Moderation in PPR

Post Reply New Topic

Ok, my thoughts:

Both AG and 91 are extremely intelligent posters for this forum. They both have contributed very interesting (and intellectually entertaining) posts and arguments to this forum, and each (in his own way) has shown passion in his writings.

But we have to understand something when it comes to places like PPR. PPR is admittedly a battlefield and a place where verbal wars and battles are raged. In wars, some rules have to be violated for the sake of causes bigger than individual causes.

One reason is because lots of extraordinary claims are made there almost every single day, claims that defy the expert consensus or one's imagination/intuition, and a lot of them are just said without any effort to back them up. Thus, you have this conflict between two sides: one side stubbornly making the same claims over and over again without evidence and the other side fervently asking the first side to provide evidence, and it goes on and on and on almost forever, it gets really frustrating that eventually, one has to get nasty and point out the fact that someone's spouting some big bullsh*t.

Then there's the conflict that arises due to one side refusing to have his own childhood beliefs falsified even when evidence and/or strong solid arguments have been provided that contradict his beliefs. And this refusal often manifests in him stubbornly clinging to invalid ideas to the end and trying to make them sound like they're on the same level of truth as other ideas that have yet to be falsified. This can get really frustrating that I can see why some members like AG can get really annoyed and offended. Because for some of us, intellectual integrity is of utmost importance.

As you can see, it all boils down to honesty (and lack of it). This goes for both sides of course.

I say implement what Vigilans suggested above. A PPR-exclusive mod who's all for intellectual integrity and for good civil discussions and who's impartial (regardless of his own personal beliefs or lack of them) and who's very familiar with the PPR environment. Actually, Vigilans himself comes to mind.

And this mod's job would be to both make sure the discussions are civil as much as they can be within the PPR environment and that every person who's been challenged to provide needed evidence for whatever extraordinary claim he/she makes does so for the sake of further education and intellectual integrity. People who refuse to be civil in their discussions even after this condition has been made will only show they're being a burden.

I say yes for intellectual integrity and backing your claims up with the needed evidence and/or strong solid "no-bullshit" arguments. Who agrees with me?

And, from: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postxf183148-0-150.html



The "Rules" were exemplified in the work of literature "The Scarlet Letter" by Nathaniel Hawthorne (1850). The "symbol" of "A" was also required to be displayed by "those people" in the middle of 17-th century New England . Here at WrongPlanet, many of the devout desire such inclusive/exclusive policy again with "those members" arbitrarily dis-respective to the devout, by the devout's "righteous standards" with everyone's belief being so subjected.

Tadzio

The 'A' symbol under discussion was developed by the atheists themselves. Interesting interpretation Tadzio just put forward. I cited it as an inoffensive symbol.

http://store.richarddawkins.net/products/1-a-lapel-pin

Hi 91,

As public conduct of crowds exemplifies in Athens, Texas, Catastrophe Theory works as a Model of volatile Social Situations. For example, the "Star of David" is one of many symbols prohibited, but "required", in the era before, and during, World War II, and much of history exemplifies the voluntary/involuntary aspects of "display" as a matter of rights and of oppression.

Tadzio

can you be specific as to what you are pointing out and what it means in the context of the present thread? i'm afraid i am not getting it here

I think people need to moderate themselves for the most part. Being trolled/provoked doesn't give you free rein to be awful to someone, you should still be responsible for what you post. A PPR-specific mod might not be a terrible idea but it really depends on who it is and what their moderating style is. I imagine whoever would be picked it would make some people unhappy. I don't know how many complaints come out of PPR but if it's just 1 or 2 people that cause trouble then it probably be can just be handled by the mods at-large on a case by case basis.

Post Subject: "I got you riled up, and that's a good thing"--my :





Puritan Legalism, with different subject matter, but otherwise, much as:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scarlet_Letter


In the context of the present thread, "Moderation In PPR" (Politics, Philosophy, and Religion)
( http://www.wrongplanet.net/postxf184536-0-30.html ), I'm pointing out the conflict and conditional use of "rules of formality" versus what is often referred to as "Puritan Legalism" (with the similarities to the social structure in "The Scarlet Letter" as a delivered deja vu response to me, but otherwise the "morals of rules" from "Catch-22", with a similarity of "rules of formality" being a satirical reading of "Remembrance of Things Past" by Marcel Proust, for the flip-flop of distinguished social interactions). In relation to this thread and being on the Spectrum of Autism including Temporal Lobe Epilepsy, the context includes, but is not limited to, deictics (with the intersection of autism and A.C.T. (as promulgated by Steven C. Hayes for example)), Pragmatic Inferences (much as in "Pragmatic Inferences in High-Functioning Adults with Autism and Asperger Syndrome" by Pijnacker, Hagoort, Buitelaar, et al.(J Autism Dev Disord (2009) 39:607–618)), & Geschwind Syndrome, which very likely illustrates disparate impact per Spectrum distributions, epilepsy, religion, and prohibited actions per including that listed as "This also includes discussion of locked topics, discussion of banned members and why they were banned and anything else that purposely causes conflict with other members," re sevices, CRA, & ADAAA in the U.S.A. and the State of California, and possibly prohibited retaliatory actions.

Tadzio

Tadzio, why not make things simple and brief. You don't currently have what it takes to make long posts that are clear for us all to understand. If you want us to understand, keep it short or improve your writing skills.

I think he's highlighting the arbitrary nature of how rules are enforced based on two schools of philosophy? Not exactly sure.

Hi MCalavera,

A very simple example would be a debate between Elmer Gantry and Robert G. Ingersoll:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elmer_Gantry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_G._Ingersoll

Then, weight that debate with both being Television-Evangelist/Scientific-Humanist with Asperger's Syndrome, and apply a set of formalized rules that have a disparate impact for different combinations of criteria of Asperger's Syndrome.

To keep it very simple, have one character follow the rules to absurd levels of exactitude, such as the ship crew member who refuses to throw a life-preserver to a drowning passenger because it has the warning "Do Not Remove" on it. Have the other character painting "graffiti" below the warning, adding the phrase "except in cases of emergency". Now, have a moderator selected from a larger group also with Asperger's Syndrome, "moderate" between the first two characters, so that the "rules" are followed, with "enforcement" if necessary. (Before they break their neck in a horse accident, NTs call this type of scenario "OSHA Rules For A Safe Horse").

An easier to understand scenario would be to assume one of the hypothetical characters has Asperger's AND random or severe Tourette's Syndrome.
http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailywee ... arbu_1.php
http://hrc.vermont.gov/sites/hrc/files/McGarry.pdf

Tadzio

p. 373
http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/tpr/vol61/iss3/5/

Wow I appreciate your endorsement. That sounds like a lot of work I don't know if I would do it, or if many people would nominate me for such a job in any case. I'm not sure I really have time for moderating anything right now but if enough people wanted it I would consider it

You'd get my endorsement too Vigilans, especially if it was the PPR mini-mod thing we've been kicking around as opposed to a site-wide modship. I get the distinct impression that that job sucks and I wouldn't want to inflict it on you, and I'm sure being the PPR fixer wouldn't be a walk in the park, but compared to say L&D I think it wouldn't be so bad. I don't always agree with your opinions, but I think you're very capable of making fair judgments, and most importantly I think you have flexible enough social instincts to know the difference between say a small blowup in a contentious topic vs continuous bullying/harassment or a long simmering feud boiling over, and that you have a feel for the norms in there vs a rigid view of the site rules. Think about it if they ask you, there's only a handful of people I'd consider capable of doing the job and most of them either wouldn't want it or wouldn't pass the background check...

all offense is a two person activity,

shifting blame to any one of them would be wrong.

Well thank you I'm surprised anyone would think I am cut out for such a job but I am my own biggest critic. I'm still not sure that I would do it but as I mentioned I would consider it if enough people wanted me to do it.
I think that managing little feuds and ensuring a level of civility-within-barbarity should be the concern of such a "mini-mod". I agree with MCalavera's appreciation for intellectual integrity above all, but having part of the job description as ensuring such conduct sounds difficult and controversial; I doubt everyone would be pleased with the result. At best if an argument starts boiling into ad-hominems or is clearly a well-dressed troll attack (ie, an intelligent person deliberately using logical fallacies to "mess" with an oblivious member) I think it would be the duty of such a moderator to step in. I also think sock puppetry is an occasional pain in the ass in that subsection. Furthermore I do think that if a spirituality subsection cannot be separately created then this moderator should work to ensure that everyone of any beliefs or persuasion *can* discuss their beliefs in a non-debate context, if they make this wish clear in their OP. Other members can be free to open a debate about this topic in another thread so long as it is done within the bounds of respectability and the TOS

I actually never caught on to that. I thought that you were just having some good natured bantering, and that your jabs at each other were just in jest. Anyway, you're both stars in the PRR forum.




I agree. There seem to be some members, though, who want to tattle to the moderators at every opportunity.

I continue to believe that the best moderation comes from within.

With so few moderators on so large a board, it seems to me impossible that the small crew can maintain anything like a semblence of order--and so most moderation will, of a necessity, involve a "stranger" to the board swooping in and imposing remediation.

I have seen moderators get caught up in potentially troublesome threads. Moderators must lead by example--so while the moderator tag should not mean that you are foreclosed from participation, it should mean that your participation should exemplify best practices. A moderator who has been slinging muck with the rest of them is hardly in a position to later close down the thread.

Too often I have seen threads locked with no explanation, or threads locked with an explanation, while other, similarly offending threads remain active. Moderation must be seen to be fair and consistent.

Most egregiously, I have seen threads edited by moderators. I take an, "all or nothing," approach. If a post is so offensive that it cannot remain, then it should be expunged in its entirety. Moderators should never presume to edit a member's post.

I think that there is a great deal of merit in having some "board specific" moderators out there. Ideally, they should be active participants in the boards that they moderate, known to the boards' regular participants and able to exercise a degree of judgement about when an IM would work better than a public warning, thread locking, post deletion or time-outs.