We've become a farce

[Sloppy Zhang]

(This is long and semi rant-ish.... skip to the last paragraph for a concise summary of my thoughts).

 

Right, so I've been keeping an eye out on some of these threads. There's been some really interesting stuff thrown around. Some pretty funny back and forth And some sad stuff too. The scotty situation is not something that sits well with me. This thing with tulku and witch?

 

Okay, time to say something.

 

This whole "no insult" thing is turning into a farce. Fast. Way fast. And it's like.... third grade tattling kind of stuff. Not to try and demean or belittle anyone's position, but... well let me elaborate.

 

I understand the "no insult" policy. Me? I've had thick skin from being picked on, and I've been to some very crazy unmoderated parts of the net. I also recall TTB's when it wasn't moderated.... and we're still here. So honestly, I'm a very hands off kind of person.

 

Insults derail a thread? Move it to the pit and let the players fight it out. Seriously... sometimes stuff needs to get out. I think the gender threads that are in the pit were excellent and getting a LOT of gunk out of peoples' systems. It was illuminating on many different levels. I know catharsis is not everyone's idea of the best treatment method. But, well, the hardest lies to see through are the ones we tell ourselves. And sometimes the best way to find a lie we tell ourselves is have someone else point out to us that "hey, what you say, and what you say that you say, are not lining up, you should check that". The gender threads did a lot of that. And I think that can only be good.

 

When people get into a conversation of great personal importance, tempers are going to flare. Insults are going to fly. I don't carry insults with me that are said in the heat of the moment. I think they can be useful in understanding yourself and others- but they shouldn't be carried through to other threads. It's pretty rare that I carry something that someone said in a thread to another. I don't know about other people, but I've had many instances in which I was vehemently disagreeing with someone in one thread, only to agree with them in the same hour on another thread. So I don't take it personally and I don't hold grudges. Not that I'm bragging

 

My point: shit happens when "real shit" is happening. To try and make a rule banning shit from happening means that "real shit" is NEVER going to happen. People will feel too inhibited, too afraid of rocking the boat, too afraid of pointing out an inconvenient observation. Not much good will come of it, I think. If you aren't getting angry, or at least uncomfortable, then you aren't being real (unless you are really just a super far along buddha, in which case you don't care).

 

And as has been pointed out, there is no quality control mechanism on this forum to screen out people who don't have experience. So somebody who's just read the Tao Te Ching can come in here and start pontificating about the real meaning. Someone who's taken a week of yoga class can come in here and tell people how they are doing it wrong. I never go into those threads. Why? Because I'm a self centered asshole who's learned from books, and thinks they don't have anything to teach me, so I don't go in them, and I certainly don't respond. That's also why I miss out on lots of these fun threads

 

My point: on a free internet, morons are going to be everywhere telling other people they are morons. Feeding trolls will just exacerbate the problem, and will never solve anything. Make it part of your practice to just let it go or walk away. Or engage with the troll, move to the pit, and fight it out, because it could turn up some "real shit" that's inside of you. Either way, it's a win/win.

 

So now we come to insults. In my laissez faire moderation philosophy, I think the only time moderation action should happen is when someone is being truly disruptive to a thread. So if they start spamming the thread with "you are a moron" in a series of back to back posts posted seconds after each other- THAT is disruptive. If someone repeatedly makes new threads that are like "so and so is a fraud and a charlatan and you should all stop sucking his dick", THAT is disruptive. People posting images of porn is disruptive.

 

But if someone leaves ONE post that says "you are an idiot. You are a bigot. You have no experience. You have no coherent argument. Anyone reading your above posts can see this. I'm done with you", and they don't continue to post, that is not truly disruptive to the thread, it should be left alone.

 

Other stuff that should be moderated is other stupid advertising spams and things like that.

 

Legitimate death threats also need to be taken seriously.

 

So now we come to the recent events. Sunya said:

 

wow you guys are wayyyy too sensitive

 

Now I, personally, don't think this is necessarily the case. Scotty, and recently tulku, have merely taken the "no insult" policy to its logical conclusion. If anyone insults anyone at any time, that's a violation of the insult policy. If someone insults me, but I don't report it, and then I insult someone else, and they report it, and I get suspended.... well that's not fair, now is it? That is the logical conclusion.

 

The reason sunya is pointing this out, and why it's such a big deal now, is because the current incarnation of the insult policy is ridiculous, unenforceable, too relative, and prevents "real shit" from ever taking place on this board.

 

So what we have now is a bunch of people going "well you know what tommy said?", and "oh, wait, but you didn't hear what billy said to me before I said that". We've got a bunch of people running and crying to the moderators. I'm sorry for demeaning the position, because really, these people are taking the no insult policy to its logical conclusion. It's not a big deal when people like me don't care, and don't report when I'm insulted. Then if some people start reporting stuff because it bothers them, it's not a big deal. But when you have someone who is exercising his rights well within the rules of the forum, it seems ridiculous, because it is. But hey, that's the rule.

 

My solution?

 

Remove the "no insult" policy. Replace with "no disruptive behavior" policy. Someone thinks John Chang is a fake? They make a thread saying "I think john chang is a fake, he could use a lighter to light that newspaper on fire"? Let it run. Let people fight it out.

 

Someone makes a thread that goes "Wang Liping is an asshole, I heard that from someone who heard it from someone". Let it play. Rumors happen. We can't confirm or deny rumors. Some rumors are true and based in fact. Some rumors are lies and based in deceit. Part of living life is being able to learn how to assess the credibility of a source.

 

Someone makes a thread that goes "sloppy zhang is a pontificating asshole, his threads are too long, he needs to learn to write more concisely"? Let it play. People have told me as much many times. It doesn't bother me.

 

These are all opinions. They are confined to their threads. They don't disrupt the forum.

 

If someone starts making chain threads about sloppy zhang's pontificating, tell them "hey, newbie, if you have more to say, revive your first thread", then merge them. It keeps happening? Warn them and tell them they are being disruptive by posting five new threads about your dear SZ. It keeps going? Suspend for a day, then seven, then two weeks, then a month, then a ban. I mean, really.

 

The thing about freedom is you have to allow the good AND the bad. If you start trying to cut the bad, you wind up starting to cut the good. And you start to turn the whole thing into a farce.

 

The situation with scotty, and now with tulku, shows what happens when you start to take the "no insult" policy to its logical conclusion. Insults happen in conversations of import. Always have, always will. Trying to cut out the insults will cut the conversation down dramatically. Insults, and how we react to them, can be a very powerful window into observing our thoughts, and how we REALLY react- not just how we "say" we react. Instead of looking out for "insults", we should look for behavior which is truly disruptive and potentially endangering to the well being of the members here. Let people work out the insults in the pit if a thread is beyond salvaging. Other than that, let it play. Sometimes people need to get gunk out of their system.

Edited September 9, 2011 by Sloppy Zhang

[Sunya]

Great post Sloppy. I completely agree. Tempers sometimes flare, and I think that's totally fine. I rarely if ever report people. I think anger can be a catalyst sometimes for the real 'gunk' as you say to come out. But some people are offended or just want peaceful discussions, and all I can say is that they should lead by example instead of trying to impose their will on others. If this is supposed to be a Taoist forum, we should follow the way of Laozi and not have much authority if at all. Only in the worst cases when it's necessary should there be any moderation. I think people should work things out for the most part by themselves. If not, there's always the blocking.

 

Edit: it's still possible to block people, right? I've never done it and can't find it.

Edited September 9, 2011 by Sunya

[Sloppy Zhang]

I rarely if ever report people.

 

Same here.

 

The stuff that I've reported in the past were instances in which someone started to flood a thread/message board with repeated posts/topics that were about how stupid some other user was.

 

If this is supposed to be a Taoist forum, we should follow the way of Laozi and not have much authority if at all. Only in the worst cases when it's necessary should there be any moderation. I think people should work things out for the most part by themselves. If not, there's always the blocking.

 

I agree. Mods are good to handle upkeep of the forum- so stopping spam, and making sure some users/spambots don't start flooding a thread or a forum. But personal squabbles and insults? Come on. People can get over it.

 

Edit: it's still possible to block people, right? I've never done it and can't find it.

 

Yeah if you go up to the upper right hand corner, click on your name and there is a drop down menu. One up from the bottom says "manage ignore users", click that and away you go! [edit] I think. I don't have anybody blocked

Edited September 9, 2011 by Sloppy Zhang

[Stigweard]

An excellent post SZ!!

 

 

I agree with you on many of your points, but not necessarily your solution, because you are just replacing the rule, "No Insults", with the rule, "No disturbances".

 

The same issues of people trying to take things to their "logical conclusion" would still occur.

 

 

The "problem" is that the way moderation is setup at the moment is actually encouraging the sort of behavior you are witnessing with people crying "Foul!" to moderators like children dobbing other people to mommy and daddy.

 

Please check out: Self-moderation as a community effort on The TaoBums for the ideas that I am advocating.

 

[Sloppy Zhang]

I agree with you on many of your points, but not necessarily your solution, because you are just replacing the rule, "No Insults", with the rule, "No disturbances".

 

The same issues of people trying to take things to their "logical conclusion" would still occur.

 

Well then please allow me to further elaborate (I'm still working this out as I go I'm impulsive that way!)

 

By "no disturbances" I mean "no disturbances to the ongoing functioning of this forum".

 

So flooding a thread with crap posts would be a disturbance (I think non freaked out not too long ago, flooded a thread with five back to back posts about women being pain whores or something, and got suspended). Flooding message board with the same/similar topics in quick succession would also be disruptive. Porn pics, abusive images, harassing other members, etc, would also be "disruptive".

 

Personal insults or "inflammatory material" not so much, unless it comes in the form of flooding a thread or other message boards.

 

The "problem" is that the way moderation is setup at the moment is actually encouraging the sort of behavior you are witnessing with people crying "Foul!" to moderators like children dobbing other people to mommy and daddy.

 

The belittling and the demeaning comments don't really help. If you take a step back, and non-judgmentally look at what the logistics are behind what is happening, all that is happening (that I see) is people calling for an equal application of the rules. And so far it hasn't been that, because what is insulting, inflammatory, or personally offensive is personal, relative, and changing. So if you try to put a stake with a "no insult policy" sign into the back of this huge, undulating snake that is "whether I feel insulted/offended", well that sign is going to start moving pretty damn quickly!

 

Self-moderation as a community effort on The TaoBums[/url] for the ideas that I am advocating.

 

Checked it out

 

The thing is, and this has been pointed out previously, this forum has no quality control mechanism for ensuring we get people who are responsible, or even self aware enough, to understand how their words/behavior are going to affect others. So as much as we can encourage people to self moderate, there are going to be people that are doing crappy things, and saying "why is everyone getting offended? Sheesh, it's not my fault if you just don't like listening to the truth", and in general coming off as an asshole.

 

So we need to have some plan for how to deal with the inevitability of bad apples. And for that, I say to let it run unless it starts to compromise the ability of people to function in this forum without seeing a flooded thread/message board.

Edited September 9, 2011 by Sloppy Zhang

[Stigweard]

Well then please allow me to further elaborate (I'm still working this out as I go I'm impulsive that way!)

 

By "no disturbances" I mean "no disturbances to the ongoing functioning of this forum".

 

So flooding a thread with crap posts would be a disturbance (I think non freaked out not too long ago, flooded a thread with five back to back posts about women being pain whores or something, and got suspended). Flooding message board with the same/similar topics in quick succession would also be disruptive. Porn pics, abusive images, harassing other members, etc, would also be "disruptive".

 

Personal insults or "inflammatory material" not so much, unless it comes in the form of flooding a thread or other message boards.

 

Yup

 

But it's sounding like just another rule for the Mods to try and navigate. I mean with the current "No Insult" policy, where's the definition of what is an "insult".

 

Do we be rules judges and jump on everything that may possibly look like an insult??

 

If someone feels insulted by something that someone says, is that actionable?

 

Where is the definitive line??

 

The truth is there is none and therefore the Mods are always going to come off looking like assholes. And I am sorry but these folks are my friends and I don't want them being continuously harassed for just trying to do their best for this forum.

 

If we supplanted it with your idea "no disturbances to the ongoing functioning of this forum". Straight away we have to create definitions and distinctions of what is and isn't a "disturbance", which brings exactly the same problems to bear for moderators.

 

The thing is, and this has been pointed out previously, this forum has no quality control mechanism for ensuring we get people who are responsible, or even self aware enough, to understand how their words/behavior are going to affect others. So as much as we can encourage people to self moderate, there are going to be people that are doing crappy things, and saying "why is everyone getting offended? Sheesh, it's not my fault if you just don't like listening to the truth", and in general coming off as an asshole.

 

So we need to have some plan for how to deal with the inevitability of bad apples. And for that, I say to let it run unless it starts to compromise the ability of people to function in this forum without seeing a flooded thread/message board.

At the moment the only "quality control mechanism" is the moderation team but its not working. They are too slow to react (because they have to wait for enough of them to come online to discuss the issue before they can act), and the small initial problem has become a bigger problem with more people involved by the time they do react.

 

Because it's an authoritative model it actual CREATES the culture of people acting like children dibberdobbing each other to teacher/headmaster/mommy/daddy and then waiting for the "high poobahs" to pass down their judgement.

 

It is simply NOT working. Especially on a spiritual forum where, hopefully, we are for the most part all trying to become more evolved, self-dependent individuals.

 

Whereas if the "quality control mechanism" was in fact members working through issues that arise themselves, issues can be raised quicker and easier and resolved to a far greater degree than just having moderators slapping down their judgements.

 

Case-in-point: [Moderation] -- tulku.

 

This issue was raised, discussed, solutions offered and executed BY MEMBERS and I can bet that even now the moderators haven't had a chance to discuss it properly.

 

Now if we had just sat back, hit the "Report" button and waited for them to react I could GUARANTEE you that there would right now be a shit-fight with its appropriate degree of forum stench going on in the original topic. And if precedent is anything to go by I would reckon we would have to wait another 24hrs of it going on before mods could get to it.

 

But it was done and sorted with the original discussion now progressing on its way.

 

[Sunya]

Actually Stig that tulku situation you created is a perfect example of what Sloppy and I are talking about. The person who was 'insulted' didn't even care about the insult, but for some reason you were disturbed and decided to play cop and start that thread calling for his 'immediate suspension.' What was the point? They could've dealt with it themselves instead of you jumping in to her rescue. The issue was between them. Another example of over sensitivity on this forum.

[Stigweard]

Actually Stig that tulku situation you created is a perfect example of what Sloppy and I are talking about. The person who was 'insulted' didn't even care about the insult, but for some reason you were disturbed and decided to play cop and start that thread calling for his 'immediate suspension.' What was the point? They could've dealt with it themselves instead of you jumping in to her rescue. The issue was between them. Another example of over sensitivity on this forum.

No-one's views should ever be invalidated. Again, every member has the unalienable right to:

 

* to seek information and ideas;

* to receive information and ideas;

* to impart information and ideas.

 

If I feel that an situation needs to be brought up for moderation consideration than I have the RIGHT and the FREEDOM to do so. Just as you have the right to tell me that you think I am being over-sensitive.

 

Both my view of the said offense and your views of my view can and should be a part of the conversation that emerges about the situation. If I hold my view back and you hold your view back than we are doing everyone an injustice.

 

So that's why I am saying, let everyone have their say. If you are interested in the situation you speak. If you are not interested in the situation you stay quiet and allow those who speak work it out.

 

And in terms of "what was the point?". Well I was trying to prove a point to those who think my ideas are too idealistic and not realistic. I grabbed an offense that was well and truly actionable (unless you want to go back and contest that - which of course you are welcome to do), brought it to public notice and gave what I thought was the best course of action.

 

The parties involved engaged in the discussion giving their views about the situation. Compromises were suggested and the members themselves decided to retract and adjust their posts. And then the original discussion continued on its merry way with the whole moderation conversation kept out of the post.

 

No moderators, no judgments, no suspensions.

 

THAT was the point!

 

[Ambrose_Bierce]

Peace guys. I agree Stiggy.

 

I was able to turn the recent events into something creative. Hope you enjoy the momentary distraction.

 

http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/20460-the-light/

[johndoe2012]

Edited December 9, 2011 by chris d

[johndoe2012]

Edited December 9, 2011 by chris d

[dawei]

Actually Stig that tulku situation you created is a perfect example of what Sloppy and I are talking about. The person who was 'insulted' didn't even care about the insult, but for some reason you were disturbed and decided to play cop and start that thread calling for his 'immediate suspension.' What was the point? They could've dealt with it themselves instead of you jumping in to her rescue. The issue was between them. Another example of over sensitivity on this forum.

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

Edited September 9, 2011 by dawei

[tulku]

(This is long and semi rant-ish.... skip to the last paragraph for a concise summary of my thoughts).

 

Right, so I've been keeping an eye out on some of these threads. There's been some really interesting stuff thrown around. Some pretty funny back and forth And some sad stuff too. The scotty situation is not something that sits well with me. This thing with tulku and witch?

 

Okay, time to say something.

 

This whole "no insult" thing is turning into a farce. Fast. Way fast. And it's like.... third grade tattling kind of stuff. Not to try and demean or belittle anyone's position, but... well let me elaborate.

 

I understand the "no insult" policy. Me? I've had thick skin from being picked on, and I've been to some very crazy unmoderated parts of the net. I also recall TTB's when it wasn't moderated.... and we're still here. So honestly, I'm a very hands off kind of person.

 

Insults derail a thread? Move it to the pit and let the players fight it out. Seriously... sometimes stuff needs to get out. I think the gender threads that are in the pit were excellent and getting a LOT of gunk out of peoples' systems. It was illuminating on many different levels. I know catharsis is not everyone's idea of the best treatment method. But, well, the hardest lies to see through are the ones we tell ourselves. And sometimes the best way to find a lie we tell ourselves is have someone else point out to us that "hey, what you say, and what you say that you say, are not lining up, you should check that". The gender threads did a lot of that. And I think that can only be good.

 

When people get into a conversation of great personal importance, tempers are going to flare. Insults are going to fly. I don't carry insults with me that are said in the heat of the moment. I think they can be useful in understanding yourself and others- but they shouldn't be carried through to other threads. It's pretty rare that I carry something that someone said in a thread to another. I don't know about other people, but I've had many instances in which I was vehemently disagreeing with someone in one thread, only to agree with them in the same hour on another thread. So I don't take it personally and I don't hold grudges. Not that I'm bragging

 

My point: shit happens when "real shit" is happening. To try and make a rule banning shit from happening means that "real shit" is NEVER going to happen. People will feel too inhibited, too afraid of rocking the boat, too afraid of pointing out an inconvenient observation. Not much good will come of it, I think. If you aren't getting angry, or at least uncomfortable, then you aren't being real (unless you are really just a super far along buddha, in which case you don't care).

 

And as has been pointed out, there is no quality control mechanism on this forum to screen out people who don't have experience. So somebody who's just read the Tao Te Ching can come in here and start pontificating about the real meaning. Someone who's taken a week of yoga class can come in here and tell people how they are doing it wrong. I never go into those threads. Why? Because I'm a self centered asshole who's learned from books, and thinks they don't have anything to teach me, so I don't go in them, and I certainly don't respond. That's also why I miss out on lots of these fun threads

 

My point: on a free internet, morons are going to be everywhere telling other people they are morons. Feeding trolls will just exacerbate the problem, and will never solve anything. Make it part of your practice to just let it go or walk away. Or engage with the troll, move to the pit, and fight it out, because it could turn up some "real shit" that's inside of you. Either way, it's a win/win.

 

So now we come to insults. In my laissez faire moderation philosophy, I think the only time moderation action should happen is when someone is being truly disruptive to a thread. So if they start spamming the thread with "you are a moron" in a series of back to back posts posted seconds after each other- THAT is disruptive. If someone repeatedly makes new threads that are like "so and so is a fraud and a charlatan and you should all stop sucking his dick", THAT is disruptive. People posting images of porn is disruptive.

 

But if someone leaves ONE post that says "you are an idiot. You are a bigot. You have no experience. You have no coherent argument. Anyone reading your above posts can see this. I'm done with you", and they don't continue to post, that is not truly disruptive to the thread, it should be left alone.

 

Other stuff that should be moderated is other stupid advertising spams and things like that.

 

Legitimate death threats also need to be taken seriously.

 

So now we come to the recent events. Sunya said:

 

 

 

Now I, personally, don't think this is necessarily the case. Scotty, and recently tulku, have merely taken the "no insult" policy to its logical conclusion. If anyone insults anyone at any time, that's a violation of the insult policy. If someone insults me, but I don't report it, and then I insult someone else, and they report it, and I get suspended.... well that's not fair, now is it? That is the logical conclusion.

 

The reason sunya is pointing this out, and why it's such a big deal now, is because the current incarnation of the insult policy is ridiculous, unenforceable, too relative, and prevents "real shit" from ever taking place on this board.

 

So what we have now is a bunch of people going "well you know what tommy said?", and "oh, wait, but you didn't hear what billy said to me before I said that". We've got a bunch of people running and crying to the moderators. I'm sorry for demeaning the position, because really, these people are taking the no insult policy to its logical conclusion. It's not a big deal when people like me don't care, and don't report when I'm insulted. Then if some people start reporting stuff because it bothers them, it's not a big deal. But when you have someone who is exercising his rights well within the rules of the forum, it seems ridiculous, because it is. But hey, that's the rule.

 

My solution?

 

Remove the "no insult" policy. Replace with "no disruptive behavior" policy. Someone thinks John Chang is a fake? They make a thread saying "I think john chang is a fake, he could use a lighter to light that newspaper on fire"? Let it run. Let people fight it out.

 

Someone makes a thread that goes "Wang Liping is an asshole, I heard that from someone who heard it from someone". Let it play. Rumors happen. We can't confirm or deny rumors. Some rumors are true and based in fact. Some rumors are lies and based in deceit. Part of living life is being able to learn how to assess the credibility of a source.

 

Someone makes a thread that goes "sloppy zhang is a pontificating asshole, his threads are too long, he needs to learn to write more concisely"? Let it play. People have told me as much many times. It doesn't bother me.

 

These are all opinions. They are confined to their threads. They don't disrupt the forum.

 

If someone starts making chain threads about sloppy zhang's pontificating, tell them "hey, newbie, if you have more to say, revive your first thread", then merge them. It keeps happening? Warn them and tell them they are being disruptive by posting five new threads about your dear SZ. It keeps going? Suspend for a day, then seven, then two weeks, then a month, then a ban. I mean, really.

 

The thing about freedom is you have to allow the good AND the bad. If you start trying to cut the bad, you wind up starting to cut the good. And you start to turn the whole thing into a farce.

 

The situation with scotty, and now with tulku, shows what happens when you start to take the "no insult" policy to its logical conclusion. Insults happen in conversations of import. Always have, always will. Trying to cut out the insults will cut the conversation down dramatically. Insults, and how we react to them, can be a very powerful window into observing our thoughts, and how we REALLY react- not just how we "say" we react. Instead of looking out for "insults", we should look for behavior which is truly disruptive and potentially endangering to the well being of the members here. Let people work out the insults in the pit if a thread is beyond salvaging. Other than that, let it play. Sometimes people need to get gunk out of their system.

 

Sloppy,

 

what transpired between me and Witch isn't any concern of others

 

Witch was the one who first started this whole BDSM insult shit and she accepted my retort with grace.

 

She wasn't the one who complained about my so-called "death threat" which was in reality a tit-for-tat BDSM insult right back at her along her lines of warped sense of sexual fun.

 

Stop trying to pull me down to Scotty's level.

 

Our case is totally different from Scotty's.

 

It was case of some busybodies trying to get me in shit when neither Witch nor me raise a fuss to the mods about our exchange.

 

Probably some of Scotty's friends who is trying to rally support around his case by trying to pull me down.

 

If it was Witch or me who made a complaint to the mods about the exchange, then it would be totally the same case as Scotty but our cases are obviously different as it stands.

Edited September 9, 2011 by tulku

[tulku]

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

 

who are you Dawei to comment on the exchange between me and Witch?

 

are you a mod?

 

Do you get to decide which retorts go along the lines of acceptable BDSM retorts and which are not?

 

Btw, Choking is an activity which goes along with shackling and bondage hand in hand.

 

Why didn't you report Witch?

 

Or are you trying to get my thread about how "True Love for Enlightenment does not contain Lust" banned?

Edited September 9, 2011 by tulku

[tulku]

No-one's views should ever be invalidated. Again, every member has the unalienable right to:

 

* to seek information and ideas;

* to receive information and ideas;

* to impart information and ideas.

 

If I feel that an situation needs to be brought up for moderation consideration than I have the RIGHT and the FREEDOM to do so. Just as you have the right to tell me that you think I am being over-sensitive.

 

Both my view of the said offense and your views of my view can and should be a part of the conversation that emerges about the situation. If I hold my view back and you hold your view back than we are doing everyone an injustice.

 

So that's why I am saying, let everyone have their say. If you are interested in the situation you speak. If you are not interested in the situation you stay quiet and allow those who speak work it out.

 

And in terms of "what was the point?". Well I was trying to prove a point to those who think my ideas are too idealistic and not realistic. I grabbed an offense that was well and truly actionable (unless you want to go back and contest that - which of course you are welcome to do), brought it to public notice and gave what I thought was the best course of action.

 

The parties involved engaged in the discussion giving their views about the situation. Compromises were suggested and the members themselves decided to retract and adjust their posts. And then the original discussion continued on its merry way with the whole moderation conversation kept out of the post.

 

No moderators, no judgments, no suspensions.

 

THAT was the point!

 

 

Stig, as Sunya said, what transpired between me and Witch is OUR problem and none of yours.

 

Witch had graciously accepted my retort in a bout she started.

 

If you guys do not like choking as an acceptable BDSM activity, then you guys have no right to say that shacking and bounding someone is an acceptable activity as well.

 

Or you gonna say it is acceptable for others to threaten me but it is not right for me to threaten others?

 

Btw, What Witch said was a Threat to me as well. It was bounding and shackling me against my Will.

 

Stop trying to stick your nose into things which don't concern you just to save Scotty.

Edited September 9, 2011 by tulku

[dawei]

who are you Dawei to comment on the exchange between me and Witch?

 

are you a mod?

 

Do you get to decide which retorts go along the lines of acceptable BDSM retorts and which are not?

 

Btw, Choking is an activity which goes along with shackling and bondage hand in hand.

 

Why didn't you report Witch?

 

Or are you trying to get my thread about how "True Love for Enlightenment does not contain Lust" banned?

Actually I was responding to the exchange between Sunya and Stig; and mostly for Stig's benefit since he is talking so much about his idea.

[witch]

Stig, as Sunya said, what transpired between me and Witch is OUR problem and none of yours.

 

Witch had graciously accepted my retort in a bout she started.

 

If you guys do not like choking as an acceptable BDSM activity, then you guys have no right to say that shacking and bounding someone is an acceptable activity as well.

 

Or you gonna say it is acceptable for others to threaten me but it is not right for me to threaten others?

 

Btw, What Witch said was a Threat to me as well. It was bounding and shackling me against my Will.

 

Stop trying to stick your nose into things which don't concern you just to save Scotty.

 

For the record, while choking is indeed a BDSM activity, although of course very dangerous and probably should never be done just for that reason, choking someone to death is not.

[tulku]

For the record, while choking is indeed a BDSM activity, although of course very dangerous and probably should never be done just for that reason, choking someone to death is not.

 

For the record, choking is a popular BDSM activity going hand in hand with bondage, shackling, forced cross-dressing and slavery.

 

And also, for the record, I think TTB should be the last venue on the Internet to see even the slightest glimpse of the word "BDSM", much less discuss what are or what are not acceptable BDSM activities.

Edited September 9, 2011 by tulku

[witch]

choking is a very rare BDSM activity. There are much safer ways to restrict breathing. The other things you list are popular.

 

In a forum where people talk about putting clove oil on their genitals, I think at least the masochistic part of BDSM is right at home here!

[gendao]

Well, what's "acceptable" depends upon what's mutually consensual between the 2 mature adults involved. Which is thus subjective and may vary (possibly even including euthanasia)?

 

The key then is to ensure consensuality before engaging in it with someone.

Edited September 9, 2011 by vortex

[Sloppy Zhang]

But it's sounding like just another rule for the Mods to try and navigate. I mean with the current "No Insult" policy, where's the definition of what is an "insult".

 

In my suggestion, insults don't even come into play.

 

If I make a post that says "stig, you're an idiot, this conversation is through" and then I leave the thread, that is not disruptive to the thread/forum at large.

 

However, if I flood this thread with posts that say "stig, you're an idiot", that's disruptive to the thread. In that instance, I could expect a PM from a mod saying "hey, SZ, you're welcome to have an opinion and express it, but you are disrupting a thread. We've removed all but one post that says you think stig is an idiot. Don't keep it up again, or we'll suspend you for a couple of days".

 

Do we be rules judges and jump on everything that may possibly look like an insult??

 

In my suggestion, no, because insults are not inherently disruptive to the forum.

 

Now, continuing on, if you respond back with "Sloppy Zhang, you're an idiot", and we have a back and forth and this thread devolves into a sparring match between us, then we can reasonably expect the mods to move it to the pit and say "fight it out there, where the rest of the forum isn't going to be disturbed".

 

In that instance, the only things that would cause us to get suspended are if we started posting porn links, illegal download advertisements, or if we started to harass or otherwise threaten each other. Because two guys in the pit insulting each other does not inherently disrupt the forum goings-on of the day.

 

Now if we started multiple threads in main discussion areas, or if every time you or I saw each other in another thread we started slinging insults and quoting stuff from the pit thread, well we are now disrupting another thread in another discussion area, so we can be expected to get suspended for a couple of days so we can chill.

 

If someone feels insulted by something that someone says, is that actionable?

 

Not in my proposal, because that does not inherently disturb the goings-on of the forum.

 

Where is the definitive line??

 

In my proposal, the line is "when does it disturb the peace?" A devolved insult thread gets moved aside to the pit so main conversations can continue in main discussion areas. People flooding threads with back to back, pointless posts get a PM, then a suspension for a day or two, then a suspension for 7, then two weeks, then a month, then a ban.

 

The truth is there is none and therefore the Mods are always going to come off looking like assholes.

 

That's because they are trying to micromanage personal conversations and ever-changing passions and prejudices of the posters. Conversations happen faster than moderator action- so stop trying to moderate conversation and feelings.

 

And I am sorry but these folks are my friends and I don't want them being continuously harassed for just trying to do their best for this forum.

 

Neither do I, so let's not put them in a situation where they are doomed to fail.

 

If we supplanted it with your idea "no disturbances to the ongoing functioning of this forum". Straight away we have to create definitions and distinctions of what is and isn't a "disturbance", which brings exactly the same problems to bear for moderators.

 

See above- flooding threads with off topic posts/insults, and flooding the discussion forum with the same posts over and over again. A single thread saying "wang liping sucks" is not disruptive. The thread may be flame bait, and may eventually be moved to the pit- but that thread, in and of itself, does not disrupt the forum. Now, if the same person, in one day, posted three threads that said "wang liping sucks", that's disruptive- mods combine the threads and let that person know "hey, you're welcome to your opinion, just don't flood the board". If it persists, suspend for several days to a week.

[Sloppy Zhang]

At the moment the only "quality control mechanism" is the moderation team but its not working.

 

Because they are trying to moderate conversations and opinions and peoples' feelings, and those occur faster than mods can act.

 

Because it's an authoritative model it actual CREATES the culture of people acting like children dibberdobbing each other to teacher/headmaster/mommy/daddy and then waiting for the "high poobahs" to pass down their judgement.

 

No one's acting like a child. They are merely asking that the rules be enforced evenly across the board. It's an impossible task because it's impossible to create a rule that governs and enforces what people are going to find "offensive" or "insulting", and what each person wants to do about that.

 

It is simply NOT working.

 

So we change it up.

 

Whereas if the "quality control mechanism" was in fact members working through issues that arise themselves, issues can be raised quicker and easier and resolved to a far greater degree than just having moderators slapping down their judgements.

 

Case-in-point: [Moderation] -- tulku.

 

This issue was raised, discussed, solutions offered and executed BY MEMBERS and I can bet that even now the moderators haven't had a chance to discuss it properly.

 

Right. That's cool. But if we just quit caring about insults in the first place, we wouldn't even have had that problem.

 

The "choking to death" is troublesome, because it is threatening. But that (I think) had more to do with a misunderstanding regarding how BDSM operates (safe, sane, consensual).

 

Now if we had just sat back, hit the "Report" button and waited for them to react I could GUARANTEE you that there would right now be a shit-fight with its appropriate degree of forum stench going on in the original topic. And if precedent is anything to go by I would reckon we would have to wait another 24hrs of it going on before mods could get to it.

 

Or if we realized that insults aren't *that* disruptive to the forum, and we just let them pass without attaching to them, we wouldn't have nearly as many problems with moderation.

Edited September 9, 2011 by Sloppy Zhang

[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 we/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 doing their thing.

 

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 the 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.

 

[Desert Eagle]

In a forum where people talk about putting clove oil on their genitals, I think at least the masochistic part of BDSM is right at home here!

 

But the clove oil method is not intended to be a pleasurable experience. Perhaps that would be in the case of BDSM where pleasure is derived from pain, but that's a special case that does not detract from the method's purpose.

 

There are people who enjoy cutting themselves so should we also include medical blood-letting and acupuncture in the BDSM circle?