Self-moderation as a community effort on The TaoBums

[dawei]

Sorry Steve I am posting this PM to be publicly discussed.

Stig,

 

you have a vision and many ideas... keep truck'in...

 

But, PMs are 'private'; operative word here is 'private'... and Mal said to NOT post PMs for discusion...

 

So I have to call BS on this.

 

In the name of commonsense alone. Mods would have every right to pull the post and warn you. Anything less provides yet another precedent

[Mal]

 

@ Stig and you wonder why I won't engage you in a discussion?

[zerostao]

"Sorry Steve I am posting this PM to be publicly discussed. "

note to self , never send stig another pm. ever.

[Sunya]

In the name of commonsense alone. Mods would have every right to pull the post and warn you. Anything less provides yet another precedent

 

Nonono! We should start a thread about it and all talk about it, share our views. Were you hurt by this? I was. I'm so offended. I was washing dishes earlier today and had a flashback. I felt pain and hurt by this breaking of rules. How do you feel about it? I wish others would tell me how they felt about it. I don't know what to do!

 

I'm glad we all talked about tulku's recent offense. I can rest easy now and catch some Zs knowing that we cleared the air due to our discussion of it. It's important for us all to discuss everything. We're a community after all. Every little thing has to be talked about and nitpicked over. We are humans! We have feelings!

Edited September 10, 2011 by Sunya

[Marblehead]

I will not get seriously involved in this discussion.

 

However, I think that this is a very deep thought.

 

 

But ever my focus is on trying to discover ways, means, and processes to achieve Laozi's libertarianism.

 

 

I added another statement then cut it because I just said above that I would not get seriously involved in this discussion.

[Stigweard]

Stig,

 

you have a vision and many ideas... keep truck'in...

 

But, PMs are 'private'; operative word here is 'private'... and Mal said to NOT post PMs for discusion...

 

So I have to call BS on this.

 

In the name of commonsense alone. Mods would have every right to pull the post and warn you. Anything less provides yet another precedent

You are right of course, and I apologize.

 

I have retracted the PM as I rightly should do. Thank you for keeping me from straying off the path.

 

[dawei]

You are right of course, and I apologize.

 

I have retracted the PM as I rightly should do. Thank you for keeping me from straying off the path.

Ok mods... in the spirit of "break any rule but quickly remove that post so you can not be banned"... Stig is still here it kick it up

 

And yes Sunya... now we can have a good night sleep

[Stigweard]

Ok mods... in the spirit of "break any rule but quickly remove that post so you can not be banned"... Stig is still here it kick it up

 

And yes Sunya... now we can have a good night sleep

 

Bless you dawei !!

 

[Stigweard]

 

@ Stig and you wonder why I won't engage you in a discussion?

Actually no Mal, I gave up wondering why about this quite awhile ago.

 

 

My wondering at the moment is why there is such a preference for your moderation discussions to be had only behind the closed doors of the Concierge Dungeon.

 

My wondering at the moment is why is there such an attachment to a way of moderation that has shown it isn't working properly.

 

My wondering at the moment is why are we subscribing to an autocratic model of community when Laozi is clearly guiding us to become more libertarian and free-spirited.

 

[Mal]

Ok mods... in the spirit of "break any rule but quickly remove that post so you can not be banned"... Stig is still here it kick it up

 

as mods we have no issue with go and work it out, then is no issue left to mod.

 

"but quickly remove that post so you can not be banned" is a totally different tatic and not what Stig did at all! He apologized.

 

But it's posted on a WWW forum, Stig and Dawei are happy and discussing but how does Steve feel about it? It's "his" private message he might report it.

 

If he feels upset and want ,oderation to edit the message to empty that "an action".

If he expects that sort of behavior he might not want moderation and be totally happy with "no action"

 

So here we have a non decision that got people back to talking about what was important and not fighting

 

Yet that "decision" gets used later as an example to drag moderators over the coals with-

 

"Look you took no action here but the was action here for the same "rule break" make some conclusion about what you think caused this. and call inconsistent mods.

 

and the only "rules" are general form terms and conditions stuff. Nothing about PM's in there. When I was asked can you post a pm all I did was think would it be treating the other person with respect to post a private message? and I posted whatever it was exactly that I said.

 

Tao bums is a moderated, privately owned, web site; all who agree with our guiding principals are welcome to join our discussions:

 

Treat other members with respect. No personal attacks.

 

Moderators are present to enforce this, please abide by their decisions.

[Mal]

My wondering at the moment is why is there such an attachment to a way of moderation that has shown it isn't working properly.

 

and how long has

Tao bums is a moderated, privately owned, web site; all who agree with our guiding principals are welcome to join our discussions:

 

Treat other members with respect. No personal attacks.

 

Moderators are present to enforce this, please abide by their decisions.

 

in that wording been in place here on TTB?

 

I know you think the moderation is broken but honestly except for Scotty and Stig where is our "shitstorm" as you put it?

[Stigweard]

I will not get seriously involved in this discussion.

 

However, I think that this is a very deep thought.

 

 

 

I added another statement then cut it because I just said above that I would not get seriously involved in this discussion.

Come now Mr Marbles, the water is warm, the martini's are free flowing, and the bikini-clad ladies are lounging by the pool.

 

Don't hold out on us now, I KNOW you have thoughts on this

[dawei]

as mods we have no issue with go and work it out, then is no issue left to mod.

That is not the message you have given others... saying 'we are discussing the issue'... mod's tend to take a 'present and future' approach.

 

"but quickly remove that post so you can not be banned" is a totally different tatic and not what Stig did at all! He apologized.

Hopefully your not taking my tongue-in-cheek too seriously... Maybe your too much a 'mod' position to see this?

 

But it's posted on a WWW forum, Stig and Dawei are happy and discussing but how does Steve feel about it? It's "his" private message he might report it.

 

If he feels upset and want ,oderation to edit the message to empty that "an action".

If he expects that sort of behavior he might not want moderation and be totally happy with "no action"

Of course... I spoke of the 'present'... your speaking of the future... I somehow think you forget what it means to be a member trying to make some lightness of the issues.

 

So here we have a non decision that got people back to talking about what was important and not fighting

 

Yet that "decision" gets used later as an example to drag moderators over the coals with-

 

"Look you took no action here but the was action here for the same "rule break" make some conclusion about what you think caused this. and call inconsistent mods.

 

and the only "rules" are general form terms and conditions stuff. Nothing about PM's in there. When I was asked can you post a pm all I did was think would it be treating the other person with respect to post a private message? and I posted whatever it was exactly that I said.

I feel you hiding behind some commonsense here... justify as you want. Actions speak louder than words. Non-action speaks even louder. But I did not call mods on the Stig stuff so much as I called Stig on it. He recanted; all is well... so not sure why you felt the need to get so serious when it was taken all fun between me and Stig... did you see this at all? I think the mods have lost a sense of humor in the recent issues...

Edited September 10, 2011 by dawei

[zerostao]

Stig,

"My wondering at the moment is why are we subscribing to an autocratic model of community when Laozi is clearly guiding us to become more libertarian and free-spirited."

patience and perserverence are always keys to success in anything tao like, yes, no?

being in harmony, isnt that what lao tzu advises?

does the community always act in a smooth harmony?

 

i do like this thought i have often used it myself

" The more you treat people that way the more they will act that way. Which will then apparently justify the autocratic model, and the dysfunctional cycle perpetuates itself" and i have always felt that if everyone is given respect then they will show respect, but here i do not always see that play along that line. in fact very often i see the opposite.

still i think it takes some patience and perserverence and some growing pains for it to take hold.

not everyone (most do not , i think) has a thick rhino hide like SZ. it is a very admirable quality and reflects his self-confidence.

 

i also respect steve for sincerely sharing his view on ownership. and i can understand why he has this view.

 

it is apparent that you and scotty and others have a strong passion for what you think is a better model.

one time i did report a spam that was in the PP log. i have never reported a member here, have never called on any to be suspended.

it is good to see that you said that you are not battling the mods here. but from my view it does seem like that you are.you and scotty have launched a relentless barage of demands towards them. and you want these demands adressed in an unreasonable amount of

time. and Stig you were a mod , so you know how these things take time.

when i replied to you early in another mod thread in a similar way as this , you basically dismissed my post out of hand.

have you noticed others are now echoing similar posts?

 

from my view all of this" discussion"has shown how much consideration and patience and leniency and trust our mods do have

to give us ample opprotunity to self moderate.

it is always good to see you and scotty posting in general or taoist discussion, i am always interested in those posts.

maybe it is the anarchist in me that finds these mod threads a drag. we have a cool forum here, for some it feels like community.

bonds are forged here. TTB is a special place. is it exactly as i woulda set it up and run it? nope. i am sure we all have a little different view on that. i for one would let the pit be the smelly stinky unmoderated place it once was. but thats just my idea about it.

i really dont think general discussion area should be one big pit like atmosphere. we all have our ideas . it isnt really practical imo

to have everyone agree/decide to try to agree about the rules here. it is what it is. i dont think its broke.

i do trust the self moderation concept , i also trust our mods . i would rather talk about tai chi.......anyways.

[Mal]

I think the mods have lost a sense of humor in the recent issues...

 

Give the way certain members here chose to address us I'm surprised we have any moderators left, let alone a sense of humor.

 

Yes I failed to see the joke "in make in a PM public, have a laugh about it, and think everything is ok."

 

So I'm going back to not posting.

 

Actually time for a break, I would normal find that funny dawei I just did not at all. Sorry.

Edited September 10, 2011 by Mal
added ending

[dawei]

Give the way certain members here chose to address us I'm surprised we have any moderators left, let alone a sense of humor.

 

Yes I failed to see the joke "in make in a PM public, have a laugh about it, and think everything is ok."

 

So I'm going back to not posting.

Hey Mal,

 

All is good between me and you... sorry I addressed it as "ok mods,..." I was at that point tongue-in-cheek towards Stig for all his 'mod' elevating posts... He seemed to get it with his response back to me... I can see maybe it was not an easy read for others. I apologize if I appeared to be calling the mods into a situation which was resolved (as you pointed out there is nothing to moderate); Maybe the joke was not well understood after it was resolved given the current topics.

 

Realize: I called BS on it... he recanted. We had a laugh. How else do you want members to act? (rhetorical, I assume you like it this way).

 

I personally don't care what you do as to future actions to Stig; I can only deal with the present and between me and Stig... ALL IS GOOD...

[Mal]

It's not you mate. It's like you said I just mis-read it.

 

Thanks for the post but I think I do obviously need a break to re focus if I'm missing humor.

 

_/\_

[Marblehead]

Thanks for the post but I think I do obviously need a break to re focus if I'm missing humor.

 

_/\_

 

You missed it because they forgot to put "Hehehe." at the beginning or the end.

[Stigweard]

I personally found the point quite obvious; the round of recent actions (dare we also say non-action) sets a bad precedent for a rules-based approach. If you have rules and do not act on them in a timely manner you end up with a lose of confidence.

 

Also, that someone can issue a 'death' post and simply edit it and remain without any suspension is beyond common sense (for a rules-based approach); particularly when another is suspended as 'provocative' alone. That is a very dangerous precedent. I now see so many bad precedents that it makes it appear as if there are almost no rules.

 

In light of an inability to enforce rules, I might actually tend to think more about Stig's idea. The valid side of Stig's idea is that the community is not just responsible but they get involved more since it is like they share in the success of the board.

 

The main concerns, IMO are:

1. Lynch-mobbing against some members;

2. Trolls which just refuse to go away since there is not rule to ban them.

3. Controlling the flamming in the sense that it has to get moved out of the general area and then let them go somewhere select to continue it; if two people actually want to continue it in another place, they deserve each other.

4. But what if they refuse to stop the flamming in the general area. The general areas are for the general members and one bad apple can spoil the pie. So it can be a delicate balance of allowing someone the freedom to be an A-hole but you spoil the forum experience for several dozen who have to endure this; and some may be turned away due to such people.

5. I've seen examples of this kind of 'freedom' in posting and it can almost shut down a forum due to one or two who refuse to be there in the expressed idea of what a discussion forum represents. The 'Way' allows that there is diversity in every species and some are naturally A-holes; I am not trying to change their nature but I have seen it almost ruin boards.

 

ok, Stig... I tossed you a bone of considerations

Thank you dawei for taking the time to consider my ramblings thoughtfully.

 

You have raised some important issues to discuss.

 

1. Lynch-mobbing against some members;

 

What, you mean lynch-mobbing isn't already happening?

 

It will inevitably happen. One member might take objection to a the conversation of a group of members and jump in and say something about it. Then the group turns on the individual, posts up a moderation topic in the said Moderation Forum and, because they have the majority vote, they try and enforce action on the individual.

 

Well firstly I will trust that fact that other mature members will see this and pitch in, thus preventing the majority enforcement.

 

Secondly, it would be the responsibility of existing Moderators to make sure the minority voice doesn't get minoritized.

 

So yes this still means that I support the idea of having a Mod Team but their roles and delegations would be different.

 

They would be facilitators of the moderation discussion, helping and guiding conversation to reach some sort of member generated consensus.

 

They would be advocates for each individual to make sure everyone's voice is heard properly and that lynch-mobbing doesn't occur.

 

They would be participants in the discussions sharing their views on what could/should be done and contributing their valuable experience from previous incidences.

 

And of course they would respond to member-consensus by being enforcers of moderation actions.

 

2. Trolls which just refuse to go away since there is not rule to ban them.

 

Actually I am not advocating this at all. Because what would happen is that the members in the relevant topics/forums would either hit the Report Button for a Mod to create a Moderation Topic about the Troll, or they would create their own topic.

 

Thus the Mod discussion is initiated and actions enforced as per normal.

 

3. Controlling the flamming in the sense that it has to get moved out of the general area and then let them go somewhere select to continue it; if two people actually want to continue it in another place, they deserve each other.

 

Well this is where the Moderation Forum comes into play, because members and mods do our best to redirect it into the relevant topic in the Mod Forum. There they can duke it out but with the presence of Mods and other members who are interested/concerned enough about it.

 

4. But what if they refuse to stop the flamming in the general area. The general areas are for the general members and one bad apple can spoil the pie. So it can be a delicate balance of allowing someone the freedom to be an A-hole but you spoil the forum experience for several dozen who have to endure this; and some may be turned away due to such people.

 

Well that's already happening now.

 

Under the modeling I am suggesting, no doubt a Mod Topic would have been started about it and no doubt members would have voiced their concern and no doubt someone would say "This A-hole" needs to take a xyz-day break which just follows that the Mod Team uses the enforcer powers.

 

5. I've seen examples of this kind of 'freedom' in posting and it can almost shut down a forum due to one or two who refuse to be there in the expressed idea of what a discussion forum represents. The 'Way' allows that there is diversity in every species and some are naturally A-holes; I am not trying to change their nature but I have seen it almost ruin boards.

 

This goes back to #2, in that I am not advocating "no moderation", but instead that all moderation discussion be made open and available to all members. Of course mods would be probably the main or most frequent ones discussing as well as trying to divert the dialogue of relevant members into the appropriate topic, but all members should have the equal freedom to participate in moderation discussion.

 

Again, in case any of my previous comments have given the wrong impression, I am NOT trying to abolish the Mod Team. And though my words and opinions may be assailing those who have entrenched themselves in the current model, I am NOT campaigning against any individual(s).

 

The reason why Mods were brought in is because Sean was so absent that noone had any power to enforce actions against offenders of basic forum rules. Pre-moderation everyone could say anything damn thing they wanted without any restrictions (and they did). But what also was happening was that ALL moderation discussion was also openly being discussed as well. All thoughts and opinions were on the table open for everyone.

 

Now we have an autocratic model where the Mod Team is appointed rather than being voted in, members don't have any power to hold Mods accountable, Mods have the power of censorship and suspension of all members, and all the Moderation Discussion is secluded away in a hidden forum.

 

We have gone from one extreme to the other.

 

What I am saying is, "Let's bring that swinging pendulum back in the direction of libertarianism". Not all the way mind you. But at least back in the direction of having all forum discussion (including moderation discussion) open and freely available to all members WITH a Mod Team that can take the appropriate and timely action.

 

Now some might say that it would take longer to make moderation action. And it is true that it might take longer for a decision to suspend a member to be made (and I think this would be a good thing).

 

However, the act of starting a moderation discussion in the proposed Moderation Forum actual IS a moderation action in itself.

 

If a report is made, or if a mod spots a possible violation, or if members spot a possible violation, straight away a topic is made in the Moderation Forum and then everyone can see that something is "being done" about it straight away. If only one Mod is available at the time he/she can express his/her wisdom and experience in the matter and make recommendations. Then ANY member can also contribute their thoughts and feelings.

 

So what if it gets hot and raucous at times, let people express themselves as they feel (unless of course they start slinging unnecessary insults). Let all members have the right to feel a part of it.

 

If they feel interested or concerned about the matter, let them speak. Let them be heard.

 

It will give people a sense of ownership. People will get to hear all the thoughts and perspectives going on which means people will understand properly the moderation decisions being made, and I can promise you that it will completely abolish the us vs them attitude against the Mod Team.

 

Edited September 10, 2011 by Stigweard

[Sunya]

As someone else said, this is a privately owned website. Sean runs it and pays for it. Stig, if you have such a problem with the way things are run here, why don't you open up your own website?

[Stigweard]

As someone else said, this is a privately owned website. Sean runs it and pays for it. Stig, if you have such a problem with the way things are run here, why don't you open up your own website?

Which shows how very little you know about me. But that's OK I know very little about you as well.

 

[doc benway]

EDITED: Retracted PM, as I rightly should, and offer an apology for posting it in the first place

 

Steve, you said that you were disappointed with me.

 

Well my "friend" I am disappointed that you sent me a PM rather than discuss this in the open. In it you are denying the forum the sharing of knowledge and ideas between members.

 

In fact all moderators are robbing people of their words by having these secret discussions in the Concierge Dungeon. You folks are supposed to be the "elders" of the community but you are taking your wisdom behind locked closed doors, having your discussions (which everyone should be reading and thereby learning from), and the only thing we see is the slap down of your "judgments".

 

And I am disappointed Steve that you are trying to read something into my actions beyond the sincerity of what I am presenting. You are basically accusing me of being a revengeful pouting child. Thank you very much for your condescension and your patronization [/sarcasm].

 

And I am disappointed Steve that you would say this:

 

 

Because this is what you believe you are supporting the idea of an autocratic moderation team that regards the general membership as irresponsible, manipulative adolescences.

 

Guess what though Steve? The more you treat people that way the more they will act that way. Which will then apparently justify the autocratic model, and the dysfunctional cycle perpetuates itself.

 

Quote: The social environment of a community manipulates the behavior of those in that community.

 

Now I want to make a really clear point here ... I am not specifically fighting "against" the Mod Team, even though it may seem that way.

 

I am fight FOR free-spirited libertarianism, I am fighting FOR the basic human right to be self-determined. I am highlighting the ideal presented by Laozi and showing that, in comparison, the autocracy of the TaoBum Mod Team is a violation of human liberty.

 

But ever my focus is on trying to discover ways, means, and processes to achieve Laozi's libertarianism.

 

Thank you Stig. At least now I know where I stand with you.

I get to choose when I communicate publicly and privately.

And you get to choose what you do with that communication.

Your posting of my private message says a lot about your character.

Your retraction of the private message and apology are noted.

[doc benway]

 

But it's posted on a WWW forum, Stig and Dawei are happy and discussing but how does Steve feel about it? It's "his" private message he might report it.

 

If he feels upset and want ,oderation to edit the message to empty that "an action".

 

I was upset briefly insofar as I recognize that I misjudged Stig.

It does hurt a bit when someone betrays a confidence but, like I said, it was brief.

I'm over it.

 

Stig's political agenda is more important than cultivating relationships with people.

That's fine - it's his choice.

I'm the opposite - I'm here to cultivate relationships - that's what counts for me.

All the rest of this stuff is icing on the cake as far as I'm concerned.

Maybe I'll learn something, maybe even help someone somehow.

 

I don't see any need for action from the moderators.

Stig's decision to post my PM publicly was much more damaging to him than to me and more damaging than anything the mods would do about it.

 

Thanks to all those who spoke out on my behalf while I was away from the forum.

It's late, I've had a very long day (but I did get to see Cirque du Soleil's Love - WOW!!!)

I'm off to bed.

[Stigweard]

Thank you Stig. At least now I know where I stand with you.

I get to choose when I communicate publicly and privately.

And you get to choose what you do with that communication.

Your posting of my private message says a lot about your character.

Your retraction of the private message and apology are noted.

Ahhh... character assessment time ... well that is as inevitable as it is regrettable.

 

Your PM royally pissed me off Steve and it made me question your character. I reacted to it without proper thought. That is regrettable.

 

I was upset briefly insofar as I recognize that I misjudged Stig.

It does hurt a bit when someone betrays a confidence but, like I said, it was brief.

I'm over it.

 

Stig's political agenda is more important than cultivating relationships with people.

That's fine - it's his choice.

I'm the opposite - I'm here to cultivate relationships - that's what counts for me.

All the rest of this stuff is icing on the cake as far as I'm concerned.

Maybe I'll learn something, maybe even help someone somehow.

 

I don't see any need for action from the moderators.

Stig's decision to post my PM publicly was much more damaging to him than to me and more damaging than anything the mods would do about it.

 

Thanks to all those who spoke out on my behalf while I was away from the forum.

It's late, I've had a very long day (but I did get to see Cirque du Soleil's Love - WOW!!!)

I'm off to bed.

Yup I betrayed your confidence insofar as I posted a private message.

 

But I want you to be brutally honest Steve. Did you write that PM as a friend or as a moderator? Asked another way, if you were not a moderator now would have sent that PM in the way you did?

 

Because I can tell you straight that it certainly felt like a moderators action. Like in the discussions you folks are having about me behind my back you volunteered to "have a private word with me".

 

It didn't at all come across in the way a friend would talk, with all your patronizing "I am disappointed" rhetoric. You sounded like a moderator left, right and center.

 

In that distinct feeling I had about the nature of your PM I got upset, quite upset. And I overlooked my usual approach of walking away for a bit before I did anything based on emotion. I handled it unskillfully.

 

Rereading you PM now, yup that was a moderator's message Steve no doubt. For what? Being provocative? For opposing a decision that was poorly adjudicated and even more poorly executed. For being the one to see the hypocrisy of how things are being managed and daring to be the one to step up and call it?

 

You had no grounds to act like a moderator to me, thus I could equally say that you have betrayed our friendship because that's frigging well how it felt at the time.

 

And I am calling you on your insult Steve.

 

"Stig's political agenda is more important than cultivating relationships with people."

 

That my friend is an insult. It demeans me and it demeans the actual intention of what I am trying to do. I feel very insulted by this (that counts doesn't it, that I feel insulted ... remember cheerleadergate?), but who should I report it to? Should I request a 7-day suspension Steve because you have dumped an insult on me?

 

I was man enough to recant and apologize for an error that I admit I made. Your turn Steve. And then I guess that makes us just about even, right?

 

And this is the bullshit that is coming out of this friken divisive autocratic system. It's a division of members that is CREATING divisiveness amongst members. If we were truly working together as members, as a community, then there would be absolutely no chance or opportunity for this situation to arise where friends are at each other's throats.

 

[mjjbecker]

No Stig. You have agitated for some time now against the moderators. You have criticised and attempted to undermine them. You've done this because of your own opinions in regards to how this forum should be run. That fits the definition of 'political agenda'.

 

However, as a former moderator you are quite clear on what Sean's wishes are. You just personally don't agree, so you seek to impose your viewpoint on everyone else. You said as much yourself.

 

And it is your viewpoint. You don't know what the majority of people on this forum want-and you don't seem to care. You only care what you want.

 

You've banged on and on about what you want and to hell with the consequences or other people's feelings. Well, the consequences are that by you-and Scotty-forcing the issue, this bad feeling and divisiveness has happened.

 

What do you expect to happen when you attack people, as you have done with the moderators? Do you expect them to be happy about this? Do you expect them not to be personally hurt?

 

And this is the bullshit that is coming out of this friken divisive autocratic system. It's a division of members that is CREATING divisiveness amongst members. If we were truly working together as members, as a community, then there would be absolutely no chance or opportunity for this situation to arise where friends are at each other's throats.

 

Divisive autocratic system? Not hardly. The moderators here are far more easy going than many other forums and a lot more accommodating. That is purely your opinion on how the forum should be run-you've offered no proof than the majority-or even a significant number-of forum members agree with you.

 

As for friends being at each others' throats, this situation arises when a person criticises them and undermines them constantly instead of showing respect-despite whatever their personal differences may be.