poll about the powers that be

Post Reply New Topic

Being an Aspie does not excuse a moderator from having vendettas or misusing power.

And yes, it is possible for a person such as yourself to be ignorant of the matter.

Without the "religionists", probably


well, 'ignorant' is isually used as a derogatory term for a disagreement and dislike of what the opposite view believes or promotes and disagreeing with your views, so it isn't always accurate, given the subjective nature which is used.


well, from what I see, the way a member is promoted for moderation, he or she has to comply with some requirements, such as supporting the forum which is seen in a positive way by other members and the mods, from what I gather from reading the news of a new moderator, and I think Fnord doesn't seem to fit that criteria, if I'm correct, if he actually isn't, Thank God


Hmmm, I wouldn't thought iamnotaparaket was especifically refering to aspies vs neurotypicals here when he said 'ordinary', what would have gave you that idea?

I've always kinda favored something more opaque. Like

Through me you pass into the city of woe:
Through me you pass into eternal pain:
Through me among the people lost for aye.

Before me things created were none, save things
Eternal, and eternal I endure.
All hope abandon ye who enter here.

too bad most people read the 'disclaimer' after the fact. I find a lot of members read the rules that way, as well. I am not disparaging the idea, in fact, I think it a very good thing.

My question is different. I have members ask me, after I tell them about the PP&R's reputation , they ask, in all innocence, "where may we talk about religion, then?"
It seem they are not confrontational and don't want to chat about their common religion in an atmosphere of confrontation.

I agree, myself, if I were into Barbie dolls, I would want to chat about the aspects of era 60's Malibu barbie as compaired with the 1980's updated dream house, etc. Not continually defend and discuss how playing with Barbie is succumbing to the capitalistic plastic hype, and how my values are warped to waste time with such . . .etc, etc.

so, where DO we discuss religion in that manner?

Merle

The problem is that religion is such an emotive subject to many people, or likely to be to those who care enough about it to want to discuss it in the first place; and secondly the range of religions beliefs or none-beliefs is wide also. It is a recipe for contentious dialogue. A real can of worms I like your new avatar by the way.

Separating the R from the PP would seem the most sensible idea, as a politics and philosophy phorum would be almost expected to be something like PPR (the philosophy forums I've visited always as a rule exhibited hostile derision towards religion). I mean, just in general, people who are philosophical seem to make poor bedfellows with those who are religious in the common sense, and putting the two together may seem to make superficial sense based on the topical similarity, but in practice it's like putting sodium in water. This might deprive the denizens of PPR from easy kills, but if there are members here who want to have constructive discussions of their faith without going through a philosophical battle the only other option is to gut PPR (which, and I'm *totally* not biased here, I don't think would be good).

Perhaps In-Depth Adult Discussion? Not ideal, but at least it takes it to a perhaps less confrontational sphere.


M.

Well I was a private member before I was a mod. I live in the WP community and people knew me and I knew them. I hung out at the Dino Aspie Cafe and moved with the OP of the thread to the Dino Ex-Cafe. One day they stuck a mop and a bucket in my hands and said "here, be useful" and I stumbled out into modship.
I was rough with you when first I started mopping er modding. I was raised pretty rough in my life and my manner was irritating and offending to you, iamnotaparakeet. I have hoped what I learned about that exchange with you has helped me become a better moderator. I sincerely apologize for any offense or disrespect I generated at that time, iamnotaparakeet, and I hope we can both move forward.

ignorant no more,

Merle

RE PPR

I think some posters have used 'Adult In Depth' for religious discussions as it's impossible to have one in PPR without the resident bully gang wrecking it. Some of those bullies are nominally christian but the social cohesion of the dominant group there overrides anything else there so I'm not pointing the finger at atheists or agnostics. PPR is primarily social, for those who meet the criteria there - male and probably reasonably well educated, in a way. It has the usual NT structure of leaders, experts and followers and most of the posts there are designed to shore up one's place in that structure. boring crap really but for the insiders, probably very important.

I don't think it's necessary to have a whole section for these people, can't they just start their own "ex PPR cafe" type thread?

Thank you for the apology, I am rather surprised that you are apologizing. And I thank you.

I forgive you too, if that would mean anything for you.

It does and I thank you for your strength of character to forgive.

Merle

PPR Lite Thread in the In-Depth Adult Discussion forum? It would provide a relatively safe place for the discussion, perhaps with a keynote that it is for expression, not contention? Or perhaps even just an expression thread within PPR would be sufficient, a mini-Haven of sorts? Just some ideas.


M.

Yeah possibly....sounds orright.

I put it to you; find me people in support and I am willing to create a sticky for the conversation.


M.

Personally, I haven't seen much here in the way of how moderation is conducted yet (although I recognize that this may just be due to the efficiency of the forum Gestapo at covering things up so I won't know unless I get inside the system), however, from the little I have seen, I too have my worries about maintaining moderator impartiality and avoiding abuse of power due to personal issues or prejudices. As a rule, there needs to be a code of conduct and guidelines to moderator behavior, defining their boundaries of power, and furthermore this code of conduct should be at least one step stricter than the guidelines regarding regular member conduct. I'm a huge proponent of the 'with great power comes great responsibility' line of thought, and as far as I'm concerned the privilege of moderation needs to be earned and in order to administrate justice you have to be able to hold yourself to and follow standards even higher than those of which you apply.

I actually developed a fairly extensive body of regulations regarding moderator conduct on a forum I used to supermoderate some time ago (I was one of three on a Board of Moderator Directors who were essentially the moderator moderators). I'm unaware if any such guidelines exist as of yet, or if you even have a hidden moderator forum for discussing sensitive moderator matters (which you should, although with just four of you there might not really be that much of a need for such organized coordination) but if not then your administration really is arbitrary and regardless of how noble a lot you actually are that brings serious worries to my mind. Four mods for a forum that consists of over 25000 members also seems to be a little low; I'd advise setting up a bit of a heirarchy with specialist mods for each individual forum (PP&R needs a particularly refined and specialized touch due to its subject matter) governed by a few trusted supermoderators; that seems to have been the winning formula for forums I have participated on in the past.

When I become a bit more prominent here and have more experience with the forum I may consider uploading my (I don't mean to toot my own horn, but extensively developed and refined by usage) member and moderator guidelines as suggestions as well as my ideas for forum political structure as, with all due respect, seems to be glaringly lacking from my surface observations. Of course, I might be completely wrong and you guys may have your own clear cut and morally/intellectually rich set of guidelines, however if that is the case another of my principles is that such mechanics of the moderator structure and the rules governing them should be transparent, as running things in a clandestine manner allows for a greater corruption potential and oft alienates regular members, making them unaware of actions they can take to protect themselves or even where the boundaries to both their own and to the moderators' rights are.

((In case anybody is wondering, I voted the 'just people too' option. In my opinion this is the attitude that should *ideally* be embraced by the moderators themselves, moreso even than the member base.))