I sense a disturbance in the force.
This thread is for people to tell me what they think is going on, going wrong, and what they think we should do about it. I’m listening.
Lizzie
[Edit added 18.40 pm CET 20/08/2018 by Alan Fox]
As the comments have ballooned, Lizzie would very much like members to summarize their thoughts and suggestions into one statement and there is now a dedicated thread, “Summaries”, where they can be posted. Please just post one summary and please do not add other comments. You are welcome to comment on other people’s summaries in this thread. The idea of the “Summaries” thread is to make it easier for Lizzie to get your input. Comments judged by admins not to be summaries will move to guano.
Members who would rather keep their thoughts confidential are invited to use the private messaging system. Lizzie’s address is Elizabeth.
Because I am trying to help you out.
Here’s another attempt:
When Mung disagreed with your statement
he was poking fun at your wording: That is not what the second law ‘states’. It IS a consequence of the second law, if you make some eminently reasonable assumptions. Especially if you use Planck’s formulation.
More content and less casual misogyny, please J-Mac
Just trying to spice things up for you.
This is a perfect example how the “rules” whatever they are, are not being applied constantly here… I’m tired of this nonsense… Harshman and walto (vomit this) can write whatever hell they want… Jack the suck can get away with anything…
I hope Lizzy promotes you… I will vote for you…
Does everyone agree that there should be no free speech for misogynists?
What’s next, philosophers?
Ask your buddy over a brewski.
Everybody except presuppositionalists get passes as I understand the theory. Because they say stuff that’s REALLY offensive! Plus, they’re unenlightened.
I was thinking of wearing my smock and having a hidden accomplice take a picture of us together.
It would be very helpful, not to mention fair, to allow keiths to make his own points here. I ask again for you or Alan to remove his suspension, at least until Elizabeth makes some kind of decision about the new rules for TSZ.
That aside, arguendo I’ll accept your summary. It still supports two of the points I’ve been making. First, there is nothing in the rules that allows admins to make threads “no Guano”. While I personally think allowing admins the ability to move comments has proven to be a bad idea, it is what Elizabeth implemented. If the admins were refusing to address issues raised by participants, that’s another example of power creep. The rules need to be clear and admins need to be held to a higher standard.
Second, it appears from keiths’ summary that those threads didn’t exhibit any of the negative consequences predicted by those who want to keep moderation. They are additional examples of moderation-free discussions working.
It’s okay to let people talk to each other without interference.
I dispute this. There are Usenet newsgroups that have been running for decades, with only spam filtering to remove noise. There are also mailing lists, a couple of which I’ve been on for over 10 years, that have no moderation yet have not decayed. Usenet has the advantage of better tools than TSZ, but the Ignore button provides most of what is needed.
I see most of the “decay” here coming from the massive amount of meta-discussion generated by the moderation system combined with recent overreactions by the admins where they abused their privileges despite the rules. That kind of behavior will make a forum less hospitable than the occasional flame war.
There are a lot of comments accepting your claim of “forum decay” not because it is supported by the evidence but because it supports their desire to control other people.
I don’t often agree with phoodoo, and I might not have phrased his points quite so colorfully, but I don’t think he’s wrong here.
If they want to be fair and reasonable, the admins should lift keiths’ suspension. Personally, I think they owe him an apology, but that’s not going to happen.
I don’t recall suggesting those specifically. here’s what I suggested:
If Elizabeth is interested, next weekend I can spend some time researching WordPress tools.
I give you points for out of the box thinking, but I disagree with your claim that longer threads don’t have value. The result of your suggestion would be new, duplicate threads being created every week.
How about TSZ tries something really crazy like letting people interact with each other however they like for as long as they like without other people interfering? We could call it “freedom of expression”. Who knows, it might just catch on!
And people would be free to hit the Ignore button due to assholish behavior. If someone does want to engage with you when you’re deliberately not posting in good faith, that’s their choice.
Why? I don’t understand this desire to control what others can write and read. It strikes me as a serious character flaw. How do you think discussions will be improved by you or another admin interfering?
I’m glad you made your position clear. I no longer think you’re suitable as an admin. Admins should value free expression and respect people’s choices of how to interact, even if they disagree.
Perhaps a blog with posts limited to 144 characters.
I think it’s silly to allow insults to go untouched just because they are embedded in a post with a higher word count. Oh look, he spend 200 words NOT insulting someone. Good dog, good boy. Here, have another insult someone for free card.
Cool story, but the plural of anecdote is not data. I’ve already noted long-running Usenet newsgroups and mailing lists as existence proofs to the contrary.
Fora succeed or fail for a variety of reasons. Moderation, particularly overzealous moderation like we’ve been seeing here lately, can easily be a net negative.
keiths read this and sent me the following:
I agree with him, particularly with regard to points 3, 4, and 5. Except in the case of Bannable Offenses, the admins shouldn’t be suspending anyone. It’s too prone to abuse. All moderation decisions should be public, no comments or posts should be deleted, and the admins should have to defend their actions to anyone who challenges them. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. What you’re suggesting is basically UD.
I agree with your 1, though.
I do. The only way this place really works is when Elizabeth is active as a benevolent dictator. She leads by example in her interactions and raises the level of discourse, without overreacting and escalating situations.
That’s a lot of pressure for one person, though. A better alternative is to eliminate the ability of admins to cause the kind of drama that has happened recently and encourage all members to voluntarily be the change they want to see. Not everyone will, of course, but it doesn’t take that many to build a community.
🙂
I can tell.
My core point, however poorly expressed, is that the admins have been slowly taking more and more power, despite the rules, often for what seem to be good reasons. That has led to this debacle. TSZ needs clear rules that protect the members from that kind of behavior.
You’ll need to ask Elizabeth. They are the rules she put in place. I’d merely be enforcing them. Change the rules and I’d change my tune.
My position is, get rid of the rules or have stricter enforcement of them. I don’t like the status quo. So in a very real sense I am with you and keiths. And it has nothing to do with wanting to restrict what people can say. It’s about fairness and consistency.
Do you remember when Adapa accused me of having “a long and sordid history of anti-gay bigotry”? I didn’t recall running to the mods asking for censorship. I asked him to defend his claim. He didn’t. He’s on Ignore.
As long as rules are in place they should be adhered to and enforced. If that’s a character flaw so be it. But frankly I think you are creating a false narrative. For example, do you have any evidence at all that I have ever advocated silencing or censoring what someone has said in Noyau?
We have free speech here.
I do. But when people come here they agree to interact within the rules, even if they disagree. And if they don’t want to do that, there is still Noyau.
Do you at least understand how my approach is related to respect for the rules that Elizabeth has set down and not because I think those rules are right or best or because I want to suppress expression?
If not, how many beers will it take to change your mind?
Did you review those threads before coming to this conclusion?
You are ascribing nefarious motives. That is not conducive to the goals of this site.
Would it be accurate to say that you are ok with Elizabeth closing comments on a thread, but not any of the other mods? Don’t you think that her actions, when she was here, set precedent for the other mods to follow, even if there is no written rule?
ETA: btw, my comment about Elizabeth’s return was meant as humor. 🙂
Not particularly relevant, as far as I can see.
To the contrary of what?
I made no proposal. I simply presented my experience at two forums.
You seem to be criticizing me for something that I never said, something that exists only in your own imagination.
Really?! I don’t think anybody would have guessed…
I got an idea. Why don’t you work on your buddy? Instead of being his mouthpiece for no rules, why not try to get him to act like a person who doesn’t need them? He’s the main reason we’re here, discussing this stuff endlessly. Not Neil, not Alan, not Jock–keiths. Is he ready to be this change?
That exercise would be good for you both, I believe.
Come on people! Get a life! Nobody here will ever be satisfied 100% …not even 50%… that’s life… That’s why we have politicians and so many unnecessary wars…
Let the admins do their job! Let Neil-nail, Jock the sock-suck, VJ Torley to be the trolley of this blog to the best of their abilities and inabilities…
This is just a blog… it’s not your lives… right?
Would I be wrong to say that you value *some* free expression?
I don’t understand this desire to control what others can write and read. It strikes me as a serious character flaw.
Absolute freedom doesn’t work, because absolute freedom must include the freedom to just fucking kill anyone you feel like murdering at any time. Likewise, absolute free speech doesn’t work (see also: Popper’s “paradox of tolerance”). If some proponent of (relatively) unlimited free speech wants to make noise about how people who disagree with them are secretly desirous of Controlling What Others Write And Read… I can live with that.
I don’t agree with this at all. The problem isn’t keiths, its the moderators. Always has been. You just don’t like keiths, but he didn’t make the rules.
Just look at the moderation discussion where Mung is pointing out the kinds of posts he would remove if he were moderator. He shows an offensive post by Dazz. So what does DNA Jock do? Instead of pointing out (and maybe even removing the offending post by Dazz) DNA Jock just tells Dazz to keep doing what he is doing, keep writing insulting posts, because Mung is just having fun.
How to replace Alan with someone just as bad? Just ask Jock.
phoodoo,
We have different interests here, phoodoo. Your main interest is in who the mods are, because of what they’ve done to you. My main interest is in what kind of a place I’d like this to be. They’re related, of course: different mods, different stuff. But it woul’t all be better: some
would be worse,
The thing is, whoever the mods are–say it’s you and mung instead–it would still be fucked up here from somebody’s perspective, because with these rules–or lack of them, it pretty much has to be. The answer, however, isn’t the patrick/keiths ‘Lord of the Flies’ solution of having no rules at all.
So, yeah, I think keiths is a problem. But I don’t think he’s the main problem. Lose him, and again, like with the mods, It’d just be be somebody else befouling the place with arrogant bile.
So I think you gotta look a little deeper.
My purpose in posting the links to comments by dazz and John wasn’t because I expected (or even wanted) the mods to do something about them, because I discovered that posting offending remarks in the Moderation Issues thread and expecting the mods to do anything about it was just setting myself up to be disappointed.
Having a Moderation Issues thread seems pointless other than to keep complaints about Moderation Issues out of other threads.
So suggestion to Elizabeth. Get rid of Moderation Issues. It gives a false sense that something might actually be done about things that are posted there.
Is your concern mainly about the forum moderation having an overall editorial bias inconsistent with the goals of the forum that will not be correctable without a public forum? (As opposed to providing a public place for posters to complain about individual decisions).
If it is the overall bias concern, I think in the end we have to rely on the owners of the forum picking moderators that meet the goals of the forum along with the existence of private processes for complaints which can escalate to the owners.
BruceS,
What in the world makes you think a private process for complaining would do anything. The moderators would simply say sorry, tough luck. Just like they do already. The only difference would be that it would be even easier for them to do that.
If I understand your correctly, you are concerned that posters may be unhappy with moderation decisions but have no way to change the situation.
My position is that it is the role of the moderators to ensure the goals of the forum are met fairly and it is the role of the owner (1) to pick moderators who do that and (2) to provide a final escalation point.
In the end, if you as a poster are not satisfied, you would have no recourse but to go to a different forum.
I think that is the best approach, but I understand you may differ from that position.
ETA: A part of my position is that the this excerpt from the rules is pointless: either the premise of finding common ground is empty, or the conclusion is wrong because it ignores the differing interpretations people bring to facts. Specifically, the hope expressed in the rules does not work for moderation. Here is the excerpt I mean:
BruceS,
What issue does this solve. All it does is make the moderators decisions secret. What other purpose does it serve, and what does it improve from the current state.
Just that nobody will be able to talk about the moderators decisions anymore. THAT makes the site better?
This is a great example of what I was getting at in the ETA of the post you are replying to.
Specifically, you and I agree on the fact that no one will be able to talk about the moderators’ decisions. But we interpret that fact under different values I think:
Yes, I think will make the site better.
You are no piker yourself, mg.
Is that a confession, do you feel like during your moderator days that you took powers inappropriate considering the extended absence of the sole arbitrator of disputes?
Did you ever moderate under the influence of emotion rather than reasoning?
Don’t mean to interrogate but you were a moderator, your first hand experience would be enlightening.
Worst mistake?
Only seem like?
From the owner:
By virtue of that statement , the moderator’s decisions have her imprimatur, she trusts their interpretations of the rules just like she trusts her own interpretation of her rules, that the function of rules is to serve a purpose rather than be the purpose. She pardoned Joe . A mistake perhaps, but it was her best possible decision when she judged the particular rather than an abstract notion.
Do feel like you or other moderators have violated that trust to make the best decision?
To be accurate, unless someone knows what led keiths to be keiths ,we will never know what led to the ‘debacle’. We do know keiths’ actions before , during , and after publishing the post are the cause of this particular crisis of faith.
I asked mung the question, what would you have done? What would you have done?
I think the moderator’s first clear rule should be to protect the owner from any blowback from our behavior. It is up to her calculate the risk she is willing to bear for the goal of keiths’ unfettered ability to use her website in service of his pissing contest.
I agree the clarity is good, but unless there is a rule against discussing moderation, making us more like UD, the endless discussion will continue in my opinion. As long it is confined to one place , people are free to read it or not.
How very Lawful Neutral of you.
Nope. I am concerned by your willingness to enthusiastically and strictly enforce rules that you may not agree with.
We did. Ask keiths if we do now.
You contradict yourself. A willingness to enforce rules that infringe on freedom of expression, whether you agree with them or not, shows that you don’t really value it. Actions speak louder than words.
I’d like to see rules that limit admins to clearly defined roles and admins that err on the side of not interfering.
Sounds reasonable, many forums work that way. I think the experience at UD pushed the owner in a different direction.
Nope. If any real harm had come from them, the people in favor of giving more power to the admins would be trumpeting it to support their position. Apparently all that’s there is speech that some people don’t like. That’s okay, unless you’re a control freak.
I’m simply following the evidence where it leads. As I’ve said many times before, assuming good faith in the face of evidence to the contrary is just stupid.
If you’d like to change my mind, lift keiths’ suspension so he can make his case while Elizabeth is still paying attention.
Elizabeth owns the site. She makes the rules. Her style of engagement on UD and here has earned her a lot of leeway with me. She is neither arbitrary nor capricious.
The current admins have many good qualities, but they’ve demonstrated that they will overreact based on their egos and that respect for other TSZ members is not among their primary values. I no longer trust them, or anyone else who wants the job, frankly, to do what’s best for the site without being constrained by very strict limitations detailing exactly what they are allowed to do.
Sure, you just posted that little anecdote with no context, for no apparent reason. Got it.
My own context-free musing is that I simply can’t imagine why anyone wouldn’t trust the admins lately.
Patrick,
I don’t recall you answering mung’s questions about expressions of racism and misogyny. Maybe I missed them?
That’s the money shot.
Several people actually have voted with their feet. Not sure that Elizabeth in her absenteeism noticed though.
I think part of the complaint here is that a portion of your hierarchy is MIA. The mods have become the final arbiters with no one to appeal to and no one to check for abuses. The mods are not a check on each other.
Now the way I interpret this is that Elizabeth trust here mods to manage the site in her absence. But they don’t see it that way. They cannot even remove an old OP from the front page without her say so.
Having a moderation thread may allow you to achieve the lofty post of moderator. That seems like a thing.
And the benefit of keeping moderation complaints out of other threads is justification enough.
Elizabeth’s blog, Elizabeth’s rules. I included that because I saw it discussed in Moderation Issues when I was catching up.
Personally, I like my racists out and loud, so I know who to ignore. I think there’s more value in refuting those views online than continuing to beat the dead horse of IDC.
BruceS,
Don’t really know what else to say here. Would it be OK with you if your parliament did all of its deliberation in private? Do you not support public records requirements? I guess I just think it’s obvious that transparency is a good thing. And I agree with phoodoo’s concerns about your proposal.
It’s a good thing no one is advocating for something that stupid, then. Freedom means freedom from coercion not the freedom to coerce.
The Paradox of Tolerance is always raised by people who want to control others. Funny, that. It’s almost like they weren’t actually tolerant in the first place.
We’re talking about a small blog here. It’s worked well for years with minimal censorship by the admins. There has been control creep that finally pushed it over the line to where the admins are acting like Barry Arrington. That’s a strong indicator that it’s well past time to figure out what went wrong.
Your comfort with censorship doesn’t reflect well on you.
” . . .error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.”
— Thomas Jefferson
It’s important to measure the number of people lost to overreactions by the admins as well. It’s not only robust discussion that chases people off.