The State of the Forum

[Rook]

So here we are.
Reading this forum, words filling our screens, information being processed by our brains.

Topics are diverse, so too are the different personae discussing these topics.
Of course such differences will lead to clashes, as has recently been seen, has been seen long ago, and will be seen again.

This clash of different people is inherent to communities such as ours, and has been inherent to humanity throughout the ages.

So now I pose a question: Do you think change is needed for the forum to prosper?


Why would I pose such a question?

The answer is simple: I want your honest opinion. I want to see what value you attach to this forum, and if you would be willing to improve it.

This thread is not a critique of the forum.
This thread is not a complaint of how things are.
This thread is not here to denounce the actions taken by anyone.

No, this thread is here to find the truth, your truth.

What do I mean by "change"?

Each person will mean something different by it.
Simply put, change is meant in the context of your subjective interpretation, and is in no way a set term.

That is why it would be expected of you to outline what change you wish to see, if you wish to see it at all.

 

[Cognisant]

Whatever keeps the typology, religion, mysticism and political circle-jerking to a minimum.

There's not much that can be legitimately said about typology and INTPcentral just goes to show what happens if you let that kind of nonsense go too far.

Religion and mysticism are non-topics, everything's either in a holy book or entirely subjective.

Politics can be annoying if people become too interested in supporting their side rather than actually discussing matters of importance, though we're a pretty international crowd so it's not something we need to be overly worried about.

 

[Minuend]

More bans.

In some cases I think mods are too lenient in letting members question their motives.

Though, I'm not really that stubborn on imposing my personal preferences on this forum as I realize it might be me that is the "odd one out".

 

[Jennywocky]

More potatoes.

 

[Cognisant]

More bans.

In some cases I think mods are too lenient in letting members question their motives.

Yes and commissars that go around and BLAM anyone for subjectivist heresy

I want to change my vote, we need Major Change, I mean the rank not the adjective.

 

[Latte]

I'd prefer if there was a lower treshold for tempbans and permabans. The mods more forcefully shaping a forum into something they would find more enjoyable to interact with.
They seem largely more or less resigned and "I don't even want to touch that with a 10 foot stick" nowadays. Something I think stems from the forum being full of what would be weeds based on their own definition of the ideal garden.
I would look at this more forcefully shaped forum, what vision it embodies, and decide if I wanted to stay or not (if I am allowed to (if I am not banned)).

If I am not compatible with that vision, that is OK. I am not entitled to be on this forum, not have it shaped to my tastes. If I want another kind of forum than that which they shape, I can start another one or find one suitable for satisfying those tastes. That's part of the beauty of the internet and voluntary choosing of social spaces with various parameters to inhabit.

It's better for me to be entirely incompatible or highly compatible with a forum than to be compatible with some elements of it while feeling other elements are constantly contaminating the elements I like, due to the broadness of what is tolerated (even when highly disliked by mods and usually ultimately leading to bans years down the line after it has lowered the "quality" for ages).

Currently it's quite a mess and it seems discussions are bogged down in bullshit or diversions, while I'm pretty sure many quality threads and posts simply aren't made because the people who would make them just don't want to deal with how a part of the populace would morph or receive it.

Parameters for persons and behavior allowed in a specialized voluntary participation social space is ideally more for the purpose of proactively shaping than catering to the lowest common denominator of popular behavioral dislike.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Whatever keeps the typology, religion, mysticism and political circle-jerking to a minimum.

There's not much that can be legitimately said about typology and INTPcentral just goes to show what happens if you let that kind of nonsense go too far.

Religion and mysticism are non-topics, everything's either in a holy book or entirely subjective.

Politics can be annoying if people become too interested in supporting their side rather than actually discussing matters of importance, though we're a pretty international crowd so it's not something we need to be overly worried about.

Those are great topics. Religion is boring if it's God's being or non being that's being discussed, but apart from that it's interesting. Lot's of smart people were and are mystic and/or religious. Carl Jung was a total mystic because by analyzing the morphology of "non-topics" as you deem them, he was able to learn a lot about humanity.

Of course Religion is Bullshit and Mystic ideas are so called because they tend not to make any sense upon scrutiny, but it's not the validity of the Religious and Mystic ideas that's interesting so what does it matter? What's interesting is what Religion and Mysticism can teach us about the human Psyche.

On the other hand Politics are generally boring. It's all about wishful thinking, what appeals to people's values and not what actually works, because no one knows for sure what works since it depends on one billion intricately interwoven factors.

I think the forum needs more drama that's not related to moderators. Let's let all old grudges surface.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Yes and commissars that go around and BLAM anyone for subjectivist heresy

I want to change my vote, we need Major Change, I mean the rank not the adjective.

What's this thing with Pigeonholing everyone you think is "wrong" into one category? I have yet to see any open hardcore subjectivist on the forum. It seems like a very easy and comfortable way to not have to have your own ideas challenged.

 

[nanook]

of course all of the intj will reply to this thread and the intp won't bother to, so the results will be skewed.

(intentionally using lower case mbti, to refer to personas, not to cognitive functions)

thus, we intp must overcome our limitations and reply: "whatever keeps this place a stark contrast to intjforum"

white on charcoal.

make usage of dark-castle-fixed mandatory

and nuke intjforum.

Spoiler

and don't get me started on the rationality/spirituality issue, i'm like mel gibson in braveheart: hold, hold, hold, hold

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1NupxasQWs

 

[TheIntellectualFraud]

Huzzah, INTP replying to this thread. (Can't be bothered to write an actual reply though.)

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PZpzd89ymw

 

[Cognisant]

What's this thing with Pigeonholing everyone you think is "wrong" into one category? I have yet to see any open hardcore subjectivist on the forum. It seems like a very easy and comfortable way to not have to have your own ideas challenged.

Oh no I welcome a challenge because either I'm wrong and I learn something, you're wrong and you learn something or you're wrong but keep spouting crap anyway and you get banned.

Hence why you don't remember seeing any hardcore subjectivists lately.
They don't last very long

Those are great topics. Religion is boring if it's God's being or non being that's being discussed, but apart from that it's interesting. Lot's of smart people were and are mystic and/or religious. Carl Jung was a total mystic because by analyzing the morphology of "non-topics" as you deem them, he was able to learn a lot about humanity.

Religion -> some smart people were religious -> Carl Jung was a smart person.
So then the trick to talking about religion is to not actually talk about religion?

Speculative psychology is an interesting thing I'll agree, but it's not religion.

 

[nanook]

Spirituality has nothing to do with faith. (i save the argument for later)

If we are keeping the numbers of subfora low, spirituality ought to be joined with psychology and perhaps even neuroscience, albeit spirituality and psychology are interiority and neuroscience is exteriority, so it makes good sense to separate those two quadrants, interiority and exteriority, like psychology ought to be separated from psychiatry.

Separation is not for the sake of competition, of course.

so for example:

1) interiority:
1a) typology
1b) psychology
1c) spirituality
1d) entheogenic/psychedelic experience
1e) philosophy
1f) political ideology & justice
1g) dating & relationships

2) exteriority:
2a) science
2b) neurology, neurocience and psychiatry
2c) psychopharmaca & nootropics
2d) economy
2e) infrastructure & fundamental technologies2
2f) gadgets, computer & software
2g) STDs
2h) nutrition & health

We don't really need a special place for faith.

On the other hand hypothesis must be welcome everywhere, heaps of faith are part of a rational/scientific approach to reality.


And there is always that 13 year old amish guy, who struggles with his literal minded religious upbringing and asks us for help, so discussing faith should be allowed. But i don't think it needs a subforum. (Those who can understand the subject of spirituality will be able to handle the users, who still have a literal minded or believe based approach to spirituality.)

 

[crippli]

Maybe get the arcade reactivated, is this much work?

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

I disagree with frequent banning, this forum is not an exclusive friend only community and should never become one.

The influx of new users gives the opportunity for discussing new ideas and refreshing old topics. The fact that these new ideas and old topics are well known by some members and in some way boring, doesn't explain the need for shutting a thread or idea down, as there are many different levels of understanding and development present here.

Instead of permabanning everything that one finds generally inferior to oneself and a projection of others, or everything that one finds redundant and tautological, it would be better to confine such specimens to a subsection of the forum, where other users, would find them worth interacting with and possibly exchange in a valuable way. (Not saying you permban on that basis, simply to counter the more frequent banning option)

Not everything is useless or negative the same way for everyone and if we are talking about gardens, japanese and english gardens tend to be more appealing than french gardens.

Yes what I am seeing as a better alternative to bans is creating sub forums that exclude the more irritaiting members from encroaching on the populace that rejected them.

Another thing to propose is a formalisation of the forum rules and giving a perspective to admin decisions this way, so that users can plainly adhere to these and in that, be secure. As the garden is disorganised, its borders should be helpfully discernable.

A general public poll for the active members is a more transparent and direct device of controlling the forum's decision making process. It could be used to decide the future of the accused members with frozen priviledges to direct them to the particular sub group or to reject them totally. There could be rules to this, for example a requirement for a cerain % of active members to vote within 36 hours or the case will be decided by mods, etc.

 

[nanook]

i don't know man, you mean well, but if you were to restrict my access to a marked subforum, i'd still be looking at the New Posts view whenever i visit this place and see all the topics i'm not allowed to reply to, it's pure torture and i would decide to troll the hell out of this place. (actually, i would simply leave for good)

 

[Minuend]

Increased bannings doesn't automatically correlate with exclusive friend community or the disapproval of newcomwers. You could just as easily argue that more frequent bans would rid those who were continuously being dismissive to newcomers and their threads just for being new. Neither would there be any more focus on banning those the mods consider inferior. It would still be based on the same criteria as before, just a bit harsher. Pretty much.

As for public votes... well I don't tend to trust the public.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

i don't know man, you mean well, but if you were to restrict my access to a marked subforum, i'd still be looking at the New Posts view whenever i visit this place and see all the topics i'm not allowed to reply to, it's pure torture and i would decide to troll the hell out of this place. (actually, i would simply leave for good)

There would be a structure for recovery, let's say you can put up with it for 3 months and no tantrums and you level up? If you would leave for good, then it would be your own volition and no unhealthy hiccups.

Increased bannings doesn't automatically correlate with exclusive friend community or the disapproval of newcomwers. You could just as easily argue that more frequent bans would rid those who were continuously being dismissive to newcomers and their threads just for being new. Neither would there be any more focus on banning those the mods consider inferior. It would still be based on the same criteria as before, just a bit harsher. Pretty much.

As for public votes... well I don't tend to trust the public.

What you are arguing doesn't reflect the reality, there are very few if any examples of banning established users attacking the newbs. There are many examples of treating noobs in a less priviledged way, because they are not well known to the community and not as valuable yet.

It is an element of the pool of possibilities, an impractical one, as much as I wouldn't like to admit impracticality.

I understand, my critique wasn't directed at you, rather at the general feeling I got from reading the recent threads about the situation and by imagining what could frequent banning lead to. Simple idea, that with every choice there is a chance for it to be a bad one, despite all knowledge and benevolence, more choices, more chances for a bad decision and permaban is a grave mistake.

Maybe I could see it in a way of temporary bans and a more frequent use of these, to smack down and teach discipline.

 

[Auburn]

I disagree with frequent banning, this forum is not an exclusive friend only community and should never become one.

The influx of new users gives the opportunity for discussing new ideas and refreshing old topics. The fact that these new ideas and old topics are well known by some members and in some way boring, doesn't explain the need for shutting a thread or idea down, as there are many different levels of understanding and development present here.

Yes but as good as new perspectives are, the point isn't to make this "a place for everyone". That just isn't possible. For instance, even places that seem to be for everyone will, by virtue of that openness, be unappealing/undesirable to some and chase off certain sorts of people who dislike such open spaces.

Those sorts of people who leave might develop a more specialized community of their own; for example one for academics. Or maybe one for advanced hackers. A place where there's some precedent, something you have to know first to really interact meaningfully with the others, but that's also the beauty of it.

A pro hackers community wouldn't want a ton of noobs or average joes with pc issues walking in and then staying to make fun, fluff threads. That's what Support forums are for. The point isn't to create a place for everyone on this particular forum, but to make it a place suitable to a certain type of people.

Spoiler

Excluding them to a certain part of the forum is only going to cause feelings of injustice, flame wars and forum drama. People will take it personally and feel like some Mod simply didn't like them. It's not the right solution.

If they see a thread they really wished to reply to but can't, then they'll feel further injustice -- especially if they do feel they could have posted something meaningful. In which case they'd likely make a thread on the forum they can post on, and vent there. And if you went the route of just making the threads they can't post in not visible to them, then you'd get a disconnect between the members. References made in one section wouldn't click in another. Ostracizing people. Nobody wants to willingly stay on a forum just to be treated as a prisoner. Nor does that imply that they'd just leave quietly.

-------
​

*ponders*

I suppose part of the problem that this forum is facing is that it has no established topic* from which to justify or establish a standard for itself. If you're not contributing to the progression of a new hack, or have no interest in hacking then you don't belong in the hacker community. But if there's no central topic to a forum, then anything is considered a valid topic (including the Kardashian's new haircut) and it makes it ambiguous for the mods to draw a line - without seeming like they're using their own standards. And then you get loads of questioning faces. Threads pop up asking why decisions were made, because people don't share the same standard.

* - "intp" isnt a sufficient topic, as it hardly seems to matter to many here and isn't even taken seriously by most.

 

[Fukyo]

The people on this forum seem to care more about being righteous, indignant drama queens than discussing anything interesting. I swear this place has the most activity when someone gets banned and a number of people have the opportunity to act out their issues with authority here.

 

[Cherry Cola]

The people on this forum seem to care more about being righteous, indignant drama queens than discussing anything interesting. I swear this place has the most activity when someone gets banned and a number of people have the opportunity to act out their issues with authority here.

Yes lol.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

There is a high concentration of people on this forum with mental health problems. Allowing their "crazy" too free flow is detrimental. There was that guy in the other thread spouting some delusional reason to promote animosity towards women. Such behavior should not be facilitated by allowing it to be posted. This is the realm for a good therapist, not the forum. Other forums mitigate this issue through bans and temp-bans.

Remember, there was a reason why we put the relationship subforum in the private section; it was to dissuade the crazies with perverse relationship views from joining.

 

[PhoenixRising]

There is a high concentration of people on this forum with mental health problems. Allowing their "crazy" too free flow is detrimental. There was that guy in the other thread spouting some delusional reason to promote animosity towards women. Such behavior should not be facilitated by allowing it to be posted. This is the realm for a good therapist, not the forum. Other forums mitigate this issue through bans and temp-bans.

Remember, there was a reason why we put the relationship subforum in the private section; it was to dissuade the crazies with perverse relationship issues from joining.

^ I think you have an important point here.

It's true, most of the discussion on here seems to be about social drama or people's psychological or relational issues. The most prolific posters tend to be those with emotional issues. It doesn't foster the "intellectual" environment that seems to have existed here at one point.

I've also witnessed a lot of members who struggle with the "clicky" element of the culture here. I've seen a lot of arguments that are very well-put, but don't speak the cultural language established here and are therefore primarily ignored. This curbs engaging dialogue in some cases as new ideas are ignored and stale ones are re-discussed instead. Many a potentially-interesting topic becomes mundane on here because of this prevailing pattern.


So it seems the overall quality of discussion becomes increasingly degraded as emotionally-disturbed individuals are allowed to spam the forum while many intelligent, clear-spoken individuals are losing interest and leaving.

 

[redbaron]

Ban retards. Names may be provided upon moderator's request.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Define prosper, a big problem is that everyone wants something different. I wonder if stated forum goals might help.

 

[Latte]

Define prosper, a big problem is that everyone wants something different. I wonder if stated forum goals might help.

It is a problem if the mods disagree among themselves or ragnar disagrees with the mods. If the wider population disagrees, it isn't necessarily a problem, I think.

As the forum rule post explains, this isn't a democracy and was never intended to be a forum run in any way by majority or popular will. If it is run purely by mod/ragnar will, then eventually those left, and those eventually who are attracted to post and stay here, will be those who agree with the vision of the mods / ragnar, leading to a community in agreement about how the community is to be.

 

[Pyropyro]

The people on this forum seem to care more about being righteous, indignant drama queens than discussing anything interesting. I swear this place has the most activity when someone gets banned and a number of people have the opportunity to act out their issues with authority here.

Everybody wants to be the king/queen but nobody wants the responsibility attached to the position.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

It is a problem if the mods disagree among themselves or ragnar disagrees with the mods. If the wider population disagrees, it isn't necessarily a problem.

As the forum rule post explains, this isn't a democracy and was never intended to be a forum run in any way by majority or popular will. If it is run purely by mod/ragnar will, then eventually those left will be those who agree with the vision of the mods / ragnar, leading to a community in agreement about how the community is to be.

I meant a problem for the community, not the site. The community exists in parallel to the forum.

Anyway I think stated goals might help because people would know what to expect from the get go. When you have a lot of exclusiveness(by disastisfied members/admin) it breeds conformity/ingratiation and inauthenticity, which inhibits the forum as much as uncontrolled leniency.

 

[Auburn]

A stated goal from the mods would help, yeah.
Like, a decision that was written up clearly, stating what direction the forum will be taking (what sort of forum it will be) and why that means certain styles of posting aren't welcome.

ESC has a point. Many here who wants something *more*, want something different. So even though they may go "yeah! change is needed!" they'd disagree with one another as to what that change would be. And so it's better if at least the mods came to a consensus among themselves and wrote it out, then the forum will adjust to it when the decisions are implemented.

@Fukyo - You have the ability to change that. ^^
It's rather curious how the mods of this forum have direct control over how the forum evolves, yet instead of applying a strategy to fix it they let it run wild then complain about how it looks and behaves. =P

But now I'm just another member complaining. Or does it count as complaining if I'm complaining about your complaining. xD

I digress!

 

[Latte]

@ESC
I disagree that it necessarily inhibits the community as much as uncontrolled leniency. People are inhibited by diversity as well. For example, in some groups of people one will bring up certain topics or talk in certain ways, but add some other people to that mix and suddenly it seems like a bad idea because of how one predicts those people will react to the topics or the way one presents it.

Freedom of behavior and inclusiveness necessarily restricts aspects of other people's freedom and space for behavior, even though it is in an indirect fashion not decreed and enforced by the local authority.

4chan is a good example of how leniency in behavior and diversity of personality necessarily also emergently restricts behavior and diversity of personality and personality expression.

I'm not sure where the idea of inauthenticity emerging from more strongly enforced forum sociosphere parameters comes from unless it's an extrapolation from how we need to conform out of necessity in the sociospheres we have less choice in being a part of. I think... people would largely just rather leave than not be relatively authentic here (and if a person's authenticity would be such that it would ruin the 'ideal community', then good riddance to that person's authenticity).
If someone needs to actively conform to forum parameters in order to fit in, they probably "don't belong" in the first place, or they are conforming as a stepping stone to developing a side of themselves that does "belong" there. Belonging in a sociosphere with the parameters enforced by the mods, that is. With a specific community ideal in mind.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

@ESC
I disagree that it necessarily inhibits the forum as much as uncontrolled leniency. People are inhibited by diversity as well. For example, in some groups of people one will bring up certain topics or talk in certain ways, but add some other people to that mix and suddenly it seems like a bad idea because of how one predicts those people will react to the topics or the way one presents it.

"Bad idea because of how people will react"

I believe this is more a matter of respect for other people's threads, in that case it would involve culling frivolousness or zealous ignorance. What does that have to do with innate diversity? People can be diverse and respectful.

Freedom of behavior and inclusiveness necessarily restricts aspects of other people's freedom and space for behavior, even though it is in an indirect fashion not decreed by the local authority.

4chan is a good example of how leniency in behavior and diversity of personality necessarily also emergently restricts behavior and diversity of personality and personality expression.

Yes, 4chan(or /b/ at least) has attracted a certain type of people, thus it self-regulates. But the reason why self-regulation is so effective there is because 4chan is anonymous.

People are not so anonymous here, in the sense of holding people accountable, so freedom of behavior/inclusiveness here is not so detrimental. INTPforum attracts typology hobbyists, people looking for guidance & belonging, and other people within the larger typology community, all relevant peoples. In the interest of making the forum more narrow than it is (i.e. INTPs), you might as well just create a whole new unrelated forum.

I'm not sure where the idea of inauthenticity emerging from more strongly enforced forum sociosphere parameters comes from unless it's an extrapolation from how we need to conform out of necessity in the sociospheres we have less choice in being a part of. I think... people would largely just rather leave than not be relatively authentic here (and if a person's authenticity would be such that it would ruin the 'ideal community', then good riddance to that person's authenticity).
If someone needs to actively conform to forum parameters in order to fit in, they probably "don't belong" in the first place, or they are conforming as a stepping stone to developing a side of themselves that does "belong" there. Belonging in a sociosphere with the parameters enforced by the mods, that is. With a specific community ideal in mind.

Conformity and ingratiation arise because the forum is one part intellectual and one part social. Apart from the deliberate intellectual interests of the forum, the community and personal relationships grow parallel to the forum which exist outside the formal forum. So you have people wanting to be apart of the social relationships who aren't necessarily promoting the formal interest of the forum themselves in a beneficial way.

 

[Kuu]

I was thinking of making a thread like this but apparently Rook got to it first.

I have pondered plenty about the issues, Auburn / Latte.

More than a goal, though, it seems to me to be a matter of setting clear values. Community values can exist without forcing any specific direction in terms of themes, but merely a framework for operation, one which is not defined by rules (which seem to be a terrible thing).

I still need to chew a bit on these ideas though. Besides I don't really want to weigh heavy here, since the point is to know the thoughts of non-mods...

 

[TBerg]

People rely upon the internet for all kinds of stuff. This for seems to be able facilitate understanding within personal as well as theoretical matters. One cannot simply effectuate change of topics and substance by diktat. The best way to find topics within your interest is to start them yourself or ask others about their own interests. Otherwise a schism develops that weakens the whole thing for everyone by limiting the content and users. One of the best ways to learn about your own perspective is to be challenged by those of diametrically opposing perspectives the consideration of which might pull you towards a higher vista.

 

[redbaron]

in that case it would involve culling frivolousness

I wonder what falls under this category. I find it frivolous when people respond to a post just by posting a video/image as opposed to expressing their opinion with clarity.

Key point here is clarity. I have no problem with one liner responses when the intention or the point is clear. Some people are naturally terse, which isn't a problem so long as they make an effort to understand and to also be understood. But if they aren't doing that, it's just spam.

 

[Pyropyro]

May I propose that we add stickies to each of the subforums like the ones used in Intjforum? I assume that it won't stress the system or the mods much.

See a sample thread here:

http://intjforum.com/showthread.php?t=25481

Basically it should include:
* What the subforum is all about
* Who to contact in case of trollish behavior
* A link to the forum rules and additional ones that is specific to the subforum if necessary
* Disclaimers especially regarding serious issues such as psychological problems

It somewhat addresses Rook's issue on the other thread on newbie retention/ attraction. I think newbies would be more willing to stay here if they have a grasp of what the rules are and what the subforums are for. I believe there are at least two newbie threads where the OP's specifically asked what our forum rules are. Older users also won't need to remind such newbies if they mess their posts up. Seriously, I did not figure out what Siberia is for until someone was unceremoniously sent there.

It might also address some of Proxy's concerns regarding the crazies' posts. There should be disclaimers that as much as we mean well, we're not really equipped to treat mental issues.

 

[loveofreason]

Yes what I am seeing as a better alternative to bans is creating sub forums that exclude the more irritaiting members from encroaching on the populace that rejected them.

I took this approach in the very early days of the forum. It works with a particular type of 'irritating' poster. You might look up username Perseus if you're interested in an example. He externalised his theories all over the place, but wasn't really focussed on having an impact. He wasn't seeking a rush from the way others responded.

On the other hand, users that are invested in provoking a response from others are going to make dupe accounts to continue their assault. Depending on their technological profiency they may become a threat to the forum itself, not just the community, when they are excluded.

That said, they can't be tolerated and I regret that many negative influences have had too much rope to hang themselves (figuratively) before finally being banned. I'm monstrously guilty of inactivity in tending the garden. It places alot of work on mods keeping banned users out when those users insist on making account after account. But! Just occassionally a banned user may reincarnate, with or without mod suspicions being confirmed, under a new name when they exhibit more beneficial behaviour. No one is here to stop change for the better.

Another thing to propose is a formalisation of the forum rules and giving a perspective to admin decisions this way, so that users can plainly adhere to these and in that, be secure. As the garden is disorganised, its borders should be helpfully discernable.

It might seem so, but it is incredibly inefficient and worse than being ineffective, it is counterproductive. Reliance on formal rules leads to bureacratisation, dishonesty and distrust. It has contributed to the situation as it stands. What really tips a decision is the sum of the impact a user has. Are they overall of benefit to the community or do they cause more harm?

Someone might rampantly cause more harm over months and years, and yet no 'formal' reason for banning them can be found. We have often sat feeling hand-tied because we are trying to do things 'by the rules'. Then some straw finally breaks the camels back and a mod will react. It's irrational. Everone can sense this. It causes confusion. Did 'Blah's' umpteenth thread derail or pedantic discussion-killer or insult break the rules? Why did all the others not? Why can someone else xyz a thread/other user and it's all ok? Why isn't there any consistency? etc etc

And yet for the benefit of the community, we know that that user had to go. Like it or not, irrational (in the proper sense) functions are involved in good moderating. Mods are chosen for their perceptive insight and own sense of moderation that alerts them to the dangers of various behaviours. It's the gut sense a mod gets about a user that turns out to be accurate - the user starts dragging the forum down... and yet mods have continued to wait for objective evidence. Mods attempt to be fair.

Have we served you well, following the rules? Or could we have spared this eventual discussion if carefully and quietly a forum life-sucker was removed before they got their head burrowed in for the feast? It isn't always as dramatic as I phrase it; outright parasites are rare and purposeful trolls have been fewer than the unintentional. More often a member gives, or attempts to give, repeatedly, but it's the wrong thing. It starts to cost the community more to continually reject these unwanted offerings. Or they bring their damage - I know I did - looking for succour or a place to vent. The community can sustain a level of this therapeutic function, but any given event or user may push the forum into catabolism. Then it's time to cut someone free and move on.

A general public poll for the active members is a more transparent and direct device of controlling the forum's decision making process. It could be used to decide the future of the accused members with frozen priviledges to direct them to the particular sub group or to reject them totally. There could be rules to this, for example a requirement for a cerain % of active members to vote within 36 hours or the case will be decided by mods, etc.

No, rule by popularity among one's fellows is a terrible thing.

Global society is more and more enchanted with the notion of 'transparency'. I find it disturbingly unbalanced and contrary to the way humans function. Transparency is just part of the picture. If the obscure is denied, it comes to control the visible. We end up with distrust, not greater trust, because unnaccountability hasn't vanished from the system, it has subverted the use of power. A greater schism between claim and percieved reality emerges as time goes on.

 

[Base groove]

Every person who posts here (barring mods) is potentially one of the irritating ones who need to be cut loose. Will anybody point fingers? One poster has offered to make a list. Will he be on that list too? Will I?

I would like to see this list.

 

[loveofreason]

Every person who posts here (barring mods) is potentially one of the irritating ones who need to be cut loose. Will anybody point fingers? One poster has offered to make a list. Will he be on that list too? Will I?

I would like to see this list.

Undermining a constructive thread by using it as a vehicle to goad another member with whom you are in dislike is certainly the kind of action that would get your name on any list for consideration of being 'not-worth-the-cost-of-keeping-around'.

 

[nexion]

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.

 

[Base groove]

Undermining a constructive thread by using it as a vehicle to goad another member with whom you are in dislike is certainly the kind of action that would get your name on any list for consideration of being 'not-worth-the-cost-of-keeping-around'.

oh is that what I did? I thought I was doing something else.

Was I actually criticizing the way you dismissed the idea of incorporating public approval? That never occurred to you.

You never explained your reasoning for why it's such a "terrible thing" however if the paragraph that followed it is any indication then I imagine it resembles the slippery slope in some form or another.

One moderator already explained that he is treating this thread as a place for non-mods to air out their ideas,

I am not a mod and I had this crazy idea that perhaps instead of constantly alluding to some archetypal "bad poster" it would make more sense to materialize things into more digestible form with examples.* I thought it would be silly to just downright ask but now that I know where you're at I'll be sure not to goad anybody, least of all a member with whom I am in dislike.

*BAP, Variform, The Void... don't really qualify. These aren't the posters that are being alluded to here, I'm sure.

 

[DelusiveNinja]

This place...has acted as a server for information that has been useful in my progression toward maturity and I've interacted with some interesting people out of boredom or just raw curiosity. It's a good community and I understand that in order to keep it that way some "things" that have grown too tall need to be either cut down or cut off.

The state of the forum is sort of an interesting topic...I guess. It really doesn't matter. People can be irritating, but after it crosses the (well-defined/ambiguous) line, I see nothing wrong with what the mods decide. I myself have probably even crossed that line at one point or at least have irritated some people.

Who cares about stupid shit like justice or injustice on a forum? It's like someone said, you don't have a right to be here, you just have permission. Justice on stuff that I pay my money for? Ha ha, that may be a different story.

I couldn't give a shit if I were to be banned. It would not be the end of the world and chances are that I would have deserved what I got.

In these type of places where rules and authority, who have power exist, I take the "Don't like it? Can't change it? Fuck it" stance.

I make sure I take breaks from the forum (or rather give you a break from me) so that I can focus in and on the real world.

 

[redbaron]

Was I actually criticizing the way you dismissed the idea of incorporating public approval? That never occurred to you.

Is it really that hard to understand why public approval is an awful way to go about things? When you tailor things to popular opinion what do you get?

Top40 radio, sit-com television and Richard Dawkins enthusiasts. Hey, nothing wrong with Richard - but the people who blindly swallow everything he says and tout it as some undeniable truth are really tiring. I say that as an atheist.

Do I really want the forum to be the equivalent of top40 radio? No thanks.

 

[Grayman]

@Those who think the admin should be hard or harder against those who question them...


THE INTP PERSONALITY

"Weaknesses
They can become arrogant, remote and rough with people's feelings, and overlook necessary details. They will often challenge authority and rules. They focus on figuring out the system. They are not so bothered about implementing the stuff they've figured out. This can lead to an absence of tangible changes in the external world."

http://www.career-iq.com/mbti/intp

What happens to an INTPf when your booted for too often questioning authority and rules? We would have less INTP's.

Then add overlooking necessary details and you have misunderstandings.

Then add inappropriate care of peoples feelings and you have a mess.


EDIT: Questioning authority and having issues with authority are two different things in my opinion. The first is just a result of someone who questions systems and the second is an emotional construct that is more like persecution. aka. A person who attacks authority just because they are authority.

 

[TimeAsylums]

The State of the Forum
​

The Lurkers Lurked

The Watchers Watched

Those that were nonfull prolific were sterilized

beDoublePlusGood

 

[Cavallier]

Every person who posts here (barring mods) is potentially one of the irritating ones who need to be cut loose. Will anybody point fingers? One poster has offered to make a list. Will he be on that list too? Will I?

I would like to see this list.

Undermining a constructive thread by using it as a vehicle to goad another member with whom you are in dislike is certainly the kind of action that would get your name on any list for consideration of being 'not-worth-the-cost-of-keeping-around'.

oh is that what I did? I thought I was doing something else.

It doesn't matter what you intended Base groove what matters is the end result of what you said. From my viewpoint I see a thread with some really good ideas and for the first time in a while we as admins are getting constructive criticism that might help us do our jobs better.

Then you enter with your finger pointing comment and I feel the positive potential of this thread draining away although I felt it started with redbaron's comment concerning retards. It was not in good taste but I understand that he believes the mods are not aggressive enough in banning trollish members. I appreciate the feedback either way.

None of the admins who have weighed in here have indicated any negativity toward this thread or the people who have commented in it. Your comment adds a poisonous air of paranoia that isn't needed or wanted.

Frankly I'm tickled you people seem to care at all. It's been a pleasant surprise as the cries of outrage still ring in my ears from recent punitive actions I've had to take.

Please continue. I'd like to weigh in a bit later but don't want to curb discussion by adding my thoughts now.

 

[Grayman]

@Base_Grove

In a language you would understand...

Ti - It matters that it makes more sense to me rather than if it commonly accepted or anyone says it is right.

Te - Common and practically proven methods are much better... or methods from someone with proven experience and specialties.

Fe - Society based .... maybe

Fi - mostly subjective ideals... maybe


I would say they are already predisposed to finding their own logic and are not interested in a popularity vote.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Thank you for your response.
My idea behind changes if any, as I think the forum functions more or less okay, would be to have changes that make users satisfied with the direction and vision of this place and leaves little room to discuss and dramatise every decision, as the decisions would tend to be self explanatory and the sources would be known.

Now it may be the case that the discussion is started by the few users that do not have the general understanding and vision that most of the users here have, but why then are these threads so active? It might be that it is for the purpose of clarifying and understanding. I agree that I might be biased towards rules, as it is something that convinces me and stops me from questioning the decisions, as something that should be accepted when the rule is plain and helpful, or when the rule was accepted by users to be a factor of control here.

That said, they can't be tolerated and I regret that many negative influences have had too much rope to hang themselves (figuratively) before finally being banned. I'm monstrously guilty of inactivity in tending the garden.

It might seem so, but it is incredibly inefficient and worse than being ineffective, it is counterproductive. Reliance on formal rules leads to bureacratisation, dishonesty and distrust. It has contributed to the situation as it stands. What really tips a decision is the sum of the impact a user has. Are they overall of benefit to the community or do they cause more harm?

And yet for the benefit of the community, we know that that user had to go. Like it or not, irrational (in the proper sense) functions are involved in good moderating. Mods are chosen for their perceptive insight and own sense of moderation that alerts them to the dangers of various behaviours. It's the gut sense a mod gets about a user that turns out to be accurate - the user starts dragging the forum down... and yet mods have continued to wait for objective evidence. Mods attempt to be fair.

This is the part of your response that makes it impossible to agree with. It seems that you are trying to show how it isn't posssible to rationalise the process of moderating the forum. What I see from this is that admin vision is the only viable way of shaping this forum and one you should be more forceful and decisive in approaching.

What happens when the admins change and we get worse leaders than we currently have?

Have we served you well, following the rules? Or could we have spared this eventual discussion if carefully and quietly a forum life-sucker was removed before they got their head burrowed in for the feast?

This plays out wrong. It assumes that discrecy is the way to go, because the admin decision will be congruent with the feeling and decisions that the majority has about a given user. Before they would have any chance to know, they wouldn't get to see or interact with said users.

And this could be a simple thing of giving and writing down what is the favourable vision that we should uphold, what is it that makes you unwanted here.

No, rule by popularity among one's fellows is a terrible thing.

Global society is more and more enchanted with the notion of 'transparency'. I find it disturbingly unbalanced and contrary to the way humans function. Transparency is just part of the picture. If the obscure is denied, it comes to control the visible. We end up with distrust, not greater trust, because unnaccountability hasn't vanished from the system, it has subverted the use of power. A greater schism between claim and percieved reality emerges as time goes on.

You are simply stating that admin decision can be discrete and doesn't have to be understood or approved by the users. Especially the part about the popularity rule among ones fellows shows how non-fellow users wouldn't be accepted.

But every user has a different view on possible fellows. What I propose as structure and rules is exactly that, what is the preferable user, what is a fellow, what gets you banned or temp banned only?

What can be restrictive to the admins not bound by rules, is their idea of how the members will perceive their decision. Will they find it right? Will they agree? Maybe we should wait more until more evident examples appear to help us be convincing and appear reliable to the whole?

 

[(͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)]

 

[redbaron]

I felt it started with redbaron's comment concerning retards. It was not in good taste but I understand that he believes the mods are not aggressive enough in banning trollish members. I appreciate the feedback either way.

Well at least you got the point and yes, I do often wonder why the mods seem to have an aversion to actually moderating. Most of the time I get the impression they're more concerned with avoiding backlash or are too hung up on trying to be fair than they are with enforcing what LoR was talking about:

Reliance on formal rules leads to bureacratisation, dishonesty and distrust. It has contributed to the situation as it stands. What really tips a decision is the sum of the impact a user has. Are they overall of benefit to the community or do they cause more harm?

Which has been the tagline of the moderating team on this forum ever since I've been a part of it. It's one I agree with and support, although honestly I get the impression that the moderators as a collective don't. It's like they (paradoxically) believe in this notion of banning based on community impact as opposed to any strict guidelines (which I agree is the best approach for a number of reasons) and yet they're totally paralyzed with indecision whenever such a situation arises.

This kind of indecision is written all over the way the moderators react to criticism. Sometimes a thread goes the wrong direction, it carries on for four pages and then eventually the moderators get sick of it and close it. Then a day later someone makes some "neutral" thread, which is really just a disguise for continuing the already closed thread. But instead of closing this new thread and warning the user, this new thread now goes back and forth for another 2+ pages before finally being closed again.

The only conclusions I can draw from this are that either the mods are collectively a bunch of closet sadomasochists who love torturing themselves (wouldn't put it past Puffy ), or they're riddled with indecision (collectively, not necessarily individually) about how to properly deal with these situations.

 

[(͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)]

Instead of permabanning everything that one finds generally inferior to oneself and a projection of others, or everything that one finds redundant and tautological, it would be better to confine such specimens to a subsection of the forum, where other users, would find them worth interacting with and possibly exchange in a valuable way. (Not saying you permban on that basis, simply to counter the more frequent banning option)

That's a fantastic idea.