The State of the Forum

[Grayman]

I'm curious what values and purpose members have in mind when they think of the community here. When the forum began it had a mission, as someone mentioned, to be an online sanctuary for INTPs. For lots of reasons I think we have outgrown that, but what do you think?

(Apologies to any whose view on the matter has already been expressed - if you could offer something pithy for a little brainstorming now?)

Something I said earlier...

http://intpforum.com/showpost.php?p=443782&postcount=43

I am thinking of a more overall response but I don't want to be rash.

 

[DelusiveNinja]

Obviously the quick and worried response to swifter bans is that interesting people will then be banned along with trolls. As an admin of a forum, if you are any good at your job, you spend a significant chunk of your time parsing out the trolls from the non-trolls. Very rarely is it so black and white. A member may have some interesting insights but if it's 20% that and 80% trollish behavior do you keep the member around for the sake of the 20%? What if it's 40% or 60%? Where is the line?

Yes. I also think this highlights the main question admins face. However, I don't think this is something for the whole of INTP Forum to decide upon. Who decides then? Well its certainly not going to be the people who are more likely to be prosecuted (cough, cough non-mods). The reason, needless to say (i hope), is just as L puts it in Death Note when Light wanted to know what he could do to clear L's suspicion of him.

L: "Furthermore, it's complete nonsense for the investigator to take suggestions from a suspect."

Ironically, I don't think anything is wrong with giving opinions.

Instead of creating hardline rules we can create a general sense of mood for each subforum. Perhaps a sticky in each subforum with a few guidelines of what the point of that subforum would be. As I personally think that it would be crucial to not strickly enforce the guidelines of each section. Fluidity is beneficial to growth and understanding. So a loose guideline for each section would be the best option in my mind. The question is: If we create such a thing are you guys going to adhear to it? Or will we admin be given more work in the form of constantly moving your threads around to the proper areas? INTPs are like cats. Herding them is a neigh on impossible. But I do like the idea in a general sense.

Wouldn't that have the same effect of OPs in threads, which are suppose to act as a general theme of what should be said in a thread? Picture this:

A thread, correctly placed in a subforum, based off of the admin's "sticky note guidelines" and in that thread lies an interesting OP producing a considerable amount of rapport. And then, suddenly, someone derails the thread in a way that produces a negative environment! You split the derail into a separate one-on-one arena for the "derailers" to duel it out with a roaring INTP Forum audience in the background. And then the victor is decided, the thread is closed and the main "derailers" receive a well deserved vacation.

What I'm trying to say is that you probably would just be wasting your time because incorrectly placed threads and misunderstood subsections of the forum are not the problem, in my opinion. If there was to be a problem, I would say that the admins are doing what they can. Unless you can efficiently stop derails, which lead to a negative forum environment and arena style duels. That arouse threads like these that sometimes can be duplicated multiple times and lead to admins closing even more threads.

Hey look I might have actually said something useful for a change.

 

[RaBind]

I was going to start a thread about speculating the covert/ambiguous characteristics that get users to end up banned. I was pretty far down the road to doing that as well, but it finally came to the part of the thread where I start it off by giving my own first examples but I could only think of a handful.

Just stuff like bad written communication skills in posts making them ambiguous and hiding any logical arguments that may've been present, just generally being an asshole, writing things without spending time thinking from different perspectives, not spending time introspecting about stupid things they've written before, not admitting to have done so when is the case and not sorting out misunderstandings, which have arisen form said things, after a change of heart or understanding the situation better.

Well really most of it can just be summed up as not thinking clearly/enough, not communicating clearly and being an asshole. So I guess I just agree with the sentiments expressed earlier, that there should be more bans, especially temporary ones, as they allow users to introspect.

BTW I choose the option "I Don't Care", but it seems thinking about how forums should be managed and how they can be improved is an interesting topic in itself, plus I'm bored.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

This is not a criticism, just an observation, but administration here is more on the inactive and behind-the-scenes side. I understand that old veterans might be weary, or that people have real life issues to attend to, but I have always liked it when authority has lead by example (I recall that leader vs boss image THD once linked..).

Leading by example serves as an inspiration for members, and it steers activity towards where it should be going, unlike bans which are a form of mitigation after-the-fact and have the potential to stimulate anxiety or fervor.

As to what that entails in terms of content, I guess we're supposed to be discussing that now, "values and purpose" in loveofreason's words.



R.I.P. to Base Groove of course

 

[The Gopher]

A moment of silence for Base Groove everyone. He fought with the LoR and lost.


... and this goes straight into the silly one line posts topic. I don't think it's a problem in fun threads or even debates if there is a perfect moment or is lowers tension. If designed purely for fun and not as a backward insult then it's fine. It's when it's part of the debate and it's one line and it's vague with or without being insulting it could be a problem. That said Hado and others are good with brevity so if it is clear as a debate line then it's probably also fine.

(also friendly insults are fine as well particularly in the arena obviously), the problem is backhand insults when it comes to jokes)

 

[Pyropyro]

When the forum began it had a mission, as someone mentioned, to be an online sanctuary for INTPs. For lots of reasons I think we have outgrown that, but what do you think?

I think the forum can't go back to its roots anymore since the internet has become more welcoming to our kind. Besides, Intjforum seems to have a rather unhealthy fascination with INTP. I just passed by a thread where INTP's were treated like some sort of pokemon, I hope they weren't serious.

So instead of a sanctuary where we cower in fear of the external world, how about seeing INTPf as a forum where we can roll our pots aimlessly.

 

[Grayman]

Being we get a moment of silence for Base_Groove perhaps now his last words that he seemed to want me to post before passing. Then again he has said this (I can give out his posts) in the past so maybe he didn't know. A PM to grayman.

Well I have a confession to make: I had been grazing over your posts a bit, so I was not getting 100% of the information you're trying to deliver and was skimming for content which I thought pertained to me. I should have been more respectful and I think Cav addressed this as well with her comments about :actually reading:.

Every time I reread now (as I have been), I realize more and more where you were coming from and that the final exchange was totally unnecessary, which is what you were saying to me.

At first I was going to protest that the final post of yours in the main thread should also be moved as part of the derail but then I realized that instead I would take responsibility for something that I started.

I think I caught some people off guard by quoting one person but talking about another in an attempt to deliver criticism to both of them. Although that original exchange is perhaps unsettled ... the exchange between us was totally unexpected and out of place. If anything it was just me being super sensitive to perceive sleights and then putting my helmet on and attacking them full-force with a heavy sword which eventually wears me out because I keep missing the mark and I collapse in a heap of ball sweat.

Should the occasion arise (not saying it will) you have my consent to distribute the content of this message as you see fit.

He left me on a good note anyways.

I appreciate this. I will not be sending your apology around unless you ask it of me specifically. I just wanted to make sure we were good and I am glad we are. I have enjoyed your posts and wanted to make sure we both still would feel welcome replying to eachother in the future. It seems that we are.

Thanks again.

Suddenly my response seems rather silly considering I cannot reply to him...

 

[Jennywocky]

Being we get a moment of silence for Base_Groove perhaps his last words that he seemed to want me to post before passing. A PM to grayman.

He left me on a good note anyways.

Thanks for that. And it makes sense to me.

My story (is this a wake?) about BG is that I no longer had him on Ignore. Why? Because I would occasionally run into some Quoted posts of his that I realized I appreciated and that made me think, and I came to an awareness that I might have misinterpreted a few of our earlier exchanges so there was still a possibility of real exchange.

[I had originally Ignored him because he came to my Wall to initiate a confusing conversation (apparently he thought I had intended something by an offhand spelling correction of his on the forum), and after probing around in a confusing back and forth, he lashed out because he thought I was snowing him... and I returned the belligerence and blocked him. Later, I realized he had just likely been confused over my intent, and his modus operandi is pretty much what he described in his Last PM. So I forgave the misunderstanding and moved on.]

Anyway, adieu, BG. It's not Amontillado, but it'll do. In pace requiescat!

 

[TimeAsylums]

is this a wake?

In pace requiescat!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hgw_RD_1_5I

 

[The Gopher]

(Okay lets not go too sentimental it's not a permaban) Although I wonder if that actually matters, banning definitions are only set in stone if they are perma.

Edit: wait no apparently it is.

 

[Pyropyro]

Bye BG.

In fairness, he does apologize when he thinks that he overstepped his bounds.

 

[Nick]

I'm here for the potatoes.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

A moment of silence for Base Groove everyone. He fought with the LoR and lost.


... and this goes straight into the silly one line posts topic. I don't think it's a problem in fun threads or even debates if there is a perfect moment or is lowers tension. If designed purely for fun and not as a backward insult then it's fine. It's when it's part of the debate and it's one line and it's vague with or without being insulting it could be a problem. That said Hado and others are good with brevity so if it is clear as a debate line then it's probably also fine.

(also friendly insults are fine as well particularly in the arena obviously), the problem is backhand insults when it comes to jokes)

I think frivolity should generally be allowed because these are people doing the posting after all, not robots. It's positive specially if it's within context and lightens the mood. It's the insults/distractions with no apparent appreciation for the subject matter or posters that shouldn't be tolerated. I enjoy memes/macros myself but I try to keep it under control.


As for the purpose of the forum, I honestly think it should stay as it is. There are still new people coming here to learn more about typology/INTP/themselves or to find a group to relate to. If any older member doesn't have an interest in typology anymore, in all truth that's that person's problem, the forum's official purpose need not be affected by that.

 

[Grayman]

One interesting thing that I ran into is a ban on MBTI typing of other individuals without request on the INTJ forum. At first I did not like it but then, seeing it used as a misdirection sometimes, it might be useful. It isn't a huge issue but there it is.

 

[Hadoblado]

One interesting thing that I ran into is a ban on MBTI typing of other individuals without request on the INTJ forum. At first I did not like it but then, seeing it used as a misdirection sometimes, it might be useful. It isn't a huge issue but there it is.

That is the exact change I was attempting to instigate with the witch-hunt thread (which is also a good example of members having influence without imposing it through madmin).

As for insults... Hmm looking at the linked thread I had no idea that this was the standard. I'm wondering if I've over-stepped that line on occasion? I know it described a different time, is it still the case that insults are an issue? I can't remember the last time I saw a meaningful insult, though it's not something I pay attention to at all unless it's directed at me.

Re: Typology
My problem with typology is that I'm immensely dubious of it at the best of times. There's some people here I respect the typing opinion of, but even then I don't take them on their word. The vast majority of type talk is done with little consideration for evidence that doesn't presuppose its conclusion, and I observe a trend by which the less experience you have with it the more circular your justification is. I don't want typology gone, I just want it justified like anything else.

 

[Auburn]

*stepping in to offer my $0.2*...

@Hado - yeah, passive insults and generally foul-mooded, tongue-in-cheek remarks have become a norm nowadays haven't they. It's kinda surprising to see something different, yet refreshing. It didn't use to be that way nor does it have to.

I personally enjoy things better without the snark and offhandedness. (Not that my preference is rooted solely on nostalgia; I all-around just think that it's a better form of interacting, from principle.)

It's seemed for a while now that a fair level of general trollishness has been allowed, and an attitude of "whutever, i don't care" is embedded in the intent of the posts - or the post has no intent or consideration for its impact, and is just the casual dropping of one's negative mental transcript. This has happened for so long now, and caused so many insightful posters to drift away elsewhere, that it often feels to me like the majority is now in accord with this sort of interaction, which is why it feels odd to suggest anything different. But it's not about the majority, but what the leaders wish for this place.

To go back a few thread pages (a related reply I didn't get to submit):

Instead of wondering what you mean by 'change', I wonder what you mean by 'prosper'?

Things are fine here. Societies are constantly changing and everyone bitches about it, but there's nothing you can do except change with it or die. If the society happens to perish because most of its members cannot handle the radical nature of a few individuals, so be it. That society has outlived its purpose anyway.

This attitude essentially sounds to me like:

Skit:
Troll: "I'm here bitches, deal with it."
*forum goes to shit*
Troll: "Oh well, it wasn't of use to me anymore anyways."

I think things will seem fine as they are to some members who have no particular standard of quality in mind. And in turn, post material of similar quality. I also think there's a tendency in this decade to use every medium of communication like an IM chat. =P

..I don't think all members who presently post fluff would continue to do so if this place was cleaned up a bit. There would be a sudden moment of "oh, so this is what this place is now.. ok" in which they may decide to share differently, now seeing that it's possible to do so. Others might get offended that they can't use this place as their casual snarky mind-dump anymore and they'll find other rivers to drink from. =)

@Direction of the forum - One thing is pretty certain; new members will encounter this forum on the premise of it being "INTPforum" so the INTP element can't really be taken out.

I can see, for example, this forum flourishing into a haven where people truly do discover themselves and their type. And a place dedicated to the evolution and growth of INTPs (and related types too). Not just flounder around in circles trying to decide what they are, only to find that they can't, and then give up on typology altogether and linger on the forum out of habit and for a place to chat. Not that that's so bad either, I just mean I could see it evolving into something else.

It would certainly help if 'INTP' was more of a legitimate topic and less of a speculation. It would make it possible to talk more meaningfully about each other, and to make real developmental headway. As it stands it's more like an initial lure, that doesn't lead anywhere. After the "yeah, me too!" threads (oh the fallacies!) there's no mission.

One of the things that made this place sparkle when it did is that there was a general curiosity from younger members as to what a realized INTP would be like, and older folk played a role of mentor or at least example of a lifepath trotted. EditorOne, Eudemonia, EloquentBohemian, Lor, Jennywocky, Architect, etc.. ..have all contributed to this role in the past. It helps a lot. And there are other new ones rising, some lurking, some developing. I'm only 24 but I feel I could also start sharing insights as they've come to me, and I've learned a great deal of actual, non-theoretical knowledge about Ti-Ne's in the past years - as well as all types as I've come to identify them.

The way I see the solution to this problem is that it's two-part.

- Establish the right framework
- Get the right people
​

The framework refers to the mod team's modus operandi, the maintenance and consistency of "keeping the garden". The second refers to what plants are in this garden; what sort of garden it is. Of coruse, the second part is less in the control of the modteam but I think that just by making it more habitable, more of the right sort of people and interactions will take place. Place the right type of fertilizer, pesticides, and wala!

(I probably had something else to say, but it's gotten late and I need teh sleeps. >,<)

 

[Hadoblado]

I think a lot of the snark is essentially a rejection by an old member of the change a new member might bring to the forum. I know this is largely how it functions for me.

As for having a completely snark free environment, I'm not sure I'd prefer that. Perhaps if we had a recourse by which, when a shitfest starts, the thread is split into a subforum in the inner sanctum in which that type of behaviour is acceptable? Essentially, I'm for managing strife rather than outlawing it.

 

[Rook]

As for having a completely snark free environment, I'm not sure I'd prefer that. Perhaps if we had a recourse by which, when a shitfest starts, the thread is split into a subforum in the inner sanctum in which that type of behaviour is acceptable? Essentially, I'm for managing strife rather than outlawing it.

Personally, I like this idea. It may have the problem of overspilling into another thread, but if that happens I think a ban might be justified.

This is more of an "forced witch hunt thread", with room to argue it out as long as the forum is not disrupted.

 

[Grayman]

Personally, I like this idea. It may have the problem of overspilling into another thread, but if that happens I think a ban might be justified.

This is more of an "forced witch hunt thread", with room to argue it out as long as the forum is not disrupted.

Temp ban or perma?


@admin as a suggestion

There has been a call for increased banning but... perhaps increased temp bans would be more prudent than increased perma bans. Maybe a three strike rule. Anyone who is particularly bad will roll through the bans at a fast enough pace before he is out. I personally like the chance to go and cool off rehabilitate and come back with fresh eyes.

 

[Jennywocky]

Typically faster and shorter bans are better IMO... and then you increase to a perma eventually, if the user continues in the undesired behavior. It makes sense to not let the wagon veer too far off the road, or it's harder to get it back on track.

 

[Grayman]

The intjforum has a system where your infractions are counted and listed in your user cp or somwhere similar. I like the system because it serves as a specific reminder to what it is I should be focusing on, doing, or not doing in improving my experience on this forum. A PM is more personal but it sits tucked away out of sight out of mind.

 

[redbaron]

Typically faster and shorter bans are better IMO... and then you increase to a perma eventually, if the user continues in the undesired behavior. It makes sense to not let the wagon veer too far off the road, or it's harder to get it back on track.

Was going to add something to this effect.

When I was talking about mods being more decisive, I didn't necessarily mean they should be doling out permanent bans. I actually have found it a bit confusing to be honest, since it seems to jump between the two extremes. People either get permanently banned quickly or not at all.

Anyway given that the moderators are humans and have finite time and emotional resources to devote to the forum, I think that the last thing they need is more red tape. Some people seem to think Siberia is a good idea, but as far as I've noticed it makes little to no difference. Siberia still shows up in the 'New Posts' section and people confined there will still make threads and it doesn't really do all that much to remove the person from continuing on with whatever behaviour got them confined there in the first place, even though it restricts posting rights. I'd call it a band-aid fix, but I don't think it's even worthy of that title. It's practically useless except for in very rare (as in there's no point bothering with it) cases.

The simplest method seems to just be to have a much shorter leash with temp-bans. One day initially seems to work well on other forums, since sometimes all people need is a little bit of a cool-off. After that, 3-7 days. Beyond that whether it needs to be permanent (usually when the same issue keeps escalating) can be made at individual moderator discretion.

 

[Grayman]

Structure in my mind....

1 warning for a minor offense (duplicate thread) to a little less minor ad hominem
2nd warning only if it is not the same offense otherwise temp ban
Temp ban on third offense
Instant temp ban on offenses after

No warning on obvious and direct personal attacks instant temp ban for 2 weeks (calling someone a whore)
Perma ban on second offense

1st temp ban is 7 days. extended cool off
2nd 2 weeks. Minor statement.
3rd 1 month. People with agendas likely are not going to wait, for others this is a period to grow up.
4rth perma ban. Obviously not going to change.

Or

1st 3 days cool off
2nd 4 weeks. Making a statment
3rd perma ban statment did not work

 

[Jennywocky]

We're switching to the shorter bans on the forum I mod on. We used to have a "three strikes" rule with bigger bans.

Now we've basically got a "two strikes" rule especially if it's the same kind of offense, and we're just doing a week on it. If they do it when they come back without any real indication of change, we just hit them with a two-week, and so on. Less time debating each offense in the box, we've gotten used to the idea that we waste a lot of time on non-reformers. So if they come back after the ban with the same behavior, they go pretty much right back out, for a bit longer. At some point we'll decide the person isn't going to change, so then it's perma and/or really long ban (year or more) -- the jury is still out there.

I think it's hard for a mod staff that is not "J" oriented or that is more N oriented to create a system with no flexibility in it. Maybe you'd have better luck just having a general sense of things in place without trying to define and adhere to a bunch of tight rules, and going from there. You just want to make sure overall you're treating people similarly.

 

[Absurdity]

1 warning for a minor offense (duplicate thread) to a little less minor ad hominem
2nd warning only if it is not the same offense otherwise temp ban
Temp ban on third offense
Instant temp ban on offenses after

This is usually what we try to do as it is. Of course, there are a variety of reasons why we often fail to hew to this framework: lack of energy, long interludes between offenses, changing forum environment, good behavior, etc.

I can understand the desire for more consistency, and a more detailed and structured judicial process (I am an INTJ for god’s sake ). The reality of the modding experience though, is that these slow us down; when every offense has to be weighed against an established code and compared with precedent, and every mod argues a slightly different case in the modbox, things can easily spiral out of control in the forum. While we often have different opinions when deciding the best course of action to choose in dealing with a troublesome user, we are almost universally of the same mind when it comes to identifying who these users are.

If more decisiveness on our part and higher standards of content quality in the broader forum are desired, I think it can only be achieved with more fluidity and intuitive decision making on our part. With a rigid codex of rules, a user can keep to the letter of the law while riding roughshod over the rest of the forum and discouraging thoughtful members from contributing. I can think of nothing more damaging or insidious than this.

A sort of vision statement could allow us to avoid this, and we, the mods, are working to develop one. Ragnar’s rules are solid as they are, and I don’t see us making any major changes to them. The only improvement to be made there is a more specific and detailed outline of what constitutes being a “nuisance.” I imagine we will have something to present in the next few days, but we truly value user contributions in this process as well as with defining the values this place should stand for.

 

[loveofreason]

I echo Absurdity here. And Jenny makes the point too. Having a too detailed and rigid structure to follow will make our poor brains implode. We don't cognitively function that way.

There are those that follow the 'spirit' of the law of their own volition - the product of shared values and/or a shared purpose - then there seems to be those that are wondering what this 'spirit' is? Because mods haven't been consistent? But given a more rigid structure a successful nuisance will find ways to adhere to the letter of the law whilst violating the general principles behind it, and trashing the values those principles serve. That's where being fluid, adaptive, case by case, however you wish to phrase it... works. If I'm interpreting everything correctly, we just need to make it consistently work, and we need to work on the shared pupose that encourages cohesion.

Which is related to this notion of being 'INTP'...

Something I said earlier...

http://intpforum.com/showpost.php?p=443782&postcount=43

I am thinking of a more overall response but I don't want to be rash.

Most people end up here because they have somehow identified as INTP. We take a MBTI test, we get a result, we identify with the descriptions. But we're not necessarily INTPs.

It can take years of exploring what cognitive functions are to come to the realisation that the label is misapplied. Yet we share something about our behaviours and experience of life; enough so to feel some cohesiveness with others that experience (for example), similar fascinations for systems, an inquisitive mind, social awkwardness etc etc...

In short - your mod team aren't suited to microregulation, we of the forum are not all INTPs but we share commonalities, and we are all able to help one another clarify our common purpose.



Having said what I said about rigid structure: Temp bans are an interesting path though. I tend to think that if someone has already exhibited a behaviour, then had a chance at reform and backslid, that it's appropriate to cut losses and invest no more time. I've come to this stance after giving too many wasters too much slack. I guess that is an example of too much fluidity being corrected with a sudden snap. Obviously confusing for anyone trying to figure out what the social boundaries are. I can see now how a more consistent use of temp bans from the outset of nuisance behaviour could lead to the resolution of a problem before it gets too big and messy.

 

[Helvete]

Careful, Helvete. Such cruel and devious thinking could get you head-hunted for the mod team.

Don't, I'd be like a child playing with fire... Seriously though, taking any responsibility's a fools choice .

For me, simply put here's a place like minded can come exchange ideas and debate about whatever catches their interest at the time. The bigger this place gets, the wider those interests will become and everybody needs to be able to accommodate for that. I'm not saying they aren't now but as the general size increases it will ultimately increase the number of people being a nuisance and degrade the quality of the forum somewhat. I don't think the answer is to ban more, although I think it will be a likely outcome regardless but to have slightly stricter rules so people know where they stand. (It makes me feel sick inside to have to say that, I hate rules...)

Or I suppose the other alternative is to abolish all rules. Let people act like they want, the people actually interested in what goes on here and the other users will surely keep to a certain level of civility and be proactive to the forum and everyone else can be disposed of how the all powerful mods choose

 

[Solitaire U.]

More potatoes.

Damn straight, and less fucking carrots!

I mean, this thread is just another in a series that ask the same question.

It's been asked before...

It's been said before...

It's been voted on before...

It's been argued over before...

It's been analyzed, over analyzed, and over over analyzed before...

It's fizzled and died before...

It's been temporarily laid to rest before...

It's been resurrected again (and again and again) by a fresh-faced, zealous, well-meaning but ultimately powerless member before...

Nothing has ultimately come of it before...

It's interesting... you hang around here for a few years and realize that this place, this...world just spins round and round like a washing machine. The usernames change, like a new load of dirty clothes, but the cycle is exactly the same, the end result painfully repetitive...

...every time.

Such is life. This is how it's supposed to be, apparently.

su

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Or you do something to specifically break the cycle.

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

Sometimes lines aren't just thin or blurred but exist in multiple dimensions. I don't envy the moderator's job.

I'm not liking this garden analogy that has sprouted up (HA! A pun!) in this thread. On my property in the RL, I have both a flower and vegetable garden. All the plants there are there because WE put them there. If we didn't put it there it's a weed, pull it out! (yes I know sometimes they go to seed and sprout little offspring but this isn't really about plants)

We put ourselves here (Ragnar didn't select us from a nursery and bring us here). We each have our reasons for doing so but much more importanly we each have our wants. What each person wants out of this place can vary as greatly as the reasons that brought us here. Perhaps that is what members who wish, could submit. Private or public submissions I'm not sure of. There are reasons for both.

Would this help you guys (mods) get a better idea of what we want or hope for? An unfiltered/uninfluenced statement rather than a debate?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for banning: To me it's a given that a warning should come first unless it's painfully obvious what the poster's intent is (Spam comes to mind). I wonder though if these warnings should be private or made public.

Pros for private warnings: Less stress on the moderators, no public backlash as we've been seeing lately.

Cons: Others won't learn from it. Newer people especially will see this behavior and think it must be acceptable and perhaps respond in kind, escalating the problem.

Pros and Cons for public warnings: Reverse the above.

Warnings unheeded I feel should be a week long temp ban for first offence, a month long for a second and outright permaban for a third.

I've greatly dislike the idea of Siberia.

 

[TimeAsylums]

Sometimes lines ... exist in multiple dimensions

Don't lines by definition exist in one dimension?

 

[redbaron]

While we often have different opinions when deciding the best course of action to choose in dealing with a troublesome user, we are almost universally of the same mind when it comes to identifying who these users are.

I think this is one of the most important reasons that the system needs to be simple and fluid. If there's universal agreement that there's an issue, then sitting around and doing nothing is arguably just as bad as doing the wrong thing.

Feel free to disagree with me, but I think this is the kind of situation where temp bans have the best effect - as an early and clear warning to people who cause trouble that it won't be tolerated. There might be some dissension as to what specific course of action is, "optimal" - but I think it's somewhat misguided to remain passive while deciding. If there's universal agreement that a certain behaviour needs to be stopped, then it should be stopped. At least for a day. This also has the benefit of giving time to reflect on the best course of action to prevent further issues with the user, without having to simultaneously deal with them.

Just makes the whole process of moderating that much less tiresome and infuriating, as well as sets a clear example of what is or isn't acceptable.

 

[Grayman]

@ LOR and Absurdity

MBTI - Creativity best when given freedom.

I understand this and live it first hand. We like to try different things. We don't do well with consistency. We enjoy and are more satisfied with different experiences. Maybe, handling each issue on a case by case basis and trying to see it in many different ways.
The method we utilize is trial and failure. This is easy in programing. Save it and then try it a different way and if it does not work revert back. With people trial failure tactics is painful. It also extends the process of punishment. I am an INTP and have taken numerous tests. My Pness often rates at 70%+.

MBTI - Best Methods

An INTP likes to intuit but needs Ti validation and does best when all his functions are utilized and he can utilize Si data with that validation. I am a Ti dominant and am not an ENTP so when given an intuitive response as a valid answer I choke on it. I need it to be validated to my Ti to be accepted. It irritates me and I am forced to seek it out and can be obsessive in doing so.

Example:

Base groove permabanned for repeating a history of conduct unbecoming to rational argument, despite clear warnings.

This is an intuitive statement. It is entirely unclear. What does it really mean? I will discuss my various intuitions and the dangers that they pose later. (Next Post)


Consider a full functioned response that fully addresses the INTP's ability to understand. (Maybe include a "Warnings" thread similar to bans thread to show the warnings of all users and track it)

Ne: Base groove banned for repeating a history of conduct unbecoming to rational argument, despite clear warnings.

Ti: Base Groove committed two infractions of Ad Hominem despite warnings on this and other infractions as listed.

Si:
Most recent infractions by Base Groove
http://intpforum.com/showpost.php?p=443765&postcount=37
http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=20255&highlight=state+forum

***********

PAST DETAILS:
See Warnings list for more details
See Bans below for past temp bans if any exist

 

[redbaron]

Are they moderating a forum or the high court?

I think you might need to start considering that the ease of moderation is rather important if they're expected to also be consistent. The endless requests for the mods to justify every little action by people just makes them not want to moderate at all in the long run.

 

[Polaris]

Is Grayman speaking for the whole forum population here....?

Edit: I would like to see more input from other members here. So far only thirty-odd people have voted, does that mean everyone else are ok with whatever is decided? I would like to see this thread closed if it's just going to be nit-picking between Grayman and mods. I urge other users to have their say in the next few hours, for the above reason. I think there is sufficient information and very valuable input from other members already. So, can we get this finalised?

/J-mode

 

[Cavallier]

Yes, I think it's about time we buttoned up this thread before it becomes cumbersome. We've heard some good ideas, in some ways we've been validated as admins , and gotten some positive criticism.

If anybody else has some last minute ideas or has been holding off on comments please step forward and make a post.

We'll be closing this thread in a couple of hours.

Thanks everyone!

 

[Grayman]

This is usually what we try to do as it is. Of course, there are a variety of reasons why we often fail to hew to this framework: lack of energy, long interludes between offenses, changing forum environment, good behavior, etc.

I can understand the desire for more consistency, and a more detailed and structured judicial process (I am an INTJ for god’s sake ). The reality of the modding experience though, is that these slow us down; when every offense has to be weighed against an established code and compared with precedent, and every mod argues a slightly different case in the modbox, things can easily spiral out of control in the forum. While we often have different opinions when deciding the best course of action to choose in dealing with a troublesome user, we are almost universally of the same mind when it comes to identifying who these users are.

If more decisiveness on our part and higher standards of content quality in the broader forum are desired, I think it can only be achieved with more fluidity and intuitive decision making on our part. With a rigid codex of rules, a user can keep to the letter of the law while riding roughshod over the rest of the forum and discouraging thoughtful members from contributing. I can think of nothing more damaging or insidious than this.

A sort of vision statement could allow us to avoid this, and we, the mods, are working to develop one. Ragnar’s rules are solid as they are, and I don’t see us making any major changes to them. The only improvement to be made there is a more specific and detailed outline of what constitutes being a “nuisance.” I imagine we will have something to present in the next few days, but we truly value user contributions in this process as well as with defining the values this place should stand for.

'Need' a judicial process and defined rules is very correct.

There is a psychological effect on forum members when they don't have clarity on these particular things.


I agree with the last paragraph.

***********

This is an intuitive statement. It is entirely unclear. What does it really mean? I will discuss my various intuitions and the dangers that they pose later. (Next Post)

Base groove permabanned for repeating a history of conduct unbecoming to rational argument, despite clear warnings.

....

Consider a full functioned response that fully addresses the INTP's ability to understand.

Base groove permabanned for repeating a history of conduct unbecoming to rational argument, despite clear warnings.

There are several interpretations of this that I have. Many I ignore but are not fully discarded as invalid. The various interpretations sit in the back of my mind waiting for future data to take a front seat.

Dominant Interpretation: This one is based on my personal experience with Base Groove on this thread itself. Although it is the best interpretation it is also riddled with doubt on its validity since his ban was so steep and there was little other that I knew about that made this offense so...bad.

Not everyone was there for this and likely will not be fully aware of why Base Groove was banned. Consider someone who does not have a clear understanding of the admin and their’ intuitions’ or know past things that occurred on this forum. Here is an interpretation I desperately ignore... My reason and good will contains it but it plagues me nonetheless.

Consider that I am not always contributing to reasonable discussion. I am not always reasonable. It is not possible for me to do this. The quote indicates that the failure to not do this is to be banned. What does this mean? It means eventually I will be banned and there is nothing I can do about it. Worse, it is based on what LOR defines as reasonable and not a set standard. What the heck does LOR see as reasonable? Would any two people see everything the same way? Must I always step lightly to ensure I don’t…. do something wrong? …It has been said…”This is not a democracy”
Consider that this makes me fearful. I fear that eventually I will walk on the toes of the Admin. Why should I be afraid of them? Why should they put such unreasonable expectations on me? This leads me to anger, distaste for my predicament and paranoia toward the intentions of the mods.
The members who have been here longer, and more so those who know the admin well, seem to agree with the mods and encourage making a list of those they want to get rid of… This is horrible! There is favoritism here!

This is just the latest example: These ponderings sit at the back of my mind and every time an action occurs without backing I have to interpret it and be fair in my interpretation but nothing is simple or expressed in a way that I can be certain of the expectations of the mods placed on me. I am in fear. I feel a need to defend others and I am continually pressed emotional to respond in a negative way because I am not getting what I really need. I want to strike out. I want to criticize the mods and I want to react. But I don’t. I remain composed. I remain reasonable and do not give into paranoia.


This thought process occurs in various ways at different times and mostly because things remain and continue to be unclear. Not everyone gives the benefit of the doubt or can always muster up much trust for the intuitive decisions of the admin. Eventually people break and attack.

What I ‘need’ is clear expectations. I need clear expectations so that I know I am treated the same as everyone else and that I will not accidently fall into a hole and that I am not expected to do more than what is reasonable and right for me to do. Unless I get a clear defined and fair list of rules and the consequences, with a small sliding rule, I will struggle with this. Unless the rules are applied in a clear and defined way I will struggle with this. Others will struggle and you will be criticized and you will be attacked and you will be talked to disrespectfully. For me it is not that I do not trust the mods. It is that I do not know the mods and when I things are made clear for me… I have to seek the answers and all the while fight off the negative thoughts that bring me down about others above me and who they are connected to. I want to find a good and reasonable answer. A solution. a feeling that I am not going to get booted because I was just human and did not do as expected in what cannot be expected of me.

This is why there is an increase of attacks on the mods. It is not out of hate and dislike of you. It is not because you banned someone. It is out of fear. It is out of uncertainty and chaos. It is out of anger that results of these things and a feeling to protect the fearful. It is not because the mods are hard asses or push too hard or make too many rules. It is because they don't make more rules and are not clear with those rules and the implementation of those rules.

All these assaults on the mods have been breaking them down. It is apparent. I am sorry for this and I fear I am a contributor to this. The mods are going to enormous lengths to be considerate and try to understand people but are continually pushed. It is an impossible position. All the time you spend on dealing with this could have been put into logging and being concise with the exact violations. You could be 100% fair, just and sympathetic in all your rulings but it does not matter if no one can trust your intentions because they suffer from some unknown paranoia.


EXAMPLE:
If the rule says that you get two warnings and you cannot use ad hominenem, the repercussions of this is a temp ban of 7 days.
Who would disagree? Who could claim favoritism? Everything is clear and the blame is cast on the perpetrator and not on the mods ability to determine a proper punishment or if it deserved punishment at all. Everyone should know the consequences and the rules and they should be the same for everyone.

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

I haven't been a member long so I've just been following this thread. I'll just say my thoughts but do take it with a grain of salt given my short stay here. I won't use reason here, instead (dare I say it) I have faith in the system as a whole. The mods are a group that together have checks and balances and this balances between the mods and forum members. Leaders will topple anyway if the group as a whole losses trust and will be replaced. The mods and most members have the spirit of the law in mind and there will always be decisions that could have been better dealt with along with disgruntled members. Decisions aren't made in a vacuum and we as a whole are partially responsible for the way the forum is shaped. So lets use it wisely and keep ourselves in check with the spirit.

 

[TimeAsylums]

I would like to see more input from other members here.

So far only thirty-odd people have voted, does that mean

everyone else are ok with whatever is decided?

you votes are belong to us

 

[Polaris]

There is an anouncement of this thread's upcoming closure in the General section.

 

[Grayman]

Psychological effect on forum members...or Grayman?

Grayman, maybe members. Recent conflicts would indicate a possibility of both. I don't think I am that unique. Maybe I am just paranoid.
I don't usually do well with procedures at work, I just like to do my own thing. So it is not about that.

I still need to understand the system to be comfortable in it.

 

[Polaris]

^ Grayman, you have received yet another warning because you seem to have ignored the hints from Cavallier and myself previously in this thread.

 

[Minuend]

I have to go to work now, but.

I don't think you need to explain in further detail about bans than already done. It seems from past threads that users have their idea of what's right or not and details often have no effect.

I don't really see a lot of people having problems understand bans. (Is it really that difficult?) If they are in the danger zone, they will get warned. And if they have no idea why, they can PM a mod.

 

[Grayman]

^ Grayman, you have received yet another warning because you seem to have ignored the hints from Cavallier and myself previously in this thread.

You were not clear.


How was I supposed to know that was meaning that I am the only one who is not allowed to post especially in reply to a mod...?

 

[loveofreason]

I'm a primary intuitive, Grayman. And I hear posh english voices in my head. It's amusing. You had my attention with the concise example of a banning explanation, but nearly lost me with the wall of text.

I think I understand what you mean by the feeling of paranoia that affects a human when they don't know the rules. For many of us we probably feel it every time we walk into a room of people. What are the social expecations here? How can I possibly meet them? As individuals we develop differing strategies to deal with this. I think that paranoid lashing out is one less used... because it doesn't take many experiences in real life to learn that it makes it worse.

Where it becomes habituated it - in my experience - is part of a seriously intractable pyschological morass that is very hard to untangle or help. It isn't without a sense of grief that I recognise it, precisely because of the futility and familiarity.

If you want reference to a specific example, then considering Base groove, I asked the other mods whether this was typical behaviour. They reported that is was. His paranoia is self-destructive and intractable; he has good phases but lapses. One way of looking at it is that he was particularly vulnerable to a system without clear rules... another way of looking at it is to say he was particularly prone to exploiting a system without consistent implementation of clear rules. One human response to having disturbing issues is to look for places to act them out and trigger them and play them over and over. It's a pretty crap feeling when someone wants you to beat them up; wants you to be their Big Bad. So when someone else wants to hook you into their drama, what do you do? What's the most simple, healthy and respectful action?

Uh, no not the tranquiliser gun. (The tranquiliser gun! THE TRANQUILISER GUN!!! NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!! MAKE THE VOICES STOPPPPPP!!!! )

Well... the forum can't walk away, but we can close the doors. But of all the hundreds of posters who are or have been active here, how many have been so disturbed due to uncertainty of rules? How many have brought their problems here because the atmosphere encourages their drama? How many can simply say "I don't quite know if I'm overstepping the line, lol" and get on with contributing? Look at the other ways we manage our anxieties....

While what you're saying is valid, it isn't a reason to go to the extremes of reporting and micromanaging you seem to be promoting, though I really liked that cognitive narrative as an illustration of your thought process. But maybe consider the forum a wild* in which the fictional INTP may lurk. I think we're looking for similar outcomes, but in the end the ability to let go of the details is healthier... for most of us. I think some really useful thoughts have come out and that there are ways we can improve consistency and effectiveness, but not in the precisely structured way you might be imagining.



* Damn you IB, you have to go and point out a fact, and now we're no longer a garden!

 

[loveofreason]

oops - I think Grayman had his second post ready to go before anyone mentioned that the nitpicking was over.

Grayman, you're not that unique. We have had a handful of other members who seem to be trapped in a Ti-Si loop, but you're definitely part of a very small minority. It just happens that mods run out of energy trying to explain every little detail... to just the one person.

But I think I have a slightly better impression of your thought processes based upon your last few posts. If we can respect those, can you respect that the resources of the mod team is finite?

 

[Grayman]

Thanks

 

[Grayman]

oops - I think Grayman had his second post ready to go before anyone mentioned that the nitpicking was over.

Grayman, you're not that unique. We have had a handful of other members who seem to be trapped in a Ti-Si loop, but you're definitely part of a very small minority. It just happens that mods run out of energy trying to explain every little detail... to just the one person.

But I think I have a slightly better impression of your thought processes based upon your last few posts. If we can respect those, can you respect that the resources of the mod team is finite?

Yes. I can. I appreciate all of this and I am sorry for being so obsessive.

 

[Rook]

I have decided to vote in the poll after reviewing the thread.
Recently, the forum has been more active with more quality threads being created and older members awakening from their slumber.
That is a change in itself, but will it last?

Solitaire U's post intrigued me, with him stating the fact that the forum fluctuates and changes by nature, and controlled change is rarely seen.

While this is true, it does not mean that initiated change is bad.
I have seen many great ideas in this thread, and it is my belief that if some of them are implemented, this forum may become a better place for members both old and new.

Now this burden is the mod's to bear.
What shall transpire?
I'll wait and see.

 

[OrLevitate]

Suggestion: a section of the forum where your posts and threads are heavily liable to be deleted by mods to keep discussion concise and substantial. Could have tags for threads like <citations> or <devil's advocate> which give mods a heads up. I'd call it "The Danger Zone", and I think it would be a blast to research and discuss things in this highly academic section since there are already so many active minds here. It'd be like a game, similar to the Arena but instead of one on one its a free for all and there are lions and tigers (mods) culling the weeds.