Free Speech and Moderator Action

[ralis]

Recently I had a discussion with Mal in regards to moderator action on this forum. I was making quires as to why my questions are ignored or given vague answers. I was told the moderators are shaping discussions to add value. When I asked how value is defined in this context, I was given no satisfactory answer. If the moderators have some vague idea that manipulating discussions add value, then there must be personal biases in determining value in a given context.

 

The recent banishment of Raymond Wolter "cheerleader" remark, was never given a satisfactory answer as to cause. I suspect there may be a cultural misunderstanding. However, that is no excuse, given the vast resources of the internet to arrive at a better understanding of a term in a given context.

 

When I inquired as to the reasons for my banishment this summer, I was told that I was disturbing the valued members on this forum. Huh? What does that mean? Who are the valued members? I was ignored as usual.

 

The attitude toward me was that I needed to be banished to have time to think and ponder the error of my ways.

 

Has this forum turned into a money making enterprise that will trump free speech? Again, who are the valued members?

 

 

http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/16216-ttb-reputation-system/page__st__80

Edited November 21, 2010 by ralis

[Sloppy Zhang]

First of all, I'm unfamiliar with the cheerleader remark, and I'm unfamiliar with the circumstances leading up to your own temporary banishment, so I can't speak to that.

 

Second of all, and please don't take this the wrong way, Ralis.... you are a very direct person, and sometimes that rubs people the wrong way! There may be a few instances in which you could re-craft your manner of speaking in a more diplomatic way, if you take my meaning

 

That said, the only instances I have seen evidence of moderator activity (and I say "evidence" because usually I stumble into a thread after something has happened, so I don't know what was removed and/or why), they seem to be where a thread has started to go off in personal attacks, rather than debating/arguing a particular point or stance. So there's a shift from, "this idea is lacking in...." to "you believe this idea so you are lacking in..."

 

I don't know that it is an encroachment on free speech. Perhaps their usage of the phrase, "shaping the discussion to add content" is their own diplomatic way of saying, "we're cutting out members who post personal attacks, or are hounding another member simply because of a personal disagreement".

 

I'm an advocate of free speech. To some extent, I don't like censorship of any kind. I am perfectly fine with seeing comments that involve lots of swearing and otherwise unseemly language. However, I know that many others are offended by this. I also know that our forum is in a particularly interesting situation- we occasionally are visited by well known members of the spiritual/martial community, some of whom are well known teachers and authors, and we've even conducted interviews with some of these people! So there is a distinctly professional image that has become associated (whether accidentally or intentionally) with our little corner of the internet. Perhaps the moderator attempts to moderate conversation and cut out any.... rough edges, are an attempt to clean the place up in case someone respectable happens by and does not understand our unique way of communicating with one another?

[Marblehead]

... and please don't take this the wrong way, Ralis.... you are a very direct person, ...

 

 

Am I allowed to say that this might even be an understatement without offending anyone?

 

Sorry Ralis. I love you but the truth is the truth. Hehehe.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Ralis is our local curmudgeon and speaks what needs to be said many times. To have a heavy handed moderated happy little group here is akin to the Sunday Afternoon Ladies Taoist Garden Club, which is what some of the Love and Light crowd would like to have. The shadow, as exemplified by the fights we have here and sometimes by comments made by ralis and various members is our shadow being voiced. Communities that deny the shadow always fall prey to it later, as shown by numerous spiritual communities that never allow open and free speech, including criticism of the guru.

 

Raymond Wolter was banned after he said Cat was "a cheerleader for KAP", causing Cat to yowl and spit and complain to the mods like someone had stepped on her tail, so Raymond got banned. If Cat hadn't made such a fuss to the moderators, he wouldn't have been banned, simple as that. And that comment would have been long forgotten instead of us still talking about Cat the Cheerleader months later. (When I brought it up recently, Mal told me I was living in the past). I see it as discussing inconsistent and unresolved moderation issues.

 

Meanwhile, one member called another "a piece of work" and that wasn't deemed insulting. I imagine if Vajra complained to the mods instead of swatting back at everyone, others would get banned.

Edited November 21, 2010 by TheSongsofDistantEarth

[Sloppy Zhang]

Raymond Wolter was banned after he said Cat was "a cheerleader for KAP", causing Cat to yowl and spit and complain to the mods like someone had stepped on her tail, so Raymond got banned. If Cat hadn't made such a fuss to the moderators, he wouldn't have been banned, simple as that. And that comment would have been long forgotten instead of us still talking about Cat the Cheerleader months later. (When I brought it up recently, Mal told me I was living in the past). I see it as discussing inconsistent and unresolved moderation issues.

 

Meanwhile, one member called another "a piece of work" and that wasn't deemed insulting. I imagine if Vajra complained to the mods instead of swatting back at everyone, others would get banned.

 

Ah, thanks for filling in the background...

 

I'll have to think that over, as I'm not initially sure how I feel about it...

[Aetherous]

Again, who are the valued members?

 

Anyone that stays here longer than a month is a valued member. Newbies are cheerleaders.

[thelerner]

In the case of the 'cheerleader' I'd say it was premature ejecting, which is always unsatisfying to both parties, still I don't think the moderators are heavy handed. They rarely use there awesome powers and its a pretty thankless job. I'm glad its divided and I think they'll discuss bigger issues.

 

Ultimately getting a time out is not so bad.. If you take it too hard its probably a sign you're spending too much time here and need to get out more.

 

 

Michael

[Stigweard]

Recently I had a discussion with Mal in regards to moderator action on this forum. I was making quires as to why my questions are ignored or given vague answers. I was told the moderators are shaping discussions to add value. When I asked how value is defined in this context, I was given no satisfactory answer. If the moderators have some vague idea that manipulating discussions add value, then there must be personal biases in determining value in a given context.

 

The recent banishment of Raymond Wolter "cheerleader" remark, was never given a satisfactory answer as to cause. I suspect there may be a cultural misunderstanding. However, that is no excuse, given the vast resources of the internet to arrive at a better understanding of a term in a given context.

 

When I inquired as to the reasons for my banishment this summer, I was told that I was disturbing the valued members on this forum. Huh? What does that mean? Who are the valued members? I was ignored as usual.

 

The attitude toward me was that I needed to be banished to have time to think and ponder the error of my ways.

 

Has this forum turned into a money making enterprise that will trump free speech? Again, who are the valued members?

 

 

http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/16216-ttb-reputation-system/page__st__80

I can only speak for myself here my friend. I remind myself daily that I am just the Janitor here. I sweep the floors and I take out the trash.

 

We have a real simple set of Moderation Guidelines. If anyone has issue with those guidelines then I whole-heartedly encourage you to get stuck into the discussion in that thread.

 

Again speaking just for myself, I don't really give much thought to "shaping the discussions". All I concern myself with is comparing people's contributions to those guidelines, and if a particular post doesn't match up, then my "Janitor's Radar" flags that post as "trash to be dealt with". And, if a particular member's posts have a habit of being "trash" then that member will also find themselves labeled the same and likewise be appropriately dealt with. It doesn't get much more simpler than that.

 

There is no doubt that Sean brought moderators online in an attempt to clean things up a bit. There were cases where members were totally out of order but it would take Sean days to be able to respond. So, because he couldn't do the job effectively, the moderation team was created.

 

Are we getting it 100% right? Hell no!

 

Are we doing the best we can? Damn straight we are!

 

Will we screw up in the future? No doubt about it!

 

I think it's important to realize that the moderation team are just members who have volunteered to be of service to all the other members. I know some people who have authority issues and some people who can't help but indulge in conspiracy theories might be inclined to think that we have some sort of sinister or contrived modus operandi.

 

But let me reemphasize my personal position ... the moderators are the lowest rung on the ladder, we are just the muck sweepers and drain-hole scrubbers that do their best to stay out of sight and only come into view when some half-wit jams the toilet up with too much toilet paper

[Apech]

Dear All,

 

I have recently joined the ranks of the Mod Squad ... I was asked and felt rather honoured to be honest because I like and use this forum a lot. I haven't had to admonish anyone or suspend anyone yet and hope that I won't have to too often.

 

What I can say as a newboy mod is that there is no hidden agenda here - if there was I wouldn't do it. Sean wanted to keep and good level of debate and to cut out the personal abuse and name calling. Its a bit hard to sustain a Board on Taoism if everyone is bitching I think you will agree.

 

Sean has given me no 'instructions' except to enjoy myself (!?!) and that's it really. The main issue is personal abuse and attacks. Its OK to criticize what someone is saying but don't attack the person posting. If nothing else - you have to remember (mostly) you don't know them or very much about them - so you can't analyse their motives and so on. So its best not to try.

 

I don't remember the cheerleader/Cat thing so I can't comment on that. If you feel the moderation has stepped out of line or is over the top then I am sure we can rely on you all to express your feelings. They will be taken seriously.

 

Cheers.

 

A.

[forestofclarity]

Having seen the Taobums pre- and post-moderation, I would say it is a much better place post-moderation.

 

People will complain either way: don't moderate, and people complain about the mess. Do moderate, and people complain about censorship. But at the end of the day, this is a private forum, and the moderation is very light.

 

I would thank the moderators for their voluntary work to make this place better.

 

[Sloppy Zhang]

Having seen the Taobums pre- and post-moderation, I would say it is a much better place post-moderation.

 

People will complain either way: don't moderate, and people complain about the mess. Do moderate, and people complain about censorship. But at the end of the day, this is a private forum, and the moderation is very light.

 

I would thank the moderators for their voluntary work to make this place better.

 

 

I remember pre-moderator days, and there was some pretty lol-worthy stuff posted here!

 

Sure, a lot of it was probably personal attacks and highly offensive stuff but.... still..... some pretty interesting and creative stringing together of various offensive language

 

But I guess if you cut that out you can, in a way, make sure the "quality" stuff is the stuff that sticks around. But you never know, there are some gems mixed in every once in a while! Crazy wisdom is still wisdom.

[Alfred E]

I can only speak for myself here my friend. I remind myself daily that I am just the Janitor here. I sweep the floors and I take out the trash.

 

We have a real simple set of Moderation Guidelines. If anyone has issue with those guidelines then I whole-heartedly encourage you to get stuck into the discussion in that thread.

 

Again speaking just for myself, I don't really give much thought to "shaping the discussions". All I concern myself with is comparing people's contributions to those guidelines, and if a particular post doesn't match up, then my "Janitor's Radar" flags that post as "trash to be dealt with". And, if a particular member's posts have a habit of being "trash" then that member will also find themselves labeled the same and likewise be appropriately dealt with. It doesn't get much more simpler than that.

 

There is no doubt that Sean brought moderators online in an attempt to clean things up a bit. There were cases where members were totally out of order but it would take Sean days to be able to respond. So, because he couldn't do the job effectively, the moderation team was created.

 

Are we getting it 100% right? Hell no!

 

Are we doing the best we can? Damn straight we are!

 

Will we screw up in the future? No doubt about it!

 

I think it's important to realize that the moderation team are just members who have volunteered to be of service to all the other members. I know some people who have authority issues and some people who can't help but indulge in conspiracy theories might be inclined to think that we have some sort of sinister or contrived modus operandi.

 

But let me reemphasize my personal position ... the moderators are the lowest rung on the ladder, we are just the muck sweepers and drain-hole scrubbers that do their best to stay out of sight and only come into view when some half-wit jams the toilet up with too much toilet paper

 

Discussions of banning should be held BEFORE the ban - not afterward.

 

After a King Kong action, to come in to say that: "But let me reemphasize my personal position ... the moderators are the lowest rung on the ladder, we are just the muck sweepers and drain-hole scrubbers that do their best to stay out of sight and only come into view when some half-wit jams the toilet up with too much toilet paper "

It means nothing - the Action says it all.

 

Talk first - Act as a final resort.

Edited November 22, 2010 by Alfred E

[goldisheavy]

ralis,

 

"I agree with you" doesn't even begin to describe how I feel about this issue.

 

If you ever leave to a different forum, send me a PM, and I'll follow. I'd rather have one other intelligent person to freely talk with, than have a thousand people talking to me through a discussion shaper who presumes to know what's best for my own good.

[Stigweard]

Discussions of banning should be held BEFORE the ban - not afterward.

 

After a King Kong action, to come in to say that: "But let me reemphasize my personal position ... the moderators are the lowest rung on the ladder, we are just the muck sweepers and drain-hole scrubbers that do their best to stay out of sight and only come into view when some half-wit jams the toilet up with too much toilet paper "

It means nothing - the Action says it all.

 

Talk first - Act as a final resort.

Sorry, whilst it may be a nice ideal, that doesn't work in all situations. If, for example, a member starts abusing and insulting another member with vulgar language I wouldn't hesitate to send them on an immediate TaoBums vacation ... I am certainly not going to stop for a nice chat about it first.

 

Once again in regards to the OP, I don't give a toss for shaping discussions or adding value to anything. I have a very short and very reasonable list of violations to monitor. You can choose to either stay within those guidelines or you can choose to break them, and if you do choose to break them then one of the moderators will take action.

 

If this upsets your sense of freedom of speech then you are very welcome to exercise your free right to choose whether or not you come here. It really doesn't get much more simpler than that.

 

[Procurator]

ralis,

 

"I agree with you" doesn't even begin to describe how I feel about this issue.

 

If you ever leave to a different forum, send me a PM, and I'll follow. I'd rather have one other intelligent person to freely talk with, than have a thousand people talking to me through a discussion shaper who presumes to know what's best for my own good.

great idea, please count me in. the present atmosphere is stifling. its just silly - i was sent a warning for making a reference to "fools" replying to one of the mods' post. Not calling him a fool mind you, just MENTIONING fools.

 

am i gonna contributing to such a forum after that? heck no. What the moderation has done is turn this board into mutual back-patting club for the same, very old bunch of 10-15 chatterers, who chat about things well above their understnding. The newbies come, get a whiff of what is going on and vote with their feet. it was a bad business decision by sean, less click-$$$ for him.

[Procurator]

. view when some half-wit jams the toilet up with too much toilet paper "

It means nothing - the Action says it all.

oh, it does mean volumes, the derogatory language aways says a lot. is that what this community is to them? a bunch of potential half-wits?

[Stigweard]

oh, it does mean volumes, the derogatory language aways says a lot. is that what this community is to them? a bunch of potential half-wits?

Oh for goodness sakes see it in the humorous context in which it was was intended Seriously, here you are whinging about "stifling atmosphere" and "freedom of speech" and then start then jumping all over my words trying to draw implications when there are none.

 

And your words say alot as well. Notice how you wouldn't address me directly instead addressing me as "them" ... this isn't an "us vs them" situation.

 

By the good spirits!

 

We are ORDINARY MEMBERS who have VOLUNTEERED to render a service to a forum that we love enough to sweep the floors and clean the lavatories.

 

[Alfred E]

oh, it does mean volumes, the derogatory language aways says a lot. is that what this community is to them? a bunch of potential half-wits?

Interesting in that this is a copy and paste quote from Stigweard's post...

 

Now who gets banned for the abusive language ???

[Alfred E]

Sorry, whilst it may be a nice ideal, that doesn't work in all situations. If, for example, a member starts abusing and insulting another member with vulgar language I wouldn't hesitate to send them on an immediate TaoBums vacation ... I am certainly not going to stop for a nice chat about it first.

 

Once again in regards to the OP, I don't give a toss for shaping discussions or adding value to anything. I have a very short and very reasonable list of violations to monitor. You can choose to either stay within those guidelines or you can choose to break them, and if you do choose to break them then one of the moderators will take action.

 

If this upsets your sense of freedom of speech then you are very welcome to exercise your free right to choose whether or not you come here. It really doesn't get much more simpler than that.

 

 

Diictator?...Tyrant?.. or was it another Moderator Shaping the Discussion???

[RiverSnake]

I think it is important to have a balance between theoretical guidelines for conversation on a forum (which we have) and the use of good judgment on the part of the moderators in correctly interpreting posts and the intentions behind them.

 

-I would hate to see moderation of the forum turn into a bureaucracy of reason with no rhyme or rhythm.

 

-From what i have observed the moderators do a good job in managing the forum.

Edited November 22, 2010 by Tao Apprentice

[Stigweard]

Interesting in that this is a copy and paste quote from Stigweard's post...

 

Now who gets banned for the abusive language ???

You want to take me to task over it? Fine ... lets do some moderating then.

 

Take my exact words:

 

"But let me reemphasize my personal position ... the moderators are the lowest rung on the ladder, we are just the muck sweepers and drain-hole scrubbers that do their best to stay out of sight and only come into view when some half-wit jams the toilet up with too much toilet paper "

 

Now do what I do and compare it to the Moderation Guidelines

 

Let's see ... if I have violated any guidelines they are:

 

* Making personal insults of other members

* Profanity and vulgar language

 

OK first item ... have I personally insulted other members? Well if you want to assume that I am calling members who violate our guidelines "half-wits" then maybe I am. But as a moderator I always make the effort to try and see it from the perspective of the person who wrote it. Now I can see that the person was just trying to create a humorous analogy of themselves being a janitor and having to run around unplugging blocked toilets. If anything the poster was actually deprecating themselves.

 

So, though the poster may not have used the best analogy, they are certainly not making a personal insult of any particular member ... conclusion: "No Foul"

 

Second item ... well obviously no profanities or vulgarities were written. Conclusion: "No Foul"

 

So with no violation determined the discussion is left untouched and the members wouldn't even know that we had been investigating.

[Alfred E]

If this upsets your sense of freedom of speech then you are very welcome to exercise your free right to choose whether or not you come here. It really doesn't get much more simpler than that.

 

As for your suggestions - it seems that most of the posters - most of the time - are working to advance TTB - Is this your end purpose - to end TTB rather than verbal warnings before Banning?

 

Shaping discussions... This is just too weird too tyrannical ... too much of a controll freak. AKA: Micro Management.

Please read the definition of Micro Management Effects at this link: My link

 

We all know of the Hundreds of other Taoist websites such as this one: My link

 

As far ss the moderators go - I am Strongly in favor of returning to the old system where there was an "IGNORE" that gave each and every poster the power of having a personal moderator.

The moderator of No Moderator... 'Sounds Taoist doesn't it.

Edited November 22, 2010 by Alfred E

[C T]

Thanksgiving is due... happy holidays Folks!

[Mal]

[Alfred E]