To AR Is Human . . .

[Lindal Kidd]

9 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:

do we report well and correctly using that knowledge, do we over-report and waste the limited moderator resource, or do we under-report and let chaos reign (requiring more work for moderators once the wheels fly off the bus)? (*Edit* Or, do we add to the problem by posting things that escalate issues?)

All of the above, I'm afraid. Because, people.

[Arielle Popstar]

1 hour ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Idea:  If we could add "notes" that showed up under someone's profile picture (just like their "Member Title"), we could just put "Lunatic Griefer" (<<== example only) so that would be a reminder for you, whenever you see their posts! 

How could that be made to work when likely such "lunatic griefers", are already blocked or should be? The mind boggles.

[Sid Nagy]

2 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Idea:  If we could add "notes" that showed up under someone's profile picture (just like their "Member Title"), we could just put "Lunatic Griefer" (<<== example only) so that would be a reminder for you, whenever you see their posts! 

Nah, there ain't that many of them in the forums these days, to justify the coding efforts to realize this feature.
 

[Scylla Rhiadra]

10 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I guess my question is, assuming "we" know the rules, do we report well and correctly using that knowledge, do we over-report and waste the limited moderator resource, or do we under-report and let chaos reign (requiring more work for moderators once the wheels fly off the bus)? (*Edit* Or, do we add to the problem by posting things that escalate issues?)

I think that the lines between these are always going to be murky because, as Lindal said, "people." And I mean that in the sense that codifying human behaviour is invariably an imprecise exercise. What seems a "derail" to you may seem entirely on-topic to me: a discussion, for instance, of a corollary or unintended consequence of a particular point of view. And what constitutes "incivility," or even "hate," will similarly be interpreted somewhat subjectively.

This is one of the sources for my sympathy for the mods here: less that we are sometimes peevish and quarrelsome in an infantile way (which, yes, sometimes we are), and more what must for some be the difficulty of weighing how to respond to content that falls in the grey areas.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

4 hours ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

If everyone stuck to the rules, we wouldn't need mods or a reporting system.

I agree -- in theory.

But, to use an immediately available example, this thread is about reporting abuse on the forums. That can often mean talking about "the rules" (what exactly constitutes "abuse") and also moderation -- which I specifically asked people not to discuss -- because moderation is an integral part of the abuse reporting mechanism.

So, is every mention of moderation here "off topic" or, worse, a rule-breaking "criticism" of forum moderation?

I don't think so, because no one has taken issue with particular decisions, or criticized "mods" themselves: rather, there have been questions about the rules under which they themselves must operate.

But some could make the argument that we are going "off topic" or into forbidden territory by even mentioning moderation.

[Arielle Popstar]

Moderation is the invisible pink elephant in the room in that contrary to your assertion in the OP that the Community guidelines are vague, I find them fairly clear. It is in the application of them that things become vague. From this thread though I am realizing that perhaps the consistency of the application is being marred by the Report feature. Personally it is not something I ever use as S/L has never indicated I was to police the forums. A community is made of differing individuals with a myriad of opinions that are often dynamic, or should be, when new information comes to light. Closing down threads only shuts down the discussion of a topic and does nothing to change opinions nor allows one to finish venting points they see as as relevant to the discussion. This includes some intentionally going off topic to get a thread closed off. It rarely works as it is often only a matter of time before a new thread on the same topic comes up. Closing and restricting new threads only constricts the range of topics allowed and edges the community ever closer to an echo chamber where authoritarianism holds its sway through the Reporting feature/curse and does not accurately represent the community as a whole.

[Love Zhaoying]

54 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

And what constitutes "incivility," or even "hate," will similarly be interpreted somewhat subjectively.

I'm learning..like when I read "I hate Nekos", to just move on. It's not necessarily something I need to take personally and AR..plus the army of Nekos on here will help to defend our something-or-other.  And, I've got my Pride. <== Blink and you'll miss that one.

55 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

less that we are sometimes peevish and quarrelsome in an infantile way

I don't know about you, but I try to also be peevish and quarrelsome in a puerile way.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

3 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Moderation is the invisible pink elephant in the room in that contrary to your assertion in the OP that the Community guidelines are vague, I find them fairly clear. It is in the application of them that things become vague. From this thread though I am realizing that perhaps the consistency of the application is being marred by the Report feature. Personally it is not something I ever use as S/L has never indicated I was to police the forums. A community is made of differing individuals with a myriad of opinions that are often dynamic, or should be, when new information comes to light. Closing down threads only shuts down the discussion of a topic and does nothing to change opinions nor allows one to finish venting points they see as as relevant to the discussion. This includes some intentionally going off topic to get a thread closed off. It rarely works as it is often only a matter of time before a new thread on the same topic comes up. Closing and restricting new threads only constricts the range of topics allowed and edges the community ever closer to an echo chamber where authoritarianism holds its sway through the Reporting feature/curse and does not accurately represent the community as a whole.

I mostly agree with what you say here, except for the last sentence, which seems to revisit the old canard about an "FIC" or "Cartel." In my experience, discipline is meted out here pretty even-handedly, in the sense that I don't see one ideology or the other getting special treatment. "Authoritarianism" seems to suggest an organized and orchestrated mechanism to control, suppress, and manipulate -- otherwise, it's not really deriving from an "authority." And I really don't see that.

As for "echo chamber" . . . well, yes, maybe, but you seem vocal enough? I'm pretty sure you're getting your points across: not too many of us don't know where you stand on things, however "contrary" they may be to the opinions of most other posters.

And that, to be clear, is a good thing.

[Madelaine McMasters]

15 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

consistency of the application [of moderation] is being marred by the Report feature.

Absolutely.

18 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Personally it is not something I ever use as S/L has never indicated I was to police the forums.

The existence of the report button is an allowance, if not an invitation, to police.

To your point, we should do so judiciously or we will end up with an echo chamber.

13 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

As for "echo chamber" . . . well, yes, maybe, but you seem vocal enough? I'm pretty sure you're getting your points across: not too many of us don't know where you stand on things, however "contrary" they may be to the opinions of most other posters.

And that, to be clear, is a good thing.

Yep.

The "echo chamber" claim seems to me to arise most from people who can't hear theirs. If you've ever stood in an anechoic chamber, you know how disorienting that can be.

[Luna Bliss]

41 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

puerile way

There you go again, making me have to look up words!  😁

[Arielle Popstar]

Just now, Luna Bliss said:

There you go again, making me have to look up words!  😁

Me too,😉 so you're not alone.

[Arielle Popstar]

29 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

The "echo chamber" claim seems to me to arise most from people who can't hear theirs. If you've ever stood in an anechoic chamber, you know how disorienting that can be.

Free thinkers tend to be more individualistic in how they come up with what they see as truth for them. So even though they may ultimately agree with others who are likeminded, there seems a tendency to not broadcast or overtly support those others. I don't often get upvotes on my posts in real time but I see enough afterwards to know that I am not alone in my viewpoints. I agree with you though that for those who are looking for that instant gratification of being agreed with immediately, it can be disconcerting when their views seem to fall flat.

[Paul Hexem]

1 hour ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

So, is every mention of moderation here "off topic" or, worse, a rule-breaking "criticism" of forum moderation?

Any system that can't handle analysis is a bad system, incuding a moderation one.

[Kiera Clutterbuck]

1 minute ago, Paul Hexem said:

1 hour ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

So, is every mention of moderation here "off topic" or, worse, a rule-breaking "criticism" of forum moderation?

Any system that can't handle analysis is a bad system, incuding a moderation one.

I don't know why, but I just want to say the word moderation a lot now. 

[Love Zhaoying]

1 hour ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

The "echo chamber" claim seems to me to arise most from people who can't hear theirs. If you've ever stood in an anechoic chamber, you know how disorienting that can be.

Personally, I can't stand my own voice. So an echo chamber is terrifying.

[Love Zhaoying]

38 minutes ago, Kiera Clutterbuck said:

I don't know why, but I just want to say the word moderation a lot now. 

It's fine, but only if you do it in..moderation.

 

[Love Zhaoying]

49 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Free thinkers

I bet people will think anything for free, it's a great price to pay!

[Arielle Popstar]

2 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I bet people will think anything for free, it's a great price to pay!

Except the reality is that there is always a price of some sort.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

54 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Free thinkers tend to be more individualistic in how they come up with what they see as truth for them. So even though they may ultimately agree with others who are likeminded, there seems a tendency to not broadcast or overtly support those others. I don't often get upvotes on my posts in real time but I see enough afterwards to know that I am not alone in my viewpoints. I agree with you though that for those who are looking for that instant gratification of being agreed with immediately, it can be disconcerting when their views seem to fall flat.

I probably don't need to articulate this, really, but . . .

. . . your implicit categorization of yourself (and the "likeminded" who "may ultimately agree" with you) tends to cast everyone who doesn't agree with you as a sort of hive-mind? Trendy types who just instinctively follow the herd, because, unlike you, they are not "free"?

I'll leave aside your donning of the mantle of "free thinker" -- if that's what you think you are, sure, fine. Far be it for me, in the context of this thread, which is not about your views (or mine) to insist otherwise.

But this is a not terribly subtle and, in the context, again, of this topic, unnecessary denigration of everyone who doesn't agree with you.

[LittleMe Jewell]

2 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

So, is every mention of moderation here "off topic" or, worse, a rule-breaking "criticism" of forum moderation?

I think the overall rule about discussing moderation has more to do with discussing specific moderation acts. It's not unusual to see general comments here along the lines of "the forums are moderated with too heavy/light of a hand (depending on your viewpoint) and those comments have never been removed.  I think the key is to keep it all very general, very high-level, and then the comments won't get in trouble.

[Rowan Amore]

1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I probably don't need to articulate this, really, but . . .

. . . your implicit categorization of yourself (and the "likeminded" who "may ultimately agree" with you) tends to cast everyone who doesn't agree with you as a sort of hive-mind? Trendy types who just instinctively follow the herd, because, unlike you, they are not "free"?

I'll leave aside your donning of the mantle of "free thinker" -- if that's what you think you are, sure, fine. Far be it for me, in the context of this thread, which is not about your views (or mine) to insist otherwise.

But this is a not terribly subtle and, in the context, again, of this topic, unnecessary denigration of everyone who doesn't agree with you.

Goes back to what I said earlier.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

Just now, LittleMe Jewell said:

I think the overall rule about discussing moderation has more to do with discussing specific moderation acts. It's not unusual to see general comments here along the lines of "the forums are moderated with too heavy/light of a hand (depending on your viewpoint) and those comments have never been removed.  I think the key is to keep it all very general, very high-level, and then the comments won't get in trouble.

I agree. And what Paul says above, about systems that can't handle analysis, applies in that regard. I think the mods are right to allow generalized and high-level discussions of this sort.

[Love Zhaoying]

Wait, this isn't the Pet Peeve thread! Halp!

 

[Scylla Rhiadra]

3 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

Goes back to what I said earlier.

Yes, absolutely.

I'm interested in Arielle's take on this subject, in part because I suspect it's a different take on it -- but the turn to making this a discussion about particular ideological approaches is not helpful, and threatens to derail the topic.

So I'm not going to address it further.

[Madelaine McMasters]

1 hour ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Free thinkers tend to be more individualistic in how they come up with what they see as truth for them. So even though they may ultimately agree with others who are likeminded, there seems a tendency to not broadcast or overtly support those others. I don't often get upvotes on my posts in real time but I see enough afterwards to know that I am not alone in my viewpoints. I agree with you though that for those who are looking for that instant gratification of being agreed with immediately, it can be disconcerting when their views seem to fall flat.

If, by "free thinkers", you mean free of the constraints of evidence and logic... sure.

Though I do seem to get significant "upvotes" on my posts in real time, I continue to think I'm fairly alone in my viewpoints, largely because I'm often weighing several, shift them frequently, and harbor some suspicion about them.

The complexity of the truth of many things means that I am not "free" to do my own research, buy must rely on the wisdom and expertise of others. I haven't the time, resources, skills, expertise, knowledge, or intelligence to tackle the massive complexities of life on my own. If new evidence contradicts my understanding, I attempt to improve my understanding. If new evidence contradicts experts I follow, they must improve their understanding or lose me.

I've underlined the part of your claim that I highlighted that admits to the parochial validity of "free thinking" truth. I can only hope that any actions based on such truths are equally parochial.