? Yes. Did your middle name come out and the tone of voice change? Nope. So you take the suggestion to heart but without the implication that if you don't something bad will happen.Ansan Gotti wrote:I'm moving a small portion of a response from another thread to this thread, as it seems more appropriate here.
Here's something for mods to perhaps consider as food for thought... you may not be speaking in mod voice, and you may not be giving a formal warning, but a declaration or order from you will often be received just like a declaration or order from a uniformed police officer, which will be received as a statement from authority. And that's true regardless of whether someone is acting in an official capacity in any given situation or not.RocketScientist wrote:Um. Did I give you warning? Did you get in any sort of trouble at all? Did I even suggest that you were in trouble? It was a "please don't do this" reminder.
Thanks for that, you couldn't get me to do your job if you paid me. I do think that the Mods in this forum work much, much harder than people realize to not formally warn or punish people or use the various tools at your disposal. Unfortunately, some people (and I am in no way naming ANY names, or pointing at anybody specifically) either choose to use that to their advantage, or perceive the minimal intervention you do use as heavy handed because they do not understand how much more you could do to silence them.Wolfie wrote: I realize that just being a mod or admin carries with it a little more clout in everyday conversations, but we're also users who like to join in on the conversations. In most instances, a small nudge like that is something I would write even if I wasn't a mod/admin and was just a user. CooksACarrot is pretty good at trying to step in and be a mod without actually being one. Just one of the guys looking out for the others.
Please give me some credit for realizing this. However, I have to wonder, would you complain to the hypothetical officer's superiors if s/he said "hey, don't ride your skateboard in this park, ok? It's not permitted here." Would you assume s/he is only saying that because the person was annoying him/her? Would you make an announcement in the newspaper saying you're not trying to start an argument, but police speak with authority, and may inadvertently upset some people? Because literally (real, dictionary meaning of literally in use here) every single post I make is dissected, argued with and complained about. And my patience with this behavior is wearing thin.Ansan Gotti wrote:I'm moving a small portion of a response from another thread to this thread, as it seems more appropriate here.
Here's something for mods to perhaps consider as food for thought... you may not be speaking in mod voice, and you may not be giving a formal warning, but a declaration or order from you will often be received just like a declaration or order from a uniformed police officer, which will be received as a statement from authority. And that's true regardless of whether someone is acting in an official capacity in any given situation or not.RocketScientist wrote:Um. Did I give you warning? Did you get in any sort of trouble at all? Did I even suggest that you were in trouble? It was a "please don't do this" reminder.