The State of the Forum

[Grayman]

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:



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.

What should they make as a written rule or guideline to counter this?

 

[redbaron]

The forum already has enough guidelines.

Here.

I think they're perfectly reasonable and constitute more than enough for moderators to make effective decisions. The issue as far as I'm concerned has nothing to do with guidelines or rules, and everything to do with effective implementation.

Although maybe I put a bit of unfair onus on all the moderators. There's also this huge collective sense of entitlement from society in general, which is also reflected on this forum - and it makes me a little bit sick. People who think they have the, "right" to completely transparency for every little decision and that they should be allowed to give weighted input on every single decision made on the forum.

Such a type of democracy is just as prone to clique behaviour as any other system.

 

[Grayman]

I have heard it said in here and have said it myself in the past. A statement of purpose for this Forum would be good.

I often read them before going to a site to determine if I want to attend before I allow myself to have an attachment to the forum.

A problem could occur for the mods in being able to move and adapt. If the statement is not carefully written it could cause more issues than solve. People would just use it as a bat. It would need to be very general to allow us to get a concept of what this place is about.

 

[Grayman]

The forum already has enough guidelines.

Here.

I think they're perfectly reasonable and constitute more than enough for moderators to make effective decisions. The issue as far as I'm concerned has nothing to do with guidelines or rules, and everything to do with effective implementation.

Sorry, I thought I might have noticed a suggestion and did not realize it was only a complaint.

 

[redbaron]

Sorry, I thought I might have noticed a suggestion and did not realize it was only a complaint.

I'm suggesting the moderators be more decisive as a collective. Forgot I was responding to Grayman. Hehe!

 

[Grayman]

I'm suggesting the moderators be more decisive as a collective. Forgot I was responding to Grayman. Hehe!

I know but it lacks a definitive solution. It is very... how much is more??? How do they do this? What tangable goals could they make to ensure they can come to easier and more concise decisions?

*****

Stating issues about people, especially ripe with opinion and no evidence to support it, and not offering a definitive solution can sound more like a complaint about them than constructive criticism.

Edit: It lacks the constructive part of it.

 

[redbaron]

It's summed up fairly well by LoR already.

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.

Stop giving the figurative rope to people. BAP could have been banned over a year ago after his fiasco of stalking and harassing various members. Instead the mods apparently decided to try and "rehabilitate" him. Happened to a slightly lesser extent with Duxwing too.

Which seems great at first, except that moderators are also people - they're not paid to try and counsel and try to babysit every single person who disrupts the forum. I admire their dedication in a way, but I wonder why they torture themselves in this way?

Variform lasted 3 months before being banned, and yet he never really got any worse than he was when he first joined the forum. He was cancerous well before that, attacked someone for no real reason other than for being female, American and 17. Launched a bunch of tirades at various other members too. But no action was taken until suddenly he's perma-banned after 3 months. Which brings me back to LoR's comment on this behaviour.

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

The fact that he lasted as long as he did sends the message that what he was doing was actually okay. So people learn to accept his presence and then naturally are confused when he's permanently banned for basically just doing what he'd already been doing for three months. So of course some people demand answers.

Which brings me to Proxy's post:

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.

Variform didn't need the forum, he needed a therapist. People get all bleeding heart about it, "oh he has mental problems we should cut him some slack". Should we really? If someone on the street started attacking your 17 year old daughter for no real reason - would you just accept it? Cut them slack for having mental issues?

Duxwing had a point to make somewhere in his radical acceptance thread actually.

The first line is probably the most telling one:

Radical Acceptance is madness of the worst sort.

I'm inclined to agree. The amount of bullshit people are willing to put up with for the sake of, "democracy" borders on insanity.

 

[Base groove]

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.

Cavallier. I can't quite tell if you're asking me to stop or continue. How about I proceed with caution?

You seem to have a problem with my negativity. I don't really get this ... I entered the thread late in the game to suggest that everybody was tiptoeing around and getting nowhere.

I wish I could lighten the mood and say that a bunch of INTPs having a serious talk is a bit like an Entmoot. Hmmmmm..... we have decided, that you are not Orcs. Six hours later...

I thought that LOR has made some great posts and I'm sure that there's probably a welcoming party for her return as well; maybe she's immune to argumentation for some period of time that I have violated.

at least I veiled my "negativity" under the guise of general inquiry whereas her response to me had the apparent purpose of discovering my ruse while simultaneously warning me that what she thinks I'm doing won't be tolerated... so it really didn't give me any breathing room to react without resorting to direct confrontation which has obviously rocked the boat.

Here's a nice picture to explain it all:

Spoiler

(I copied this from another thread and interpreted it in this context, from my pov. Feel free to correct me)

(Implications: we all could use a little improvement ex. idle threats are also likely to evoke a poisonous atmosphere)

 

[redbaron]

You seem to have a problem with my negativity.

Ad Hominem.

Doesn't seem to me like Cavallier has ever had or that she now has any problem with negativity, but instead disingenuity. Seems like Cavallier's actually enjoying the thread for the most part.

(Sorry to talk about you in the third person Cav.)

 

[Polaris]

I wish I could lighten the mood and say that a bunch of INTPs having a serious talk is a bit like an Entmoot. Hmmmmm..... we have decided, that you are not Orcs. Six hours later...

You hit the nail on the head. INTPs are exactly like Ents -- and this also happens in the mod box, surprise, surprise...

So here is my humble input:

http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=3141

^ I would recommend reading this.

The way the forum operates now is probably as good as it's ever going to be. But that is not to say there are some things that can be improved, as I will get to eventually after some Entish rambling....

Things have not really changed that much if one takes care to pick up on the vibe in the link posted above.

Mods are not super-human, nor can they be expected to be.

But, it is our duty is to make sure the forum is run as smoothly as possible without any major detrimental hiccups. As RB pointed out, it is up to members as much as moderators to conduct themselves in a way that is beneficial for community growth.

Moderators have guidelines to follow, and thanks to the team being a composition of individuals with their own highly unique perspective on things, decisions are discussed in length and sometimes, as is pointed out: a decision is made to not make a decision -- for the time being until action becomes necessary

So one could say the moderation style is mimicking that of many progressive institutions now; it is an adaptive style, which actually befits an INTP forum

As usual, many people will refrain from making comments while the more outspoken tend to let themselves be heard, so it is difficult to measure the atmosphere based on what just a few people are saying. Which is why I welcome this thread; it is a constructive and enlightening discussion which impresses me as it reflects a community care for this place -- and here I had nearly given up.

So moderators sit back and observe and take notes. Patterns emerge over time, and when the patterns become aligned with what seems to be a detriment to the community as a whole, a moderator, or several will usually voice their concern in the modbox.

The issue is then discussed back and forth, but sometimes this does not happen, as the mods are separated by time zones. I find it particularly frustrating being in Australia, as I tend to wake up to something that has occurred over night. There will be a tentative conclusion -- yes this is a problem, but let's not jump to conclusions just yet. And then the proverbial shit hits the fan and someone will take decisive action based on the tentative consensus of the mod's overall intuitions.

I don't know what the solution is apart from running it the way it is currently run. Personally, I do not like to be rushed into decisions, and prefer other mods input. Sometimes this is difficult for the time reason I mentioned.

The mods are not a clique. We hardly interact out of the forum, although a couple hang on IRC, which is natural; some people develop closer connections.

~~~

Most members on here appear to be wanting to learn and exchange knowledge with other INTPs or other members of rational temperaments. Of course, all temperaments are welcome; they add a nice twist to discussions.

I think this is a general forum goal which is aligned with the founder's visions; a safe-haven for INTPs where discussions about controversial and sometimes difficult topics are open to all -- as long as the discussions don't become flame-wars which discourages other posters from participating.

Obviously, discussions that turn into aggressive one-upmanship-type interaction, and personal attacks are discouraged. People who engage in this type of interaction will receive warnings up to three times. Then it's up to them.

If such a competitive atmosphere does not reveal any pattern of illumination for the benefit of the forum, it best to stop them from becoming circle-jerks that lead nowhere fast. If similar threads pop up, they will be shut for the same reason and the reason is usually explained some place or another. Some members who have been absent for a while and not read carefully through these threads may then think there is an absence of information.

So this is a potential problem I see here, as of recently.

The information about forum happenings is spread over numerous threads and is thus difficult to find for some.

So, as mods, perhaps we have to sit down and see if we can somehow compile information more effectively, although considering the way things pan out during events, it can sometimes be a bit of a major task.

But, it is also recommended that each individual member do as much research as they are capable of themselves, particularly if they have been absent for a while. The information about someone's demise is usually easy to find if one goes back to the last post they made. It is also recommended to read their user history before jumping to conclusions. Click on the username drop-down menu and one will find more posts by this user.

Hmmm...I haven't finished this line of thought yet.

I will drop this here for now.

 

[redbaron]

I thought the highlight of this thread was:

Being an Admin means responsibility for the decisions I have the power to make, I will read debate, I may participate, and I will make every effort to refine myself towards sensible decisions, but don't think that I have no right to tell you to behave yourself according to my current understanding of what "behaving" is, that's how a forum is moderated and how conflict is resolved regardless of whether I am infallible or not; it is my capacity as an Admin and also my reponsibility.

 

[Grayman]

It's summed up fairly well by LoR already.

...

This was very well put together and makes sense. Thanks RB. It gives me much to consider.

 

[Grayman]

....

Messed up duplicate of the next post.

>>>

 

[Absurdity]

I'm suggesting the moderators be more decisive as a collective.

I'll admit I worry about backlash a good deal and this hinders decisiveness mainly because reading hundreds and thousands of words of people bitching grinds you down.

Yet it also makes threads like this with actual, helpful feedback a treat. Thank you all very much.

 

[Grayman]

Ad Hominem.

Doesn't seem to me like Cavallier has ever had or that she now has any problem with negativity, but instead disingenuity. Seems like Cavallier's actually enjoying the thread for the most part.

(Sorry to talk about you in the third person Cav.)

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

This can be taken without context as written. Which really means nothing because what is a retard? It certainly cannot be literal...

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

There may have been a perceived list building up on this forum for some time as you make comments like "I forgot I was responding to Grayman. Hehe". People ignore these slight personal attacks on their intelligence but log them into memory and they see you continue this with various other individuals. Hence with specific people in mind this list becomes less generalized and more personal in nature.

This makes this quote, "Ban retards. Names may be provided upon moderator's request." suddenly seem as a personal attack. Possibly a threat to any who had been given such comments by you in the past.

Perhaps that is what Base_Grove had seen and felt needed defending. Then again I may just be tying things together that shouldn't be.

 

[redbaron]

Concern duly noted. The comment was made tongue-in-cheek. I urge you to report the post if you think it's of detriment to the forum. However please don't turn this so far constructive thread into a tabloid.

That's all I'm going to say about it.

 

[Hadoblado]

This thread obviously needed to be made, and Rook has my thanks, but I think the poll misrepresents public opinion, or at least doesn’t gauge what is important.
The forum will change whether we like it or not. The real question is whether we want to take an active part in that change and if so, how? The only way to keep this forum the same would be to enact changes to prevent change o_0

The forum is changing, do we want to take measures to stop it changing, or do we want to take it in a new direction altogether?

I personally think that a new direction is the only solution. That new direction can be inspired by the past values, but essentially:

The forum can’t stay the same as it is in a natural state of change

The forum can’t meaningfully return to its previous state as its previous state evolved into the current one. Any mechanism that would prevent it from devolving into the present one would constitute a new direction.

So we need to establish which values dictate this new direction. From where does this change come?

Who is deciding on that direction? I see four potentially useful distinctions: Ragnar, mods, vet members, and the general forum public.

Is Ragnar at all concerned about the forum or are we essentially a free entity?

The mods/admin have priority over other members, but is that priority absolute or do members have a say? The existence and active encouragement of this thread implies the latter?

If members have a say, is it all members or just the ones that have established their value? I assume the latter given the sentiment that it’s not a democracy, but where is the cut-off point for established value?

I respect that the mods don’t necessarily need to make this info available.

I’ll add that, while I believe the only good direction is a new one, I don’t necessarily think that that new direction needs to be imposed by a central body. Every member here has influence on the cultural and intellectual state of the forum.
I’ve personally decided I want to try to push the forum in a direction I like with what influence I do wield. The main difference I see in the quality of posts is that the members that have the established ability to consistently post interesting discussion no longer decide to do so, leaving only the antics of less established members.
While imposed change may or may not be required, don’t forget about the change that you yourself can bring, even if that change is just using the search function before starting a new topic, or relying more on reason and less on gifs.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Variform didn't need the forum, he needed a therapist. People get all bleeding heart about it, "oh he has mental problems we should cut him some slack". Should we really? If someone on the street started attacking your 17 year old daughter for no real reason - would you just accept it? Cut them slack for having mental issues?

I am not sure whether or not you read my post properly. I am not for cutting anyone any slack regardless of whether or not they have mental issues. If someone is promoting perverse ideas, ban the person. Especially so for the juvenile and immature bullshit that is directed toward women in this place.

 

[redbaron]

I am not sure whether or not you read my post properly. I am not for cutting anyone any slack regardless of whether or not they have mental issues. If someone is promoting perverse ideas, ban the person. Especially so for the juvenile and immature bullshit that is directed toward women in this place.

Yes that's exactly how I interpreted it

I don't know whether or not you read mine properly, because in the next part I was pointing out how I think the same as you: we don't cut people slack for their possible mental issues. If their behaviour isn't acceptable they don't get a free pass on account of being troubled - it's not the forum's function to counsel or give therapy to people.

Long story short we're in agreement.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Yes that's exactly how I interpreted it

I don't know whether or not you read mine properly, because in the next part I was pointing out how I think the same as you: we don't cut people slack for their possible mental issues. If their behaviour isn't acceptable they don't get a free pass on account of being troubled - it's not the forum's function to counsel or give therapy to people.

Long story short we're in agreement.

Ohh, my misunderstanding.

Sorry. :P

 

[Coolydudey]

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.

+1 for the whole post, particularly the bit in bold

and

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.

As for the problem of finding a rule; the consensus of the established core members (I think quite a clear group)...

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Well, I might have been hasty, RB and others have posted constructive input.
I will refrain from commenting until a reasonable opportunity arises.

So far Polaris post shows how imrpovements to the current conduct could be made, but overall the situation would rather remain as it is. I agree with it.

The problem's center is in the users reacting to admin decisions, also as RB pointed out some decisive actions in case of BAP could have earlier shown the consistency of decisions.

 

[loveofreason]

This is good discussion.

Blarraun, thanks for your response. You might be right - I may indeed saying, essentially, "We don't want to try." Which is funny, because we have tried... I think the solution is along the lines of "We don't want to try any more!" (being accountable for every little action - it is getting in the way of being truly accountable to the wellbeing of the forum....) (But I really shouldn't speak for all mods )

If I can sort of hold the gist of your response in my mind and not get too lengthy, you're suggesting the formalisation/transparency/popular opinion route still has merit, because I haven't really offered a counter argument? I might be way off there. Have I understood correctly?

It's true that what I relate is experiential; it comes also from deep reflection on social theories. I shouldn't say that more transparency couldn't work. It will 'work' to produce an outcome... just not an outcome that I think is good for encouraging the type of forum I (or you? ...though I'm being presumptuous) enjoy.

If a moderation team is exhausting itself trying to be openly accountable for every little thing, there is less enthusiasm, energy and time left for more important things. Like analysing those patterns for 'trouble' before it causes harm. As mentioned, even the fear of having to be accountable has stopped good decisions being taken earlier. In effect, it's a feedback loop that compounds the problem.

What I think posters have identified, and I find really valuable, is that consistency is good. I think consistency is the critical quality that has been lacking and that members are seeking when we talk about accountability/transparency/rules. It's not really these things themselves as much as it is the ability to predict what is and isn't acceptable behaviour, based upon our consistent actions as mods.

(Now that we can do something about!)

Something I also see possible is the idea of declaring a forum vision/goal/direction/purpose as guidance. Excellent thought.


Base groove, I might misunderstand you, but the sense that I do get is that you're being inflammatory and consequently disingenuous. I give some weight to those impressions. However I've been absent and don't have a strong enough impression of your overall presence to know how typical it is, so can't make a call yet. I'm being frank in telling you now that those kinds of behaviour I think are harmful to the forum.

It's up to you how you respond to the knowledge you claimed to want (is there a list, would you be on it?), but strident aggression in self-defence belies your claim to making constructive criticism and argument.

 

[DelusiveNinja]

- it's not the forum's function to counsel or give therapy to people.

That may be. However, that is not to say that individuals on the forum can not be bothered to give suggestions to people with these problems that seem to be apparent. Despite their low population, I believe that there are some "supportive" individuals on this forum and while they may not be necessarily willing to "counsel" or "give therapy" to those who are troubled, they may be willing to cordially suggest some advice.

The "forum's function", to my limited knowledge, is not yet explicitly specified. I highly doubt that will happen anytime soon, but that's just my opinion. The only reasons anyone would rule this out as the main function or a possible function of the forum are because of biases, how they interpreted the implied requirements to have found this compartment of the internet, and how the rules are interpreted.

Make no mistake, I am not saying cut anyone slack because of functional issues that disrupt the forum in an unacceptable(?) manner. What I am saying, to put it bluntly, is that I personally don't agree with the sign that I can imagine being placed on the fences of the dark castle by this statement, which reads "This operating system does not support crybabies who don't get their toys or people wishing to express their need for advice."

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

An ides I'll throw out like yesterday's garbage:

How about when you ban a person, it doesn't show as "banned" under their username? It can just look like it normally does and we non-mods can wallow in our ignorance as to the fate of that person. Was he banned or simply leave? Did she die in a greasefire while working at McDonalds? We'll never know and you won't have to face the backlash!

What was it the Godhead said in that Furturama episode about if you do things right, no one knows you did anything at all?

Of course no one will learn anything about what constitutes "acceptable" behavior

And of course those that make dupe accounts could run in screaming about getting banned like a Kamakazi crashing into a flight deck.

Oh and never mind the fact that we'd be at the mercy of silent assassins/moderators. Power without public accountability is rarely if ever a good thing.

But

Any and probably all solutions have some weakness/downside/flaw that could be exploited by a properly motivated group or individual. That's been the case throughout the ages.

Or you know you could just keep plugging along the best you can. Maybe stress a few general rules that a new user has to click an "I agree" button to join.

A few people got banned. Okay so what? The only opinion on the issue that actually matters belongs to Ragnar.

 

[Jennywocky]

That may be. However, that is not to say that individuals on the forum can not be bothered to give suggestions to people with these problems that seem to be apparent. Despite their low population, I believe that there are some "supportive" individuals on this forum and while they may not be necessarily willing to "counsel" or "give therapy" to those who are troubled, they may be willing to cordially suggest some advice.

The "forum's function", to my limited knowledge, is not yet explicitly specified. I highly doubt that will happen anytime soon, but that's just my opinion. The only reasons anyone would rule this out as the main function or a possible function of the forum are because of biases, how they interpreted the implied requirements to have found this compartment of the internet, and how the rules are interpreted.

Make no mistake, I am not saying cut anyone slack because of functional issues that disrupt the forum in an unacceptable(?) manner. What I am saying, to put it bluntly, is that I personally don't agree with the sign that I can imagine being placed on the fences of the dark castle by this statement, which reads "This operating system does not support crybabies who don't get their toys or people wishing to express their need for advice."

I don't think that last bit is what was being said, not in the least. People here seem to contribute regularly to giving advice and helping people out.

But for the occasional member with serious, serious issues? At least one of the recently departed members fit that bill and really should be in extensive therapy, but I've seen a few people float the idea now that somehow the forum was supposed to "help them" and tolerate the craziness as part of us being accepting. That's not what this forum is about, when someone needs professional help, even if some of us are capable of giving decent advice and would help if we could. It's not advice that is needed in a situation like that.

If that's what you mean, then we're both on the same page.

 

[Grayman]

Concern duly noted. The comment was made tongue-in-cheek. I urge you to report the post if you think it's of detriment to the forum. However please don't turn this so far constructive thread into a tabloid.

That's all I'm going to say about it.

It isn't really about that post. That was just an easy fresh example that required little searching. I was not looking for an apology or recourse, I have accepted it as part of your personality at this point.

 

[Cherry Cola]

I agree with everything Redbaron says, I am to lazy and stupid to add anything of my own.

 

[Perfectly Normal Beast]

so does this mean that from now on threads deemed too silly or frivolous will be locked without comment from mods?

i wonder where the threshold will be set.

somfoolishfoole's mindfuck thread must have been deemed to fall below it. i guess mark twain may not have been welcomed here either, since he clearly considered the same silly/frivolous (?) idea worthy of thinking about.

“I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.”
Mark Twain.

 

[DelusiveNinja]

I don't think that last bit is what was being said, not in the least. People here seem to contribute regularly to giving advice and helping people out.

I probably misinterpreted the quoted piece. I can't tell.

But for the occasional member with serious, serious issues?....should be in extensive therapy

Agreed.

but I've seen a few people float the idea now that somehow the forum was supposed to "help them" and tolerate the craziness as part of us being accepting.

I disagree with that view. I think that the forum is not "supposed" to do anything for any individual(s), but rather it was "meant" to do for the group/the society/the gaggle of people that occupy it. And what it does is chosen, defined, described, and alluded to by the rules that are in place and the information surrounding those rules (i.g. the name of the forum). Therefore, it was "meant" to be a forum, but the question is what kind (right)? Tolerance, I can understand, is limited and that limit is based off of what the forum rules are and what the forum is here for, which is implied and up for interpretation by the people running it.

That's not what this forum is about, when someone needs professional help, even if some of us are capable of giving decent advice and would help if we could. It's not advice that is needed in a situation like that.

Ah, you make me see. I agree with the notion that when people need professional help they'd outta go to get it and not to a forum as that wouldn't be very wise or well received, but my question now is:

How does anyone judge whether someone needs help from this far away, from the forum post and "delusional" threads?

For some it's obvious for others it's not so much, in my opinion.

 

[Grayman]

so does this mean that from now on threads deemed too silly or frivolous will be locked without comment from mods?

i wonder where the threshold will be set.

somfoolishfoole's thread must have been deemed to fall below it. i guess mark twain may not have been welcomed here either, since he clearly considered the same silly/frivolous (?) idea worthy of thinking about.

“I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.”
Mark Twain.

(The Forum) could encourage more people to provide evidence to support their statements. Delete posts taht consist of single line sentences or a single smilie. Such posts don't contribute to the discussion but often lead to misintretpation because the proper case was not made to fully put into context what the individual was talking about or emoting.

EDIT:

At another forum I have experienced frivilous posts to a great degree, being a political forum and a large community. It is not that big an issue here.

The above solution worked well to limit the issues on the forum but where real discussion took place was where the members held eachother accountable for posting things, ensuring that it contained evidence or supported links to prove their point.

When first arriving, this forced me to find evidence and then see if it fit my stated opinion before posting. This forces people to fully consider their post before finding themselves in an arguemnts they cannot back or are just not worth having.

I feel I have gotten away from that. The reminder to post supportive evidence was no longer there as a reminder.

This for the most part is an atmospher created by the members and is not something the admin should have to constantly monitor. It is good for them to encourage it once in a while when supportive evidence begins to wane but most of the heavy lifting should be done by the members.

The part that mods took a higher role in was in removing single line posts or posts that had only videos, pictures, or smilies and no content. A warning was often given for such things. Little complaints were made about such warnings because it is an easy and definable rule to follow that requires no philosphical debate after the mods give the warning.

 

[Perfectly Normal Beast]

We could encourage more people to provide evidence to support their statements. Delete posts taht consist of single line sentences or a single smilie. Such posts don't contribute to the discussion but often lead to misintretpation because the proper case was not made to fully put into context what the individual was talking about or emoting.

i agree (as i think you meant to imply) that there are many fluff/post count/unclear posts but i don't agree at all that single sentence posts are exigently bad.

in any case, i'm not sure that deleting 'unworthy' posts would achieve anything other than stifling the atmosphere of freedom to be playful or even silly which i (and presumably others) find so refreshing here. worse still i think such an approach would cause many members to feel hesitant about posting embryonic ideas with a view to discussing and refining them with the help of older/wiser people.

but yes, by all means encourage people to try and be a bit more thoughtful or evidence based in their posting. i think that often tends to happen naturally anyway as new members get used to the feel of the place.

 

[Grayman]

i agree (as i think you meant to imply) that there are many fluff/post count/unclear posts but i don't agree at all that single sentence posts are exigently bad.

in any case, i'm not sure that deleting 'unworthy' posts would achieve anything other than stifling the atmosphere of freedom to be playful or even silly which i (and presumably others) find so refreshing here. worse still i think such an approach would cause many members to feel hesitant about posting embryonic ideas with a view to discussing and refining them with the help of older/wiser people.

but yes, by all means encourage people to try and be a bit more thoughtful or evidence based in their posting. i think that often tends to happen naturally anyway as new members get used to the feel of the place.

Sorry i edited the post after you quoted....

Silly comments are good to a degree. I feel I take part in that. I still think a silly post should also contain a comment that accually contributes to teh conversation with it.

I believe a few of my silly comments have had the effect of detering a new member in the past and I am regretful that I have not seen him since.

 

[Base groove]

Base groove, I might misunderstand you, but the sense that I do get is that you're being inflammatory and consequently disingenuous. I give some weight to those impressions. However I've been absent and don't have a strong enough impression of your overall presence to know how typical it is, so can't make a call yet. I'm being frank in telling you now that those kinds of behaviour I think are harmful to the forum.

It's up to you how you respond to the knowledge you claimed to want (is there a list, would you be on it?), but strident aggression in self-defence belies your claim to making constructive criticism and argument.

I no longer have interest in being directly confrontational in this thread. My point has been made (although it took a few attempts) - I am willing to blame our confusion on my inherent nature to make points that only I understand and veil them under some other kind of blanket of words that appear to mean something else. This is something I do regularly, not necessarily just on this forum. I do not blame you for interpreting aggression or hostility, therefore it's not fair to blame you for making your idle threats either. .... unless... the aggression was in response to the threats which were in turn responses to... goading. I have said it once in pictures but it bears repeating in words: responding to tone is not something that one ought to make a habit of and that goes for both of us (and all of us) and I'm not talking about INTP forum where you're the boss and I'm not... I'm talking about life in general where you and I have different names, are equals, and that's final.

Regarding the self-defense .... Just wanted to let you know I have a habit of balking at that kind of thing so I guess if you would prefer to have the 'upper-hand' and make such comments without recourse then banning is probably the best course of action in my case because I'm not much for subordination.

Re: constructive -- as far as I can tell, any constructive discussion ended abruptly when you said "No, blah blah terrible thing" and didn't explain your rationale at all...... because then you're no longer taking any criticism or engaging any ideas, you're playing arbiter. I didn't say you had to agree but at least you could have the intellectual integrity to entertain the idea more thoroughly and explain why.... otherwise posters like RB come in and strawman the shit out of it by likening "popular rule" to Top40 music. DO you really want the forum to be a like a Top40 station?? WTF?
Besides... what if I did? I liken Top40 music to extraverted perception (change, novelty, intensity) and things like country and folk to introverted perception (evocations, images, memories). I think this forum might actually benefit from the idea that things change and there's no need to dig in your feet, or even grab the wheel, because although you may be user #22, membership is well over 9000 now and your narrow perspective suddenly (not-so-sudden, I'm sure) ..... forget it. I must stop myself from being inflammatory and disingenuous.

To remind you, (if you are still reading), I was not necessarily arguing in favor of one viewpoint or another; I was attempting to make the point that you're not receiving ideas in a constructive fashion ....... and you did your part well.

Final points regarding confrontation in general -- I would rather argue with six, seven, eight people at once than be told that I'm wrong and subsequently back down to endure personal remarks without even having my points addressed. This is not the rational treatment however from my point of view I've been perfectly rational with you; correct me if I'm wrong (or..... just call me wrong). I will smugly sit here and let you all make your points regarding my tone and hostility and still laugh/cry over the absurd notion that you've deluded yourselves into thinking you're playing fair.

@Polaris: reading thread (for the third time) and laughing at the irony of it all. The real irony. I appreciate that you made the effort explain something to me from a neutral perspective, that didn't specifically make reference to my poisonous negativity which CAN'T EVEN BE PUT INTO WORDS properly.... it's simply a primordial image that barely exists inside one's own mind let alone objective reality.

 

[Grayman]

@PNB

No not all single posts are bad but it is still not hard to elaberate and it still helps deter posts that are unclear or not thought out properly.

After some thought, I think a good comparison is like giving out speeding tickets. Everyone goes 1 to 5 miles an hour over, or whatever unit you use, but when someone continues to speed and succeeds at breaking the sound barrier they certainly deserve a speeding ticket.

I imagine more rules will help deter complaints when the mods actually give out punishment. It makes them look more lenient when they have more speed limits but don't continuously enforce them as apposed to having no speed limits and then getting on a member for being a speeder because of more generic rule such as "don't go to fast all the time." The very, most recent, ban looks simlar to this.

A better way for the mods to spell it out is to say they did...

1) .... as defined in the rules Section 1a.4

User has had his three warnings on account of breaking this rule.

This makes the rule obvious and people know better what not to do as apposed to allways assuming and relying more intuitive understanding of what they did. It makes it easier to comply with expectations.

 

[Cavallier]

I tried to do a multiquote post with all sorts of responses but then realized I'm mostly just responding to the conversation. I'll leave the responsability of understanding the conversation going on here to the reader. That means I have to trust that the readers will actually read....Oh well, there's nothing else for it then:

It is interesting that there is a fair amount of clammer for swifter banning and swifter moderation action taken by admins. I often hold off on banning because as Latte pointed out I don't want to touch certain problems with a 10 foot pole. Mostly this is because the moment I take a step toward banning several cronies of the problem in question start lose their shit. And I don't want to ban everybody so I hold off and hope for a behavior improvement. People on this forum can be very devisive and trying to create a cohesive community is the hardest part of my job.

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?

I don't like the idea of creating subforums for only certain members to play in. This, more than banning, will create an elite clique of forum members faster than more banning would. It is too much like racial segregation except it would be based on philosphy. I don't approve of segregation at all.

A few have mentioned having a clearer purpose outlined for the forum. I like that idea but I also fear it will lead to bureaucracy as LoR pointed out. However, I think there might be a way of moving forward with that. 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.

 

[Base groove]

Here's an idea: ban the people who are name-callers and ban the people who seem to only goad people into an argument with the intent of backing out once the troll is successful.

At least, that's the message I got from the thread "insults" which was referenced in this thread somewhere. I get that the thread was contextually relevant more than it was absolutely relevant in that the forum was going through a spell where banned members wouldn't stay away and the non-banned members really wanted them to.... but on the other hand, this is obviously an ongoing problem and the original context slips away with time to reveal the underlying meaning of the thread without all the relevant data (this is in part a response to Fukyo's post in that thread).

Anyway, I guess I probably have better things to do.

 

[Grayman]

@Cav I like the idea but then thinking about how I use this forum, I don't spend much time or thought on what subsection I am in. I generally just click 'new posts' which mentally for me disregards the fact that they are sectioned at all.

Would this "Summary" be at the heading within the thread as a reminder or at the main page of the subforum? Maybe it would work best there?


Also, I agree with general rules being utilized in this aspect. I only think stricter rules should be applied forum wide. General rules leave up to question "Am I being treated fairly? Am I getting the same treatment as that guy? Others seem to do this, how come I cannot?" How much is allowed really?"


******

Further elaboration again... Hopefully my last point.

I wanted to add that if everyone has to drive 25mph then we call all say we are getting the same treatment. If everyone has to "just not speed too much". Then we are questioning whether we get the same treatment. Some people don't have the trust in order to accept that these rules are being applied fairly and others have not had the time to build that trust. How do we convince them they are being fairly treated? Continually prove your point and argue and answer their constant questioning? aka. my questioning.

We don't want to have hard defined rules because we want room to move. We don't want a bureaucratic environment. The truth is that society has always needed defined rules in order to function. It is less needed in smaller communities like families but even there they have some defined rules. It is really needed in larger communities where people are so diverse and have varied opinions what is right and what isn't.

 

[redbaron]

could encourage more people to provide evidence to support their statements. Delete posts taht consist of single line sentences or a single smilie.

Sometimes one sentence or smilie is enough to convey a point clearly. It's when people are consistently unclear or ambiguous that issue arise. Pretty much what Hadoblado said: "relying more on reason and less on gifs." Brevity itself isn't an issue.

And to be honest I don't really have any issue with silliness when it's being used for playful reasons. Thinly veiled, "joking" used as a means to mock other people is what I think erodes the quality of content on the site.

 

[eagor]

2g) STDs

sugary tasty delights?

 

[Grayman]

Sometimes one sentence or smilie is enough to convey a point clearly. It's when people are consistently unclear or ambiguous that issue arise. Pretty much what Hadoblado said: "relying more on reason and less on gifs." Brevity itself isn't an issue.

And to be honest I don't really have any issue with silliness when it's being used for playful reasons. Thinly veiled, "joking" used as a means to mock other people is what I think erodes the quality of content on the site.

Like I was saying. I don't think warnings should be given out in every case. I just think we need a rule to deter such actions and limit them adn to give the mods something to utilize when an individual becomes obssesive with such things. It will also encourage posters to elaberate on what they mean, which is good. This is specifically important for newcomers who may not have the context of what you are implying because it included past discussions or knowledge of the individual.
Maybe it is a slight irritation to have to elaberate on something that seems obvious to you but is not necessarily obvious to everyone else. I feel there has already been an example of this occuring in this thread. I am not trying to attack you or continue that arguement but it does provide a good example. Had you elaberated and were specific there may have not been anything for Base_Grove to address or attack.


ADDITION:

The argument in other forums that often enforce this rule while addressing complaints about the rule is... "If you feel it is not worth elaberating on, then it is not worth posting."

 

[TimeAsylums]

My not even .01cents,

Fuck yeah mods cracking the whip is a turn on!

Look, step up to the plate! FORM THIS PLACE

CREATE SOMETHING

ACTUALIZE IT

We're going full throttle from P-J yo'

state a forum message

+++


I'm along for the ride

 

[Jennywocky]

Holy fuck.

Who's going to create a thread about this if all the thread creators about stuff like this keep getting banned?

.... oh, the staff is getting so wily.

 

[TimeAsylums]

Holy fuck.

Who's going to create a thread about this if all the thread creators about stuff like this keep getting banned?

.... oh, the staff is getting so wily.

LOL.

Let's start a pool on "who's NEXT!!!?"

(I'd place myself as a good contender)

Fuck yeah mods! ASSERT YOURSELVES !

 

[Jennywocky]

LOL.

Let's start a pool on "who's NEXT!!!?"

Let me look at my Ignore list. (I swear, pretty much anyone who I finally put on the list gets banned.)

(I'd place myself as a good contender)
Fuck yeah mods! ASSERT YOURSELVES !

Uhhh.... way to take one for the team.
Sorry, dude. You're not on my list.

 

[Absurdity]

Let me look at my Ignore list. (I swear, pretty much anyone who I finally put on the list gets banned.)

Shhhh! Do you want people to figure out who really wields power here?

 

[Jennywocky]

Shhhh! Do you want people to figure out who really wields power here?

I don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Pyropyro]

I like this new and improved mod team version.

 

[Helvete]

I think bans should be disabled, every banned member should be unbanned and their accounts programmed so that when they post the letters come out in numbers. Of course if they spam, the post is denied and instead they get some sort of matrix screen pop up :P http://giphy.com/gifs/quEsMOrr3hmQ8

So banning still happens in a sense, but they have a somewhat restricted medium of communication. Of course if they make meaningful numerical posts which can be deciphered then maybe they could have normal posting rights granted back.

 

[loveofreason]

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

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?)