Rules and Moderator information

[Kishkumen]

I, too, am not opposed to trying it out.

[Chap]

I learned of this when I logged in just now. It’s both unexpected and disheartening. I’m sure you’ll be hearing from us after we’ve huddled and agreed upon any changes we make regarding the rules or how they are enforced.

Whatever you decide on Res, I hope you continue to allow respectful opposing opinions. Let's regulate tone rather than content. I'm for a certain decorum where an opinion can be expressed by the least of us without the danger of being ridiculed for being inarticulate or for engaging in wrongthink. However, all need to express themselves as adults would. Courts require respectful dialogue and in Congress the level of dialogue is wider. However, there are still rules of decorum.

We live in a world where Twitter and Facebook selectively edit out opposing opinion because it doesn't fit the controlled narrative. MD&D does the same regarding Mormonism. I'd hate this board to become an MD&D based on a different line of thought. Let's have a place where anyone can at least express themselves and not fear personal attacks and where the positions are debated.

So long as the rules are respected (PG-13, no personal attacks, etc, and no deliberate disruption of the board for the sake of disruption), I am happy if even disrespectful opposing opinions are allowed.

What has to end is the trolling: thread after thread deliberately derailed by irrelevant abuse and nonsense, and the board often filled at the start of the day by stacks of different threads all by the same person, each one devoted to a link to a video that is promised to make <Group X> see how stupid they are. That has to stop.

[Res Ipsa]

Kevin,

Would you mind if I merged this thread into the Rules and Moderation thread? It would help me if we had all suggestions in a single thread.

[Marcus]

my suggestions are:

1) If Binger isn't banned already, he needs to be permanently banned.

2) A-Mike is simply going to play the troll war by whatever means he has at his disposal. If he can't get away with sexual insults, name-calling, profanity etc., then he's going to start as many "hit-and-run" threads where he provides no discussion as possible. Such as his latest Hannity thread.

If there is a way to prevent him from posting opening posts and/or limit the number of posts a day from from a moderator standpoing, then do so. I can help research the technical feasibility if needed. That is, if the mods don't want to ban him also, then at least perma-Q him like faqs.

Here's what's going to happen. The board is a little slow right now, there might be 2 or 3 ongoing threads. All A-Mike has to do is post one hit-and-run youtube video proclaiming victory with no discussion a day and the normal topics are floating in a sea of his filth, which is his only objective.

If you don't deal with him, people are going to keep these crisis threads going that they want to quit the board because of him so might as well just get together and do a proper job of restraining him. He's been given endless, endless chances. whatever errors on the side of harsh justice can't be wrong.

“Endless, endless chances.”

If I recall correctly, faqs could post freely in certain forums but couldn’t start threads or post without going through a queue for others. If that’s what you meant by ‘perma-Q’, I agree it’s a start. But, a ban really seems in order. (See “endless, endless chances.”)

[Dr Exiled]

Whatever you decide on Res, I hope you continue to allow respectful opposing opinions. Let's regulate tone rather than content. I'm for a certain decorum where an opinion can be expressed by the least of us without the danger of being ridiculed for being inarticulate or for engaging in wrongthink. However, all need to express themselves as adults would. Courts require respectful dialogue and in Congress the level of dialogue is wider. However, there are still rules of decorum.

We live in a world where Twitter and Facebook selectively edit out opposing opinion because it doesn't fit the controlled narrative. MD&D does the same regarding Mormonism. I'd hate this board to become an MD&D based on a different line of thought. Let's have a place where anyone can at least express themselves and not fear personal attacks and where the positions are debated.

I pretty much think of our role here as similar to the way the Supreme Court interprets the right to political or religious speech: reasonable restrictions on time, place, and manner. Minimal regulation of the substantive content of speech. In terms of respectful communication, the kingdom structure addresses that issue in what I think is an elegant manner. If one wants a completely respectful and focused discussion, we have Celestial and Super Spirit Paradise. If one wants a less focussed, less respectful kind of discussion, we have Terrestial and Paradise. And if one wants a knock down drag out fight, we have Telestial and Prison.

I think you raise a difficult idea when it comes to ridicule or mockery. I'm inclined to draw a distinction between mocking a person and mocking an idea. However, that breaks down when someone has internalized an idea as a part of who they are. So, I think we're always going to be doing a bit of fumbling around on that score. Mockery of a person is Telestial/Prison territory. Mockery of ideas I'm less sure about.

I think ideas should be tested, but, there is a danger to go overboard during battle and that is where an admonishment from a moderator would be helpful. As far as the internalizing an idea problem, I agree that people will be hurt regardless. Mere disagreement isn't an attack personally and a little toughness from posters should be assumed.

I just fear equating different ideas and disagreement to trolling to be problematic. Someone shouldn't be banned for having an opposing viewpoint.

[SaturdaysVoyeur]

"What good is a Libertarian utopia if no one wants to live there?"
--Dr. Shades, 11-26-2021

(This potentiality is being discussed in multiple threads, so to save time I'm just going to start this new thread and post it once.)

The writing is on the wall, methinks. It looks like the calls for me to step down and let my moderators take over--unleash them?--has reached critical mass. Therefore, I hereby step down as chief moderator and release them from any obligation to be clones of me. I hereby give them free rein to moderate as they see fit. Hell, I hereby even grant them permission to change the rules if they want (with the exception of Universal Rule #12, which is exempt from alteration).

I'll take back over if a critical mass of people call for it or if it becomes necessary for whatever reason. In the meantime, I reserve the right to post as a civilian.

But for now, with this action, let no one say I refused to grant unto you according to your desires.

I don't participate much, but I have been around a while (I had a different handle on the old forum, but I participated even less back then). So I know my opinion isn't as informed as other people's. I don't know what the background drama is to this, and I don't really want to know. (The best part of not being in Relief Society is not feeling the need to concern myself with other people's business.)

But, personally, I don't find it that hard to avoid people on here who I don't like, so I think you should stay in control of things.

There's no such thing as a perfect balance of moderation. But I haven't really noticed you and the mods, other than to notice the absence of bot-spam and that repetitive posts are quickly consolidated. To my way of thinking, that's good moderation.

We all have a different definition of troll. AtlanticMike doesn't bother me a bit. I don't think I've ever done more than skim his posts. Is that guy who goes around saying everyone (including me, at one point!) approves of child marriage/rape a troll?

I would just say he's someone I don't want to talk to. Know what? I ignore him---problem solved!

It seems to me you step in where you need to, and that's really all that's needed.

My only complaint is that the net nanny on here changes "f*ucking" to "damned." Which is really damned stupid. (See?? That is so damned stupid!) We're Mormons. It should change to "flipping."

[Res Ipsa]

I pretty much think of our role here as similar to the way the Supreme Court interprets the right to political or religious speech: reasonable restrictions on time, place, and manner. Minimal regulation of the substantive content of speech. In terms of respectful communication, the kingdom structure addresses that issue in what I think is an elegant manner. If one wants a completely respectful and focused discussion, we have Celestial and Super Spirit Paradise. If one wants a less focussed, less respectful kind of discussion, we have Terrestial and Paradise. And if one wants a knock down drag out fight, we have Telestial and Prison.

I think you raise a difficult idea when it comes to ridicule or mockery. I'm inclined to draw a distinction between mocking a person and mocking an idea. However, that breaks down when someone has internalized an idea as a part of who they are. So, I think we're always going to be doing a bit of fumbling around on that score. Mockery of a person is Telestial/Prison territory. Mockery of ideas I'm less sure about.

I think ideas should be tested, but, there is a danger to go overboard during battle and that is where an admonishment from a moderator would be helpful. As far as the internalizing an idea problem, I agree that people will be hurt regardless. Mere disagreement isn't an attack personally and a little toughness from posters should be assumed.

I just fear equating different ideas and disagreement to trolling to be problematic. Someone shouldn't be banned for having an opposing viewpoint.

I agree. As a moderator, I am constantly thinking about making sure that people with minority viewpoints are able to express them freely. For example, I've criticized what I've described as knee-jerk contrarianism while posting in the black. In the red, I don't equate knee-jerk contrarianism with trolling.

[Xenophon]

Giving this a bump to help posters add their thoughts and suggestions.

[Dr Exiled]

For context: I came very close to stepping down yesterday over what I saw as very ugly comments directed towards Shades. It was just what Atlanticmike has been trying to do since the beginning. And, given the fact that I don't have a decades long relationship with people on this board, I have no doubt that there are forum members here who would throw me under the bus in heartbeat if they don't get exactly what they want. Why in the world would any sane person voluntarily put themselves in that position.

The only thing keeping me on the team right now is that Shades entrusted his baby to me. And I'll be damned if I'll betray that trust. So, I'm going to work with canpakes and xeno as a team to do what we think is best for the board. Right now, my general philosophy is to move toward Shades's Libertarian utopia and not away from it. That means adjusting enforcement and rules to take the place of the commitment to Libertarian values that form the necessary foundation of a free speech forum.

In law, we have a saying: hard cases make bad law. There's a corollary: any law named after someone is probably a bad law. Laws passed in hurry to address a single problem always suffer from the law of unintended consequences. The one thing about being a clone of Shades that I am not willing to drop is to approach problems dispassionately and with an aim to solve the problem without creating two new problems. So, if you're out for blood, you're probably not going to be happy with some of my recommendations. I will do the best to use my meager talents and limited good judgment to act in ways that I think are best for the good of the board.

If you have suggestions concerning rule enforcement or rule changes, please post them to the Rules and Moderators thread so that we don't miss any suggestions.

Thanks.

Amen Res. You have my support.

[Marcus]

Copied over from the thread I quoted from

…I just fear equating different ideas and disagreement to trolling to be problematic. Someone shouldn't be banned for having an opposing viewpoint.

This is where a solid definition of trolling would be really helpful. The current most common definition is that a “troll” posts not to communicate, whether in agreement or disagreement, but rather with the deliberate intent to disrupt the communication process. There is no reference in the trolling definition to different ideas, only to the concept of a deliberate intent to disrupt. Moderators have to look across multiple posts to assess this, which is what trolls in the past counted on. If they could sneak a single post past a mod as borderline acceptable, they could continue to disrupt overall, without any single post giving them away. They could also point to single posts as being apparently acceptable, to fight accusations of trolling. Looking at overall intent is much harder, in my opinion, but it needs to be done.

(RI, i can copy this to the rules thread if you’ve already moved stuff.)