REMINDER: Read and take to heart

Post Reply New Topic

Respekt his authoritah!

well, I honestly can say that I agree with some of your points, however, I don't think it is going that far... yet. To clarify, perhaps a little confusion might be a problem? I believe that your "announcement" seemed to be directed to all participants of the PPR forum in general and not of making accusations against the most prolific posters here? just in case.


Well, yes, it seems that the argumentum ad baculum is the easiest way, especially for a moderator to enforce or to defend their position without so much argument, although they could claim to be their right, it is true however that flames and insults have had taken place here, even though this forum by its nature can be less moderated than the rest, the site's rules is meant to be respected and enforced everywhere on the site. And well, it is evident that insults and attacks have had taken place here which go against the written rules, so in that sense, QM has a point. In my opinion, you would not be the target of "the cleansing program", in a matter of speaking, you don't seem to be one of those who throw ad-hominems or insults in your arguments, in that regard, you would not need to defend your own butt on this matter . I would guess that QM may have had take his time to decide to make this thread and give an announcment, if you will, to all posters, in general terms, time until december to make this a more friendly place to debate, I would give him that benefit.

I2 wasn't *that* bad from what I remember of it. I mean, the worst part of it might be the crudeness rather than other behavioral factors.(and it was more crude than WP is now from what I remember)

Yeah, a lot of people say a lot of things. That is why we need forums, to fill all of the things people want to say. I might suggest going to the Haven rather than making these statements here, they might know how to handle it better.

I think he tried coming on too strong, I think a better direction would be to avoid confrontation, but rather suggest different actions in threads and such, after all, if this is a 2.5 month crusade, or a 1.5 month crusade, we could probably do a lot to teach people without taking a heavy-hand, as the PPR crowd is the least likely to respond to that. For the most part, it has been unmodded for months, and trying to moderate it now seems like an oppression for those who have been here a while.

That being said, another moderator could help, a major issue is that it would likely be best to use a person who is either a PPR native(I am not sure we have many mods who like this forum as it stands though), or at least can understand and deal with the highly skeptical, highly combative attitude of the PPR people. Outsiders who seem like outsiders are likely to be rejected

I think that makes sense, I think on some level, you have proven a lack of ability to identify with the willful natives of the PPR forum.

Well, he did not need to take a position on the nature of free speech. All he had to do was take 2 axioms, the rules and his position, and use that to say what he was going to do and why. I mean, I cannot argue with basic axioms, but I can argue with a position on free speech, and his response *was* an illogical step that is unnecessary, as he could have easily stepped back to the more defensible position of upholding the rules without appealing to any element of rights theory. The more he moves away from the basic axioms, and the more he seems emotionally driven/less than rational, the worse his position is.

PPR normally isn't all that bad, though. I mean, we have the occasional phase of flaming, but for the most part it's within fairly reasonable bounds. There aren't any major flamewars on now that I'm aware of.

Yeah, suddenly laying down the law so harshly after such a long period of relative anarchy can produce negative backlash. Better to use a softer touch- at first at least.


I don't think they really want to mod any PPR regulars- I'm obviously not right for the job, neither is Chever, Slowmutant, Oscuria, et al. I would nominate you simply because you've been here longest and don't seem too interested in over-harsh moderation.


QM has stated before that he hates PPR, and to be fair, we have given him ample reason to do so. But because of this possible grudge, I was somewhat more concerned about exactly how heavy QM will be coming down on us. I've seen summary bannings from him on several occasions, but usually for obvious trolls and spammers. Would long-standing regulars get booted so quickly as well?

I'd tend to agree with you.


Well, I would doubt the idea that they are committed to a good solution for all parties, I mean, a group coming in for the "good of PPR" against the mockery of most of the most frequent posters and threatening those posters does not seem trustworthy to seek a good direction.

I would think that greenblue, or twoshots could potentially work. I am certain that there are other locals here too, claire333 enjoys the atmosphere but wants some progress, so she could potentially work. All of the names you mention I think would be bad, as chever tends to be too involved, slowmutant would likely be seen as abusive of the power, and oscuria is certainly more fascistic than the board average. This is not to say that these are impossible choices, but simply less than ideal. As for yourself, I don't think you'd be a terrible choice although your aggression in an argument might be less than ideal, but I just might not pay attention to all of your posts(or remember them all).


I dunno, I am still mostly thinking that he used an argumentum ad baculum to support his view on the nature of free speech! This thread seems mostly to have blown up in his face though.

See, QM? We do serve a purpose- entertainment value for claire33.

Hm, those seem like good choices. I'd throw ToadofSteel in that list as well. Perhaps there could be a limited PPR-only mod of one of our more level-headed members who can keep things on the cooler side in here?


Let's just agree that I am not one who should be trusted with anything resembling power.


That really doesn't bode well for us come December.

Can one mod acting alone 'cleanse' a forum. Or does there need some sort of consensus between the moderators for this.

It might be a good Idea for QM to post some examples of what he has found to be objectionable, and ones he feels is borderline acceptable.

There have been some obvious examples of direct insults. I am guilty of at least one for which I apologised to Dox47. Chever and ShaunWilliam had a bit of a flame war for a week or so, but other than that I don't really see much wrong. There is a bit of generic name calling between the atheists and christians, and that's about it.

So how about it QM some examples ?

Makes sense, I probably tend to overlook him more due to his moderation. Let's reject the power of the other WP mods, to form our own governing forces! I mean, after all, this is partially the politics forum, what better job for it than self-enforcement?


Meh, let's start a revolution.

Yeah I would vote for the Toad

I just hope that these disciplinary actions won't inhibit the off-the-walls psychotic lunacy that makes this forum so very endearing.

Moderators are subject to peer review, but retain their autonomy.