Moderators Needed for the New Philosophy Forum Group on A2K

@Caroline,

I was making an Acromym pun. Take the apostrophe out of PM's and we have PMS

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Sure. But the difference is that you can ignore the forum drama if you want to. I would imagine that's a load of work off your chest. Or Jespah's. Or the moderators on the old phpbb site. Or someone's. No?

You can't ignore it entirely without potentially negative effects IMO, forum drama affects the forum. The top down style has the advantage of just being able to excise/lock the drama. Here the choices are ignore it (and possibly let disenfranchisement fester) or engage it (which can be draining on time and more).

Edit: it's less work for the moderation workload, that is for sure, but just not sure it's any easier to ignore the drama (at least for me).

0 Replies

@GoshisDead,

i almost never thumb up a post, thanks for the laugh

0 Replies

What I don't understand is why some people need someone else to do the moderation for them. If you don't like the digression in a thread, speak up about it and ask the folks responsible to move it to another thread. If you don't like the tone or attitude used by someone in a post, speak up about it.

After you've spoken up and it persists, make use of the thumbs down on individual posts and whole threads that you do not wish to view. If there is a specific poster you don't wish to read, use the Ignore User button. Heck, if you're shy, make use of those tools even without speaking up first. There is no top down moderation system in the world that can be customized to each individual's exacting tastes the way the thumbs up/down and ignore buttons do.

Why do people who object to digressions, certain tones or attitudes, or certain types of posters insist on inflicting their individual sense of moderation on the rest of us? Why do they ask that some moderator in the sky do the dirty work for them? Take responsibility for your own sense of decorum. Speak up, take a few split seconds to make use of the thumbs and ignore button and you'll have a moderated forum for your individual needs and tastes and we'll all be happy.

4 Replies

@Butrflynet,

For the same reason you don't like top down mod, its a preference

0 Replies

@Butrflynet,

Well said, Butrflynet. I like the way A2K is run these days, too. We'll see what Zetherin and friends will come up with for the PP subforum.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

some people like a safe, controlled environment where there is force applied to keep everyone on task. I don't happen to like it, but I am worldly enough to be able to understand why others do, especially when one is part of a civilization that is deep into decline where all that is around us seems to be out of control. .

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

The comfort zone is what they are after. They don't want criticism from left field what they consider as rubes.

1 Reply

@talk72000,

Quote:

The comfort zone is what they are after

and a productive environment.

0 Replies

@Khethil,

Khethil wrote:

@sozobe

sozobe wrote:
Just to clarify... you guys get that we do have moderators on A2K, right?

Well, I can't speak for anyone else. But yes, I do - I didn't say that there weren't. We weren't talking about existing A2K staff but the presence and roles of moderators on a separate subforum (or not); how it is or isn't done, what issues it addresses, etc.

This is what I was responding to:

Khethil wrote:

I think most of us would agree that moderation, alone, won't cure all ills. But done right, it can go a long way to actually encourage free idea-flow. Not so much by the *specific* issues that get moderated; but by its very presence it discourages those behaviors that discourage EVERYONE posting how they feel.

This can certainly be read that you think that there is no moderation here. ("By its very presence....") I thought that might not be what you meant, which is why I asked.

Khethil wrote:

I sense in the topics you address to me, as well as your tone, an inclination to quickly jump to the defense where no attack has been levied.

My tone?

My post that you reply to here was mostly a) you seem to be saying one thing, I suspect it's not really what you mean, am I correct? and b) pointing out the inconsistency amongst the former-philforumer community (maybe FPC will work as the elusive short version) and implications thereof.

edit: also, re this:

Quote:

Hmm. Well, except for what I seem to recall as personal insulting, I don't think this thread is so "horrible" - and again, I did not say that. But whether or not one thinks it is depends on how you look at it. I did think it was a bit ironic, a little while back as I said, but that was just tongue-in-cheek; I even issued a clarification to that post.

I didn't say that you called A2K horrible, I said "there has been a lot of complaint," and there has. (Oh has there! Laughing

) If you want me to get cites I certainly can. I don't remember if it was Mark Noble or Hexhammer who called it horrible (maybe both?) It was Mark Noble who called it hell, I believe. But I can get those cites if you want them.

2 Replies

@Butrflynet,

Butrflynet wrote:

What I don't understand is why some people need someone else to do the moderation for them. If you don't like the digression in a thread, speak up about it and ask the folks responsible to move it to another thread. If you don't like the tone or attitude used by someone in a post, speak up about it.

After you've spoken up and it persists, make use of the thumbs down on individual posts and whole threads that you do not wish to view. If there is a specific poster you don't wish to read, use the Ignore User button. Heck, if you're shy, make use of those tools even without speaking up first. There is no top down moderation system in the world that can be customized to each individual's exacting tastes the way the thumbs up/down and ignore buttons do.

Why do people who object to digressions, certain tones or attitudes, or certain types of posters insist on inflicting their individual sense of moderation on the rest of us? Why do they ask that some moderator in the sky do the dirty work for them? Take responsibility for your own sense of decorum. Speak up, take a few split seconds to make use of the thumbs and ignore button and you'll have a moderated forum for your individual needs and tastes and we'll all be happy.

You're absolutely right that no amount of moderation can produce a philosophy forum if that's not what the participants want.

I think the ideal has to do with an atmosphere. Like if you walk into a casino, a church, a golf course, whatever... there's an atmosphere related to the purpose of the place.

Philosophical discussions, which I've been having with folks long before I joined the philforum, can span from light and encouraging to vicious and personal. It's the nature of the beast. The grand prize is when one or more of the participants actually realizes something, or is turned on to something new.

A cool feature of the philforum was that you always knew who had "thanked" your post. It could mean a lot of things... that they agreed with you, or they appreciated the effort you put into the post, or it could have just been an acknowledgment. So maybe all forums have these kinds of forms that become part of the communication?

That's one of the reason the old philforum is gone. The mechanics of its language are gone. Blogs and posts appeared on the same page. You knew where to look for this or that. Whatever philosophy forum grows here will develop its own character and that takes time.

1 Reply

@Arjuna,

Arjuna wrote:

You're absolutely right that no amount of moderation can produce a philosophy forum if that's not what the participants want.

I think the ideal has to do with an atmosphere. Like if you walk into a casino, a church, a golf course, whatever... there's an atmosphere related to the purpose of the place.

Have you actually any idea of what you are saying?

1 Reply

@HexHammer,

I thought it was very clear. But, that's just me.

1 Reply

Isn't it premature to dismiss or criticize how the new Group will be moderated before the Group even takes existence and takes its first tentative breath?

To some, for example, a moderated forum calls up visions of heavy-handed Gestapo agents bludgeoning its Member's posts to death, or continuously interfering in the free exchange of ideas.

A moderated forum, on the contrary, CAN mean that threads are allowed to follow the different paths discussion often takes, but without the interference of private conversations between just a few people, or without undue personal animosity and attacks that might best be described as an intellectual form of physical violence.
A moderated forum CAN, as well, mean that its rules and procedures reflect the needs of its community, and that the community is involved in defining what these are.
A moderated forum CAN, again, mean that topics and threads are organised into appropriate sub-forums that encourages discussion. In the case of philosophy, it should come as no surprise that it has many different branches each of which has its own subject matter. In addition to the traditional branches, there will be forums devoted to all the "philosophies of X" (say of Science or of History or of Religion); there will also be forums devoted to the discussion of both important philosophers and philosophical schools. Because the PfG will not only be a place for discussion, but hopefully for learning as well, keeping threads in their logical place benefits everyone by allowing--- and easily finding--- discussions in their areas of interest, and helps those asking questions to receive answers from Members who have some knowledge of the subject as information is exchanged. What encyclopedia would be useful if it were not organised alphabetically?

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Hi Zeth!

It wasn't a view of mine, neither was it referring to the new group. It was a generalism in relation to A2K (not as a whole) in part.

I am certain that the new group will be just fine, once the teething problems are overcome and it settles into being what we all hope and expect it to be.

Have a lovely day Zeth!
Mark...

0 Replies

@spendius,

Hi Spendius!

Saying that certain statements are inherently 'circular' is not only ambiguous, but completely abstract and meaningless.

Now we have to read that there are two of these 'circularities' present.

You have the ability to confuse yourself and those who can't see through your tactics "to gain entertainment through 'your applied methodologies'".

You needn't try the 'weakening by suggestion' mind games - I have no vanity for you to prey upon.

Mark...

1 Reply

@sozobe,

sozobe wrote:

Khethil wrote:

@sozobe

sozobe wrote:
Just to clarify... you guys get that we do have moderators on A2K, right?

Well, I can't speak for anyone else. But yes, I do - I didn't say that there weren't. We weren't talking about existing A2K staff but the presence and roles of moderators on a separate subforum (or not); how it is or isn't done, what issues it addresses, etc.

This is what I was responding to:

Khethil wrote:

I think most of us would agree that moderation, alone, won't cure all ills. But done right, it can go a long way to actually encourage free idea-flow. Not so much by the *specific* issues that get moderated; but by its very presence it discourages those behaviors that discourage EVERYONE posting how they feel.

This can certainly be read that you think that there is no moderation here. ("By its very presence....") I thought that might not be what you meant, which is why I asked.

No, you misapply the subject to which I was speaking. Again, we were talking about the new subforum, not about A2K at large. If you'd like to discuss the moderation or lack thereof of a2K, that's fine - but its not what I was referring to. Content moderation CAN, by its very presence, discourage those behaviors that are a impediment to maximum idea-flow, but this is highly dependent on many factors. Again, this speaks not one iota to whether or not A2K has some, little, all or no moderation - only its theoretical application in addressing whatever 'ills' one wants.

sozobe wrote:

Khethil wrote:
I sense in the topics you address to me, as well as your tone, an inclination to quickly jump to the defense where no attack has been levied.

My tone?

My post that you reply to here was mostly a) you seem to be saying one thing, I suspect it's not really what you mean, am I correct? and b) pointing out the inconsistency amongst the former-philforumer community (maybe FPC will work as the elusive short version) and implications thereof.

On your "a)": Of course I mean what I'm saying. What do you "suspect" I mean? What is with this propensity to give into guessing others have some secretive or subversive motive? I'd really like to hear what you "suspect".

Whatever you may be thinking I "really meant", perhaps this satiate your curiosity: In this thread, I was hoping to help along the new subforum moderation effort by giving some ideas, thoughts and method-tips to the folks who'll be doing it kind of as a way of getting involved in something positive. I can't moderate it myself (and suppose I feel like I've perhaps let some folks down by not being able to at least volunteer), but that doesn't mean I don't wanna help out at all. It was just some philosophical ideas on how moderation might be done well; its' benefits, drawbacks, etc. I suppose it was my way of tossing in some supportive ideas after the years of experience I've had administering, moderating and organizing various online communities. I must say; however, that it never bodes well for offering honest advice if someone's going to accuse of you of some other unsaid motive.

As to your "b)": I'm not sure what you're referring to in terms of inconsistency though I'd guess we're all likely guilty of such to some extent or another. Happy to comment on it, though, if you'd be so kind as to specify what inconsistency you're referring to.

sozobe wrote:

...I didn't say that you called A2K horrible, I said "there has been a lot of complaint," and there has. (Oh has there! ) If you want me to get cites I certainly can. I don't remember if it was Mark Noble or Hexhammer who called it horrible (maybe both?) It was Mark Noble who called it hell, I believe. But I can get those cites if you want them.

I can see you haven't really read my post. In there, I exhorted all who were still complaining to let it go and move on. After having said this, why - precisely - might I want citations from you of others complaining?

Obviously, I know full well about the whining and griping and am sick of it. As I said before, people need to belly-up to the bar, take part and relax or get the hell gone. For my part, I've invested a lot already to become a productive member of this community, else I wouldn't be writing at all.

Thanks for your reply

1 Reply

@jgweed,

Well put, Jg

0 Replies

@Khethil,

Khethil wrote:

Whatever you may be thinking I "really meant", perhaps this satiate your curiosity:

You already replied. Now I know what you mean. At the time, I thought that's probably about what you meant, but I wasn't sure, so I asked. Really not that complicated.

0 Replies

@sozobe,

I did not call this site horrible, so you can stop referring to me in all of your patronising posts. Not that I feel patronised - I figured you out instantly too.

I referred to the site as 'hellish' and 'garbage' from the viewpoint of prospective new enrolees and/or the departed. As was my first opinion of it a few months ago.

I no longer perceive it as above. It is just the CLIQUE of folk with superiority complexes and nothing left to feed their empty (real world) existences that I am partial to avoiding.

Have a fantastic afternoon!
Mark...

2 Replies

Moderators Needed for the New Philosophy Forum Group on A2K

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know