Forum moderating can be hard work

[Thinkbigger]

As a chastised violator of the rules of civility in this forum, I speak with acute knowledge on the pitfalls of skating at the edges of perceived propriety.

Forum member Hackenslash once made the claim, in a post directed to me, that there is a difference in attacking the post as apposed to attacking the poster, and that it would behoove me to learn the difference. I take qualified exception to this notion.

His idea is only true if the poster is a troll and is not sincere in his/her assertions and/or claims. Here's why;

If a person is not a troll and is in fact laying out his/her heartfelt position based upon their understanding of this or that, then this offering is a direct product of their/our brain. Since our entire identity is an analogue of our brains, then it is not incorrect to state that we are, in actuality, are (only) just brains. I am (as are you) a brain. I am what I think. My thinking is me. I am thought. The rest of me is ununique matter that is not involved in my thinking. With this in mind...

When one harshly denigrates a sincerely presented and honest to goodness idea, you are, by proxy, denigrating the thinker as well, since the brain and the thinker are, in actuality, the same thing. How can it be otherwise? Though it may serve as a convenient way to dance around the forum's civility rules by pretending there's a difference between the poster and the post, that's just plain subterfuge. If I were to suggest that any honest product of someone else's neural rendering is goofy or ill conceived, I am, by default, implying that the neural structure that was responsible for rendered it is goofy as well. I am criticizing your actual brain function, am I not? When we criticize each other's heartfelt utterances, we are criticizing each other, period. It can't be helped and it's OK. That's just the way it is. This is why I maintain that one cannot attack a post without attacking the poster. I'm over it and I'm good to go with it.

Therefore, the problem is not so much one of civility or tone, but rather one of honesty and intent.

However, honesty and intent are tricky little buggers to peg and therefore, moderate.

What of civility? If I were to say something that is so antithetical to your understanding of things as to sound ridiculous, upsetting and insulting, that does not necessarily mean that it is being offered up with an intent of incivility. Therefore, just because one perceives something to be intentionally upsetting or insulting, doesn't mean that it was designed for that purpose. To further complicate things, it's also true that when comments or assertions are purposely made as a means to stimulate thought and/or discussion, they too can be perceived as rudeness when they're not.

But, in a forum setting, who can say what is being offered up for honest consideration or what is being offered up as an intentional insult?

No one except: THE MODERATOR.. of course. At least that's whose job it is anyway. I acknowledge that it's a tough job and, since nobody's perfect, it has it's own little pitfalls as well.

Here's my suggestion:
I'd like to suggest that nefarious name calling, curse words and other obscenities should be the baseline for determining what's to be considered either civil or uncivil discourse. The adoption of this definition would not only be a clearer one to universally understand and to follow but also one more easily enforced through moderation.

[Ihateyoumike]

Snore

[AnimatedDirt]

This somewhat goes along with a point I brought up on the Trolling 101 thread that anyone that holds a difference of opinion than that of this forum can be "rightly" described as a "troll".  See the troll attributes therein.

However, while I can agree with this in general, I must say that up to this point, and I don't anticipate a change, the moderation has been quite fair, IMHO.

[Whitney]

Troll, sincere, insincere, joking etc..doesn't affect whether the person can't or doesn't wish to engage others in a civil manner then they are breaking the rules.  The civility rule doesn't apply to negative/ extreme thoughts about a subject (thought racism is covered by another rule); it applies to negative/extreme comments made on the forum that is ad-hom or otherwise disrespectful of another member.  We generally try to moderate by handing the person who "started it" as that is more fair to others who may have gotten drawn into it by the first party.  Whether someone uses a curse word or name calls is a very low base line for trying to maintain a civil atmosphere...we'll keep the rules as they are because we expect better of our members; if that means fewer people want to or are able to participate then that's fine.

AD, yes, the definition of troll not just here but even on other forums runs the danger of being applied to someone who really does have a difference of opinion.  But that's also why I've made sure every time we add a moderator that the person understands that just because someone has an extreme view doesn't mean they are trolling.  I have to say that even trying to be non-biased it is hard to tell with some very fundamentalist Christians and Muslims (and some secular types who believe in things I don't think anyone who researched could possibly hold onto)...sometimes they believe so many things I've always known to be wrong that I am inclined to think they are being purposefully difficult.

[Thinkbigger]

Snore

Troll

[Thinkbigger]

Troll, sincere, insincere, joking etc..doesn't affect whether the person can't or doesn't wish to engage others in a civil manner then they are breaking the rules.  The civility rule doesn't apply to negative/ extreme thoughts about a subject (thought racism is covered by another rule); it applies to negative/extreme comments made on the forum that is ad-hom or otherwise disrespectful of another member.  We generally try to moderate by handing the person who "started it" as that is more fair to others who may have gotten drawn into it by the first party.  Whether someone uses a curse word or name calls is a very low base line for trying to maintain a civil atmosphere...we'll keep the rules as they are because we expect better of our members; if that means fewer people want to or are able to participate then that's fine.

AD, yes, the definition of troll not just here but even on other forums runs the danger of being applied to someone who really does have a difference of opinion.  But that's also why I've made sure every time we add a moderator that the person understands that just because someone has an extreme view doesn't mean they are trolling.  I have to say that even trying to be non-biased it is hard to tell with some very fundamentalist Christians and Muslims (and some secular types who believe in things I don't think anyone who researched could possibly hold onto)...sometimes they believe so many things I've always known to be wrong that I am inclined to think they are being purposefully difficult.

Well Whitney, I understand this is your forum and you are free to run it as you please. My suggestions are merely that.

However, when one of the few H.A.P. forum posters who stepped up in my defense immediately following my banishment, you responded with this;

Re: The conundrum of enlightenment
by Whitney » Sat Feb 05, 2011 8:35 pm

"The rules are just there to keep out the people who pee on the rug; not to keep out those who simply don't agree on various topics."

Is this the standard of civility and decorum that will be expected of me in all my future posts? If I were to make as base of a reference as that in regards to your personage, would you find that to be acceptably civil? If so, then fine. I have no problem if the rules are fair and universally applied.

See page 4, 4th post.  http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6643

[Whitney]

Fyi, I (and the rest of the mods) have no plans to let you out of the restricted area.  Using an analogy to explain how you were behaving and how you are behaving now does not give you any clues in "regards to [my] personage".  

If you post any further lame attempts at character attacks you will be banned permanently.

[Thinkbigger]

Fyi, I (and the rest of the mods) have no plans to let you out of the restricted area.

wtf This is unbelievable. When have I ever attached your character? Was it I who suggested that it was you who pees on the rug or was it you that suggested that it was I who pees on the rug? Here you seem incensed at the (mistaken) notion that I was implying the same thing about you as what you actually did say about me. :cool:

I realize that you have nearly unanimous support in this forum to boot me out and I suppose it's just as well because I'm suddenly getting the feeling that I'm dealing with the Red Queen. I can't make sense of what you are saying and all the while you are threatening me with the chopping block. Off with his head, off with his head! :monkey:

[Will]

I believe you're confusing two different things, ThinkBigger. Ad hominem is a category of logical fallacies which involves one party bringing up impertinent information specifically about the other party in a character attack, and then associating that unfavorable information with the argument of the second party. If we're having a debate about gun control and I bring up the fact that you never graduated from high school and thus any point you make is invalid, I'm guilty of, among other things, committing an ad hominem fallacy. I'm about 95% certain this is what Hackenslash was trying to explain.

What you seem to be saying is that an argument or position one has in debate or discussion is generally linked to the character of the person making that argument, thus questioning or attacking that position or argument is an attack on that person. I suppose one could look at it that way, but it's certainly not the same thing as an ad hominem fallacy.


(moderator hat on) Civil and uncivil discourse are determined based on myriad, frankly subjective factors by the entire moderation staff. I have my understanding of what is and isn't civil, and I can defend my positions, just like every other moderator or administrator. If you feel that a moderator action is unfair in some way, contact another moderator, such as myself, and I promise that I will give you the opportunity to convince me. I pride myself on my ability to remain objective. If you can convince me that a moderator has acted in a questionable manner, I will be your advocate. If, however, I determine that the moderator has acted responsibly, I will explain as best I can why I've come to that decision and the matter will be closed.

Being a member of the Happy Atheist Forum doesn't have to be a Mr. Smith Goes to Washington drama-fest, though. I've been a moderator for a while now, and the community does a good job of policing itself. Just try to observe the Golden Rule and be excellent to each other. Everything will be fine.

[Squid]

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/butthurt

[Thinkbigger]

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/butthurt

I can't tell you what an honor it is to be randomly insulted by Alice In Chains drummer, Sean Kinney, AKA: Squid.
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/birthdays-250408-see-notable.html?pic=44
You seem to have let yourself go a bit as of late.. but keep on rockin' dude! Woo Hoo!

[Thinkbigger]

I believe you're confusing two different things, ThinkBigger. Ad hominem is a category of logical fallacies which involves one party bringing up impertinent information specifically about the other party in a character attack, and then associating that unfavorable information with the argument of the second party. If we're having a debate about gun control and I bring up the fact that you never graduated from high school and thus any point you make is invalid, I'm guilty of, among other things, committing an ad hominem fallacy. I'm about 95% certain this is what Hackenslash was trying to explain.

What you seem to be saying is that an argument or position one has in debate or discussion is generally linked to the character of the person making that argument, thus questioning or attacking that position or argument is an attack on that person. I suppose one could look at it that way, but it's certainly not the same thing as an ad hominem fallacy.


(moderator hat on) Civil and uncivil discourse are determined based on myriad, frankly subjective factors by the entire moderation staff. I have my understanding of what is and isn't civil, and I can defend my positions, just like every other moderator or administrator. If you feel that a moderator action is unfair in some way, contact another moderator, such as myself, and I promise that I will give you the opportunity to convince me. I pride myself on my ability to remain objective. If you can convince me that a moderator has acted in a questionable manner, I will be your advocate. If, however, I determine that the moderator has acted responsibly, I will explain as best I can why I've come to that decision and the matter will be closed.

Being a member of the Happy Atheist Forum doesn't have to be a Mr. Smith Goes to Washington drama-fest, though. I've been a moderator for a while now, and the community does a good job of policing itself. Just try to observe the Golden Rule and be excellent to each other. Everything will be fine.

I appreciate your advise. Thank you for your cool headed wisdom.

[Guest]

While not claiming to understand what is being discussed in this particular topic, I do enjoy your use of the ol' English, it's fun to read, even though the topic seems trivial.

[Thinkbigger]

While not claiming to understand what is being discussed in this particular topic, I do enjoy your use of the ol' English, it's fun to read, even though the topic seems trivial. :raised:

[Squid]

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/butthurt

I can't tell you what an honor it is to be randomly insulted by Alice In Chains drummer, Sean Kinney, AKA: Squid.
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/birthdays-250408-see-notable.html?pic=44
You seem to have let yourself go a bit as of late.. but keep on rockin' dude! Woo Hoo!

Not insulting, just making an observation.

And that's not the AiC drummer, not even close - it's the late, great Dio...please review the chapter on Metal Gods, there will be a quiz later.