Shades is there any chance

[Atlanticmike]

The "newcomers" have created this sudden and critically urgent need to discuss the assembly a mod team? It seems like there is a really hard argument being put on the table for such a thing. What are the reasons behind these strong expressions of disapproval towards these "newcomers?"

I don't have the answers but it has been proposed on the board recently that this outcry is cemented in concerns about spamming, protecting the board (baby) and objections to board rules being broken. While I am not certain, I think there were some implied offences in there as well.

Spamming: Does it happen? Yes, it happens all the time and it's been happening long before the "newcomers" entered the playground. The most recent example of spamming (From a relatively brief scan of the board) can be found within the last 24 hours - On this thread! - This particular spamming came in the form of pictures that contained LDS apostles letting particular people know that Jesus would be disappointed in their behavior. This obvious spamming also included implications that at least one individual used to post under a different handle (Waterdog) and it also contained calls to repent, clearly mocking the idea. At the very least, this is spamming (I would say it's also a clear example of mocking the beliefs of others and could certainly be offensive to LDS folks, but I digress.) Oddly enough, there has been no outcry about this example of spamming (or other examples) Not a word. Why? Could this entire thing be about WHO is posting something and not about WHAT is posted? Not sure but it might be something we ought to consider as we continue our discussions about moderation of the board.

What about Protecting the board (The baby.) First of all, I personally don't like the analogy of the board being a "baby." In my mind, this has the dangerous potential (intended or not) of leading some people to believe that they are the parents of this board. That they, as the parents, ought get to decide any/all decisions made for the board and that they, alone, are responsible for future of the board (Baby.) This simply isn't true. It is, without question, the community that posts here, the collection of human beings that choose to participate here, that are responsible for the board's health as well as the boards future. In short, each and every one of us are either participating and contributing to the the board's health or each and every one of us are participating in the board's sickness. If a third option exists, I don't know what it might be.

What about objections to board rules being broken. This one is really simple. Board rules have been broken since the days of Noah and they continue to be broken on a daily basis. Unless you pick and choose randomly (or pick and choose based on who the poster happens to be) moderating this would be impossible. The breaking of board rules have been taking place long before the "newcomers" made their first post.

What to make of these offences that are being pointed out (I will briefly offer my thoughts on this one as I'm not sure this is really being argued very strongly at this stage, but it does seem to be in the blender, to at least some degree.) Simply put, this is bananas! Offensive posts can be found littered all over this board - It's been this way for years (Including on this board since I came back) and it began way before the "newcomers" joined us. This is a nothing burger. Full stop!

Lastly, as I read about these things that were going on yesterday, I am left with weighing a couple of things that Shades posted. In addition to other things, I think he makes very very strong points and I absolutely agree with him. Here they are:

What rules are our newcomers breaking that others aren't also breaking?

but the willingness or unwillingness of person A to follow the most basic rules is directly proportional to how seriously I take his or her cries to moderate person B.

Just my thoughts? If yours differ, no problem!

Ceeboo, I would like to apologize for my actions this week, you seem like a really nice person and you shouldn't have to read what I posted. But before you started posting I had already made up my mind that I was going to be a total asshole toward Icarus, doc cam, and schmo. Why?? Because sometimes you have to out bully a bully to get through the BS and shine a light on the real problem. I have no desire to constantly be an asshole toward them. All I ask is for a place to post about Mormonism and other issues I find important without being called a troll or being insulted personally. There's no way for a conservative to post on spirit paradise at the present moment without being bombarded by personal insults. In my opinion a handful of "old-timers" have gotten way to comfortable at insulting certain posters away with constant badgering, personal insults, and pretending that anyone who doesn't think like them is a troll. Just a couple of months ago before I arrived they were grouping subgenius and Ajax together and no matter what subgenius said, he and Ajax were always considered trolls. They ran subgenius away apparently and now they're trying to do the same with me. Problem is, the more they insult me the more I enjoy coming here. This is fun for me! But !!! I much rather have the ability to post or start a thread without having to be insulted personally by the ECHO CHAMBER GANG.

[Moksha]

What do I do that hasn’t always been done by the gang and the pissboys?

You call everyone pissboys. Mike refers to all non-regressives as progressives. We've got some posters with insult problems, but the two of you are driving the board's insult quota through the roof!

[ceeboo]

Ceeboo, I would like to apologize for my actions this week

There is no need for an apology directed at me - Perhaps to others, but that's up to you.

There's no way for a conservative to post on spirit paradise at the present moment without being bombarded by personal insults.

Without question, this has been - and remains - a board issue. All I can tell you is what I have told you before: You must fully recognize, understand and accept what sandbox you are playing in.

Just a couple of months ago before I arrived they were grouping subgenius and Ajax together

I'm not sure if it would surprise you if I told you that "Ceeboo" has been grouped with these same folks in the past as well. It can also be seen with the constant broad brushing of "Trump supporters" or the "Republican Base"- as if this huge collection of people are all the same. To anybody with a sense of balance and reason, this huge number of people come in a vast variety of flavors and are scattered across a wide spectrum. Just like the people on the other side of the political spectrum are.

It's a board problem, there is no doubt about that. What's the answer/solution? I have no idea but something tells me that the only people who even have the potential to address the problem/solution, are the people who belong to this community and post here.

the more they insult me the more I enjoy coming here. This is fun for me!

This is disappointing to me - things that are intended to be divisive, destructive and/or condescending to others ought never be labelled as "fun" (Just being honest with you)

[Res Ipsa]

The "newcomers" have created this sudden and critically urgent need to discuss the assembly a mod team? It seems like there is a really hard argument being put on the table for such a thing. What are the reasons behind these strong expressions of disapproval towards these "newcomers?"

I don't have the answers but it has been proposed on the board recently that this outcry is cemented in concerns about spamming, protecting the board (baby) and objections to board rules being broken. While I am not certain, I think there were some implied offences in there as well.

Spamming: Does it happen? Yes, it happens all the time and it's been happening long before the "newcomers" entered the playground. The most recent example of spamming (From a relatively brief scan of the board) can be found within the last 24 hours - On this thread! - This particular spamming came in the form of pictures that contained LDS apostles letting particular people know that Jesus would be disappointed in their behavior. This obvious spamming also included implications that at least one individual used to post under a different handle (Waterdog) and it also contained calls to repent, clearly mocking the idea. At the very least, this is spamming (I would say it's also a clear example of mocking the beliefs of others and could certainly be offensive to LDS folks, but I digress.) Oddly enough, there has been no outcry about this example of spamming (or other examples) Not a word. Why? Could this entire thing be about WHO is posting something and not about WHAT is posted? Not sure but it might be something we ought to consider as we continue our discussions about moderation of the board.

What about Protecting the board (The baby.) First of all, I personally don't like the analogy of the board being a "baby." In my mind, this has the dangerous potential (intended or not) of leading some people to believe that they are the parents of this board. That they, as the parents, ought get to decide any/all decisions made for the board and that they, alone, are responsible for future of the board (Baby.) This simply isn't true. It is, without question, the community that posts here, the collection of human beings that choose to participate here, that are responsible for the board's health as well as the boards future. In short, each and every one of us are either participating and contributing to the the board's health or each and every one of us are participating in the board's sickness. If a third option exists, I don't know what it might be.

What about objections to board rules being broken. This one is really simple. Board rules have been broken since the days of Noah and they continue to be broken on a daily basis. Unless you pick and choose randomly (or pick and choose based on who the poster happens to be) moderating this would be impossible. The breaking of board rules have been taking place long before the "newcomers" made their first post.

What to make of these offences that are being pointed out (I will briefly offer my thoughts on this one as I'm not sure this is really being argued very strongly at this stage, but it does seem to be in the blender, to at least some degree.) Simply put, this is bananas! Offensive posts can be found littered all over this board - It's been this way for years (Including on this board since I came back) and it began way before the "newcomers" joined us. This is a nothing burger. Full stop!

Lastly, as I read about these things that were going on yesterday, I am left with weighing a couple of things that Shades posted. In addition to other things, I think he makes very very strong points and I absolutely agree with him. Here they are:

What rules are our newcomers breaking that others aren't also breaking?

but the willingness or unwillingness of person A to follow the most basic rules is directly proportional to how seriously I take his or her cries to moderate person B.

Just my thoughts? If yours differ, no problem!

Hey Ceebs,

Just my thoughts based on experience on this board and elsewhere. Human nature includes pushing the boundaries of rules. I don’t know why our brains do that, but you can find this behavior anywhere you find humans.

This behavior is worse when people act anonymously. Anonymity shields them from the social consequences of actions that would otherwise moderate their behavior.

If an online forum has rules, people will break them if there are no consequences for doing so. That’s why boards with rules have moderators.

There has been no moderation here — no enforcement of the rules — since EA vanished something like a year ago. Suggestions or requests that a replacement be appointed preceded the arrival of our two newest members. They have simply made the need more obvious.

If the rules are not enforced, they will be treated by the online community as mere suggestions. That’s what has happened here. The absence of enforcement has taught folks here that they do not need to follow the rules.

in my opinion, rule compliance has slipped considerably since EA disappeared — especially the rules that govern civility and the rule against derailing threads. Not only that, when people see that rules aren’t enforced, they commonly resort to self help, which often consists of breaking the rules. And when that is permitted to happen, it reinforces the notion that it’s okay to break the rules to punish rule breakers.

Shades has developed what I think is a very workable system for a forum that attempts to maximize free speech without having it degenerate into troll infested anarchy. The problem is the absence of enforcement. If he withholds enforcement based on his subjective judgment of the worthiness of the person requesting enforcement, then the rules will not be enforced in any consistent manner — at least one that is visible to the board participants. In addition, if moderation is withheld on that basis, folks who aren’t violating the rules are negatively impacted by the rule breaking that is allowed to continue.

I used the report system on two specific posts in the last couple of weeks. I don’t see that any action was taken. But I have no idea why not. If it’s because Shades does not deem me worthy because I am not without sin, my response would be “Then why didn’t you enforce the rules on me?” If it’s because Shades doesn’t agree that rules were violated, it would be helpful to know that so that I can better understand the boundaries. But I have nothing.

So, it’s all well and good for Shades to point out that folks here have broken rules. But in my opinion he bears considerable responsibility for allowing the board to deteriorate to its current state. If he’s going to have rules, he should enforce them. I don’t get to justify my own breaking of rules by pointing at someone else’s bad behavior. And Shades shouldn’t get to justify a failure to enforce the rules by pointing to someone else’s rulebreaking.

in my opinion, of course. I also recognize that this is Shades’s board and Shades makes the rules. If I find the lack of enforcement too disruptive for the reason I come here, my ultimate remedy is voting with my feet.

[ceeboo]

Hey Ceebs,

Just my thoughts based on experience on this board and elsewhere. Human nature includes pushing the boundaries of rules. I don’t know why our brains do that, but you can find this behavior anywhere you find humans.

This behavior is worse when people act anonymously. Anonymity shields them from the social consequences of actions that would otherwise moderate their behavior.

If an online forum has rules, people will break them if there are no consequences for doing so. That’s why boards with rules have moderators.

There has been no moderation here — no enforcement of the rules — since EA vanished something like a year ago. Suggestions or requests that a replacement be appointed preceded the arrival of our two newest members. They have simply made the need more obvious.

If the rules are not enforced, they will be treated by the online community as mere suggestions. That’s what has happened here. The absence of enforcement has taught folks here that they do not need to follow the rules.

in my opinion, rule compliance has slipped considerably since EA disappeared — especially the rules that govern civility and the rule against derailing threads. Not only that, when people see that rules aren’t enforced, they commonly resort to self help, which often consists of breaking the rules. And when that is permitted to happen, it reinforces the notion that it’s okay to break the rules to punish rule breakers.

Shades has developed what I think is a very workable system for a forum that attempts to maximize free speech without having it degenerate into troll infested anarchy. The problem is the absence of enforcement. If he withholds enforcement based on his subjective judgment of the worthiness of the person requesting enforcement, then the rules will not be enforced in any consistent manner — at least one that is visible to the board participants. In addition, if moderation is withheld on that basis, folks who aren’t violating the rules are negatively impacted by the rule breaking that is allowed to continue.

I used the report system on two specific posts in the last couple of weeks. I don’t see that any action was taken. But I have no idea why not. If it’s because Shades does not deem me worthy because I am not without sin, my response would be “Then why didn’t you enforce the rules on me?” If it’s because Shades doesn’t agree that rules were violated, it would be helpful to know that so that I can better understand the boundaries. But I have nothing.

So, it’s all well and good for Shades to point out that folks here have broken rules. But in my opinion he bears considerable responsibility for allowing the board to deteriorate to its current state. If he’s going to have rules, he should enforce them. I don’t get to justify my own breaking of rules by pointing at someone else’s bad behavior. And Shades shouldn’t get to justify a failure to enforce the rules by pointing to someone else’s rulebreaking.

RI, Thanks for the very thoughtful and well written reply. I think you make some very solid points.

in my opinion, of course. I also recognize that this is Shades’s board and Shades makes the rules. If I find the lack of enforcement too disruptive for the reason I come here, my ultimate remedy is voting with my feet.

Indeed - We all have that option.

Thanks again!

[canpakes]

They ran subgenius away apparently and now they're trying to do the same with me.

Atlanticmike, subs wasn’t ‘run off’. He chose to leave for his own reasons.

Anyone can bring up his posting history and plainly see that just about every comment of his contains an attempt to insult someone else. You’re not making the case that you think that you are with subgenius as an example.

Given that, he also knew when to quit the act and to engage with substance in the Terrestrial and Celestial forums, which is behavior that the new troll can’t match.

ETA: Also, you might consider that spamming a dozen threads with random and disconnected insults whenever you feel slighted in one thread doesn’t make you look like the Forum Justice Warrior. It makes you look like you have Tourette’s. : )

Something to consider, anyway.

[Res Ipsa]

They ran subgenius away apparently and now they're trying to do the same with me.

Atlanticmike, subs wasn’t ‘run off’. He chose to leave for his own reasons.

Anyone can bring up his posting history and plainly see that just about every comment of his contains an attempt to insult someone else. You’re not making the case that you think that you are with subgenius as an example.

Given that, he also knew when to quit the act and to engage with substance in the Terrestrial and Celestial forums, which is behavior that the new troll can’t match.

ETA: Also, you might consider that spamming a dozen threads with random and disconnected insults whenever you feel slighted in one thread doesn’t make you look like the Forum Justice Warrior. It makes you look like you have Tourette’s. : )

Something to consider, anyway.

canpakes, I'm going to disagree with you here about Sub. What I'm going to say is based solely on the fact that I was in a position where I had to pay closer attention to everyone's posts, including Subs, than I normally do. In fact, I had to take Subs off ignore when I became a mod. I am not going to convey anything confidential. Nothing I learned in PMs. Nothing discussed on the mod board. Just what I saw and what I think about it.

I don't know why Sub left. I hope it wasn't due to illness or death. But I think it would be reasonable for him to feel like he was run off the board. Or at least decided to leave because he was treated unfairly.

Sub played the same game here over and over. I think he enjoyed it, and he gave as good as he got. His game was to say nothing but always be on the attack. It's a game anyone can play -- postmodernist deconstruction is a real thing. So, others would try to bait him into taking and defending a position, which he was pretty bad at.

I also think Sub consciously tried to both understand where the lines were and to come as close to them as possible. On the old board, at least for a while, there was a kind of safe harbor for personal attacks. If the attack was made in a clever manner, it was likely to be given a pass. Now, I totally get that cleverness was in the eye of the beholder, but I think he was trying to hit that safe harbor in tone and content.

However, interactions between Sub and certain posters escalated over time into straight up violations of the personal attack rule. I haven't tried to figure out whether Sub or others violated the rule more frequently. But the interaction between Sub and another poster escalated to the point that a threat to physically assault Sub was posted on the board. That happened close to the time I resigned as moderator, so I only know part of how that situation was handled. And that's not information I can disclose. But I did observe, after resigning and taking a long break, the person who made the threat continue to taunt Sub about his reaction to the threat, while downplaying or omitting his own role in the debacle. Just from observing his public posts, I would not be surprised if Sub came away from all that feeling he had not been treated fairly.

[canpakes]

However, interactions between Sub and certain posters escalated over time into straight up violations of the personal attack rule. I haven't tried to figure out whether Sub or others violated the rule more frequently. But the interaction between Sub and another poster escalated to the point that a threat to physically assault Sub was posted on the board. That happened close to the time I resigned as moderator, so I only know part of how that situation was handled. And that's not information I can disclose. But I did observe, after resigning and taking a long break, the person who made the threat continue to taunt Sub about his reaction to the threat, while downplaying or omitting his own role in the debacle. Just from observing his public posts, I would not be surprised if Sub came away from all that feeling he had not been treated fairly.

I’m pretty sure that I know who you are referring to and what incident. Enough of it happened in public, as far as I could see from reading the posts here.

I believe that subs played instigator pretty well, and did nothing to de-escalate the situation. Of course, I’m not privy to anything that happened on the PM side between them, so I could be wrong about this.

Given the large number of months between that incident (wasn’t it over a year?) and subs’s departure right after Jan 6, my guess is just that his ‘election fraud/Trump is being reinstated Jan 6’ routine no longer had the same potential to poke folks, and knowing that, he figured to take a break.

[Moksha]

If there is actual crappy behavior that you want moderated, point it out (like me telling you to go “F” yourself.)

There is definitely a pathological condition on this board, and the above is a full-blown symptom on display. Can Shades step up and put his Dr. title to use in finding a remedy?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]