Opposed to expansion of thread owner control to general forum...

[Jeff]

While I understand the logic of the need for some forum members wanting to control the flow of their specific thread, I believe that should be reserved to specific sections of the forum. I believe that such a general practice has the risk of stifling honest debate in the future, with the potential of creating a one sided view that can be misleading.

 

I have seen this happen in other forums.  Just recently I had an active discussion on a topic with a few regular members of another forum in which I was arguing a counter point to the broader group. Even as the discussion was ongoing, "management" decided that 8 of my posts with counter points should be deleted from the thread as being off topic, while leaving over 20 posts in the thread that directly attacked individuals. After such deletion, locked the thread with the disparaging comments as the final point to the thread.  Any unsuspecting forum reader who periodically reads the forum would be left with a completely misleading view of the topic (and discussion).

 

While Taobums may be the wild west, I appreciate it's openness. Take away freedom of speech and it can be a slippery slope for any group.

 

Best wishes.

 

p.s. I would have put this message in with Dawei's original announcement, but that thread is locked and inaccessible to direct comment.

[soaring crane]

We don't delete posts, ever. At least not intentionally lol.

 

I don't think this new format will be activated for general discussion.

[Marblehead]

Well, some might realize that it is a good way to keep me out of their threads because I don't read them.

[dawei]

This is more an experiment and all the way up the ladder, it is of interest to see how it plays out.  It has gone through a lot of discussion and there are some concerns over how the use (or misuse) will play out... so we have anticipated some side-effects.

 

The short-term plan is only to allow this in a few select areas to see how it works (or doesn't).  There is no long term plan to have the entire forum this way as the software is too coarse for the kind of control/self-control you want.  

 

But the outcome will likely contribute towards any future consideration of software it would require to take it to another level.

 

We do plan to roll this out the Buddhist sub-forum area which is probably akin to an area of concern you would have: People invested with too much control and restrict opposing views.   But this area is one of the most problematic on the board and there are no solutions but this seems worth finding out if this is a solution in the right direction.

[Taomeow]

Freedom of speech is a constitutional right (at least that was the idea before it went south), not a right of a private citizen to grant or take away from another private citizen.  TTB is going to experiment with giving a private citizen -- a member of the forum -- the power of the government in his or her own thread.  Thus the freedoms of this forum, open to the public but privately owned and operated, will be expanded rather than undercut by adding sections that grant the power of a government to a private party, for the limited purposes of his or her own threads.  A member starting his or her own thread is not going to undermine any of your freedoms except the freedom to hijack, derail, invalidate, or otherwise fubar his or her creation and the original intent embedded in sharing it.  Which I'm sure is the freedom anyone can well do without -- and those who can't, ought to learn.  It's like not shitting in the pedestrian walkway, in a street made available to the public -- yes, someone who needs to go might feel restricted in his freedom, but we've all learned to live with that, for the benefit of one and all. 

Edited April 17, 2015 by Taomeow

[Jeff]

Freedom of speech is a constitutional right (at least that was the idea before it went south), not a right of a private citizen to grant or take away from another private citizen.  TTB is going to experiment with giving a private citizen -- a member of the forum -- the power of the government in his or her own thread.  Thus the freedoms of this forum, open to the public but privately owned and operated, will be expanded rather than undercut by adding sections that grant the power of a government to a private party, for the limited purposes of his or her own threads.  A member starting his or her own thread is not going to undermine any of your freedoms except the freedom to hijack, derail, invalidate, or otherwise fubar his or her creation and the original intent embedded in sharing it.  Which I'm sure is the freedom anyone can well do without -- and those who can't, ought to learn.  It's like not shitting in the pedestrian walkway, in a street made available to the public -- yes, someone who needs to go might feel restricted in his freedom, but we've all learned to live with that, for the benefit of one and all. 

 

And some states have much different ideas on what is fair and reasonable. Some such seemingly reasonable positions by states can lead to civil war.

 

But let the fun begin.

 

Best wishes.

[Taomeow]

Well, yes, not just states -- constitutional rights are an endangered species quite, quite federally.  But what is going to happen here is not civil war material.  It's more like creating a podium where people take turns speaking and listening, instead of trying to shout, over everybody with something to say about something entirely else in the same place at the same time -- or over a gang, crowd, stampede yelling "you are wrong" the moment you open your mouth to say something unorthodox.  It's about a chance for a bit more order out of chaos, not "worse order as the only alternative to chaos."   

Edited April 17, 2015 by Taomeow

[Stosh]

Seeing how the rollout has gone to this point ,participation tends to be weak. I couldnt say that the doom and gloom predictions do not have merit, but so far those havent surfaced. Sean could always toss in some modification to attempt to address unseemly choices by moderating thread operators.

As long as folks know whole threads can be deleted, that each does have supervisor whos opinions may not be liberal, I would want to see how to make it more popular and fun, first, THEN worry about how it might not be great.

One could do interviews, games, teach a class, all sorts of things, with the modicum of control allotted.

Me personally, I dont and wouldnt plan to be very restrictive at all, I am fine with threads wandering folks just tossing in comment, but when the thing seems to have run a good run, well then I think.its time to just remove it.

[Stosh]

Well, some might realize that it is a good way to keep me out of their threads because I don't read them.

Why, ,do you think thread operators cant make right choices without the benediction of the state?

[Marblehead]

Why, ,do you think thread operators cant make right choices without the benediction of the state?

Bad question.  You should have stopped at "Why?"

 

The reason why is that I will not let anyone have control over what I say as long as I have not broken any rules with what I have said.

[Taomeow]

Oh no.  You're the absolute champion of this forum in the number of posts!   Are you prepared to risk losing your record some ten years from now due to non-posting in the anarch sections?  Do think twice!   

[Marblehead]

Oh no.  You're the absolute champion of this forum in the number of posts!   Are you prepared to risk losing your record some ten years from now due to non-posting in the anarch sections?  Do think twice!   

Oh!, I have deeply considered my understandings regarding this position of mine.  It is not an easy one to remain honest to.  But it is what I believe and to not practice this belief would cause me inner conflict.

 

Regarding the number of my posts:  When I first joined the board there was an aggressive Buddhist member here who was the top poster.  I wanted my post count to be greater than his.  And as he often spoke unkindly of Taoism, constantly suggesting that Buddhism is "better" than Taoism I made it a policy to respond to every one of his posts and then support my argument with a few more posts supporting what I had presented.

 

And too, there will always be members here who wish to speak about something that I have first-hand experience with (Yes, I have lived a full and very rich (not money) life.) with whom I can share my experience, opinion and understanding.

 

But I won't say something and then someone comes along and erases it as if I had never said it.  I won't put myself in such a position because if it happened it would piss my off and getting pissed off is not any of the reasons I am a member of this board.  We must respect what others say even if we think they are off the rocker, totally delusional, and we totally and absolutely disagree with them.

[Stosh]

Bad question.  You should have stopped at "Why?"

 

The reason why is that I will not let anyone have control over what I say as long as I have not broken any rules with what I have said.

Same thing. Control before you say it, as rules. If my rules are more lax, your freedom is greater. One cant make you say or not say anything. Your objection is bad.

[Marblehead]

Same thing. Control before you say it, as rules. If my rules are more lax, your freedom is greater. One cant make you say or not say anything. Your objection is bad.

Hehehe.  No, your values are likely different than are mine therefore something I think is acceptable might be objectionable to you and you make it disappear.

 

But yes, I would agree that your values may be more lax than are mine but why would I want to put myself under your control in the first place?

[Stosh]

Hehehe.  No, your values are likely different than are mine therefore something I think is acceptable might be objectionable to you and you make it disappear.

 

But yes, I would agree that your values may be more lax than are mine but why would I want to put myself under your control in the first place?

im thinking that these concerns are the same ones as exist in the ordinary format. Folks disagree with the moderation that is done.

The reason you might want to trust me, is that you might want a thread which is moderated in the style that I do. The foe you mentioned earlier, would have gotten plenty of freedom to post, but then when it became out of hand, I could squash it , since I would have not have continued to be constrained by the rule, which is inflexible.

[Taomeow]

Marble, I applaud your tactics used to overcome the Buddhist adversary.  But I still think you misunderstood the premise of the anarch section.  I don't know how those who want to violate it might act, but if what it is for is observed rather than violated, only those words that have no business being spoken to begin with will be removed, words that go against both the stated goals and implied spirit of speaking there.  

 

Imagine yourself at a friend's wedding.  Imagine that as soon as the bride says "I do" to your friend, you jump from your seat and yell, "you stupid bimbo, you don't know the man as well as I do, I've known him since junior high, he's not going to make you happy, he's lazy, irresponsible, foul-mouthed, and his feet smell.  No one respects him!  You better change your mind pronto and give him back that cheapo ring he gave you, or you'll be sorry!"  Freedom of speech violated if you are thinking all those things but not saying them?  And if you do say them, would it be wrong for your friend to delete you from his wedding?..

 

There's inappropriate speech.   You don't tell a child, "your mom is our stupidest employee, everybody makes fun of her behind her back on account of her stupidity and ugliness, did you know that?"  You don't tell a guy sitting at a restaurant next to you, "ah, you have those folds under your ears, I see -- so, you are going to die of a heart attack soon, it's a sure sign of severe heart disease."  And on and on.  Anyone who speaks words that must not be spoken is exercising the freedom to be an asshole, nothing more.  I will not support this freedom for any purposes.  And you don't need it, I'm telling you you don't.  So, think again! 

[Marblehead]

im thinking that these concerns are the same ones as exist in the ordinary format. Folks disagree with the moderation that is done. The reason you might want to trust me, is that you might want a thread which is moderated in the style that I do. The foe you mentioned earlier, would have gotten plenty of freedom to post, but then when it became out of hand, I could squash it , since I would have not have continued to be constrained by the rule, which is inflexible.

Oh, I trust you.  That's not the point.  If I have a practice of how I interact with others then I must utilize that practice with everyone.  Otherwise I would be a hypocrate.

 

The board's tolerance is much greater than would be any single individual's tolerance.  That is just my opinion - I can't say it is a truth.

 

And I do agree that moderation includes defusing heated disagreements that appear to be getting close to being personal.

 

So I'm not disagreeing with you or suggesting that you might be one who would delete others' posts, it is just that it is my policy and I try to stay true to it.

[Daeluin]

We can use the I Ching to show us where the balance lies in a given situation. But often we desire to ignore balance and do whatever we want, without restraint, simply because we can, following our momentum.

 

The current model of owner-moderated-threads allows the owner to enforce their own interpretation of balance, in regards to the topic they chose to explore. In the same sense that if we go to listen to a public speaker, like the Dalai Lama, we must be somewhat quite in order to listen to what the speaker has to share - but if we open our mouths to voice whatever comes to mind, we are quite unlikely to hear what might otherwise have been shared.

 

The same is true when in a classroom setting. If we say we want to take a class, then we are agreeing to follow the guidance of how the teacher wishes to teach. If we constantly step in, saying what we think of how the teacher is teaching, or how we'd do things differently, then we are not allowing the teacher to share the material that we signed up to learn. Learning from a teacher goes hand in hand with surrendering one's personal flow enough to sync up (a little or a lot) with the personal flow of the teacher.

 

This new model is interesting, as rather than everyone being equal members of a discussion, one or more people become facilitators of the discussion, helping to guide it in the direction they wish. Yes, it means the conversation's flow is now more controlled rather than being organic, but also allows the potential for a more teacher-student relationship to emerge, where-as now that is not possible, and anyone who wishes to share a teaching that might require a sharing from multiple perspectives over time to fully comprehend will too easily become obscured by the noise created by people who post whatever they think, uninterested in allowing space for the teachers incomplete ideas.

 

So perhaps it would help us to think of OP's following the new model as descriptions for a class. If we like the idea of the class, we agree to cater to the author's unique way of communicating and leading us in exploring the material. If we don't like the direction the OP is pointing things, then we totally have the option of creating our own OP to guide the material in a different direction.

Edited April 18, 2015 by Daeluin

[Daeluin]

Oh, I trust you.  That's not the point.  If I have a practice of how I interact with others then I must utilize that practice with everyone.  Otherwise I would be a hypocrate.

 

One of the principles in taoism is to adapt to the change around us. If we alway do things the same way, we are attached, and non-adaptive.

[Marblehead]

Marble, I applaud your tactics used to overcome the Buddhist adversary.  But I still think you misunderstood the premise of the anarch section.  I don't know how those who want to violate it might act, but if what it is for is observed rather than violated, only those words that have no business being spoken to begin with will be removed, words that go against both the stated goals and implied spirit of speaking there.

Hehehe.  You did good with your wordage here.  And I'm not saying the concept of the section is invalid.  But even the truth can be removed if the thread owner doesn't like hearing the truth.

 

Imagine yourself at a friend's wedding.  Imagine that as soon as the bride says "I do" to your friend, you jump from your seat and yell, "you stupid bimbo, you don't know the man as well as I do, I've known him since junior high, he's not going to make you happy, he's lazy, irresponsible, foul-mouthed, and his feet smell.  No one respects him!  You better change your mind pronto and give him back that cheapo ring he gave you, or you'll be sorry!"  Freedom of speech violated if you are thinking all those things but not saying them?  And if you do say them, would it be wrong for your friend to delete you from his wedding?..

That reminded me of the song "Take Time To Know Her" by Percy Sledge:

 

 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFxnUMdQsPw

 

 

In your example what needed to be said should have been said before-hand.

 

And what you have suggested is valid.  However, ...

 

 

There's inappropriate speech.   You don't tell a child, "your mom is our stupidest employee, everybody makes fun of her behind her back on account of her stupidity and ugliness, did you know that?"  You don't tell a guy sitting at a restaurant next to you, "ah, you have those folds under your ears, I see -- so, you are going to die of a heart attack soon, it's a sure sign of severe heart disease."  And on and on.  Anyone who speaks words that must not be spoken is exercising the freedom to be an asshole, nothing more.  I will not support this freedom for any purposes.  And you don't need it, I'm telling you you don't.  So, think again! 

I fully understand what you are saying.  Perhaps I have more faith (prehaps unjustifiable) in the virtue of others.  Faith that they would not get insulting and/or personal.

 

But hey, I often make some off-the-wall comments that some would rather not see.

 

A beautiful example just today in one of the threads (forget which one).  Someone mentioned bathroom and I said "Or outhouse?".  Blue eyed snake said that wasn't funny.  The truth is, Blue eyed snake didn't think it was funny.  I thought it was funny.  If what I said was in a thread controlled by her she likely would have deleted my post.  Therefore what I said doesn't exist, and more, I don't exist.

 

And I am a spontaneous person.  After reading something someone else has said causes a thought in my mind I am going to share that thought.  Sure, it might be off topic and it might be something the person didn't want to hear.  I can either remain silent or be wu wei.

 

And please understand, I'm not disagreeing with you; I am only stating my thoughts and opinions.

[Marblehead]

PS  The link is good, it just didn't post properly.  The problem is at my end.

[Stosh]

Mh, I dont really disagree much, in principle. I imagine a situation where I post something innocuous, and the post is deleted for some reason anyway. Well I would resent that too.

Its a gamble.

To make the Whole Dao bums operate that way, that, I would oppose.

Edited April 18, 2015 by Stosh

[zerostao]

we are discussing about one section being the new op moderated way, right?

not the entire forum?

i dont see how/why there could be much opposition to one section being thread op controlled.

if you do not have any tolerance for the idea, then, simply stay in the other sections.

 

i had a similar idea when i was mod. i wanted to use the article section in a very similar way as being proposed here.

the article section was immediately done away with entirely as a response to my idea.

i am actually amazed this time, the idea may actually find a place here.

everyone knows i am for the free flow of conversation.

and having said that, i also see the need for one section, where the flow can be regulated.

[Stosh]

we are discussing about one section being the new op moderated way, right?

not the entire forum?

 

.

Checking back the first post by Jeff, I think he was looking at the entire site. Beyond his post we seem to be talking about the idea in general, as applies to a subportion of the site. I am curious about a subportion working that way ,but not the whole site. It seems to change the character of participation, look at how little action there is in here ! Its like one of those slow news days when the press resorts to stories about the press itself, rather than news. Start a thread zero , I know I sat around for a bit waiting for inspiration ,which didnt show up. I guess I just dont have any agenda any more, ive just gotten used to the idea that folks already have the beliefs they believe are best for them.

If one doesnt have any system they really want to propound, interview, game etc, then it appears one doesnt need additional controls, and the regular version is fine.

Edited April 18, 2015 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

One of the principles in taoism is to adapt to the change around us. If we alway do things the same way, we are attached, and non-adaptive.

On the other hand, if you find a good way of doing something why would you keep trying different ways and ending up with countless failures?