|
Post by Christine on Feb 9, 2017 19:58:38 GMT -5
FWIW, I hate it when threads are locked. Unless there is egregious misbehavior going on, a mod locking a thread because s/he finds it unproductive or annoying and thus doesn't want the thread to continue.... really, really irks me. Y'all are entitled to do that, but I am less likely to participate on a board where I might be in the middle of a conversation (or heated argument - whatever) and suddenly a mod decides they're done with it and the thread gets locked. ETA: As for "You dislike Trump/Warren/Hitler, therefore -" I don't think it's much of an argument, but saying "Hey, you're biased about so-and-so" is just an observation. If you're trying to make an argument that an opinion is invalid or ill-informed because of said bias, go ahead and make the connection. All of this, though I do think that hating/disliking someone for past actions *does* influence one's take on subsequent actions. It's not that the bias can't be overcome, it's just that it's harder to overcome. It's more easily set aside to the extent to which the subsequent action is laudable. For example, if Trump were to make a speech about how we should embrace and accept and support our Muslim citizens, or that we should find a way to citizenship for immigrants who are here illegally .... you couldn't argue with something like that, except to say he was being disingenuous, or pandering, or somesuch, which would prove the bias. (But nothing is ever so black and white as that, and Trump will probably never say something like that, unfortunately.) All the rest of it is a lot more nebulous, plenty of lenses through which to view it. What Warren did, you can see as a selfish political move to improve her chances at a run in 2020, or you can see it as her standing up, speaking truth, and fighting, even though it was a lost cause, because... just because one immediate, present outcome is a lost cause, doesn't mean you stop standing up, speaking truth, and fighting. Or you could see it as something in between, along the spectrum. As far as locked threads, I'll just say, regarding the one that was, I was starting to be swayed by Amadan's and Opty's posts. I'm stubborn, and I still don't give a crap about Milo's right/ability to spew on college campuses, but the overall, underlying point about freedom of speech from them both was making me think. Sorry I didn't have a chance to express that. And then we have Warren, prohibited from speaking .... not that it was "public" or the same situation, but the point about who-gets-to-decide-what's-okay-to-say (the majority) sort of crystallized that particular point for me.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Feb 10, 2017 4:21:11 GMT -5
There is nothing worse, IMO, than offering a well-reasoned position on an issue, then having that opinion dismissed because of a claimed bias, instead of met with a well-reasoned rebuttal. That means I've wasted my time, the responder has wasted time, and every lurker has been led down a garden path into a brick wall.
This is almost a guaranteed reaction if one steps outside the Overton Window, so I'm perhaps more cognizant of it than most. I can guarantee a "but you hate government" response to any post regarding the social contract, for example, or most posts questioning the rationale for any particular coercive institution. Ask why the USDA has swat teams, and you're obviously an anarchist, apparently. Or ask for the Constitutional justification for the War on Drugs or Jimmy Carter's Department of Education (a payoff for union support) and you're a heartless bastard who hates kids.
"You're bias is showing" is a reasonable response to an opinion. OTOH, it does not automagically transform facts into someone's opinion and create alternative facts that shall remain unspoken.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Feb 10, 2017 4:39:21 GMT -5
Also, what Christine said. Sometimes it takes continual examination from all sides to realize one's own biases may be in play, as with her Milo/Warren free speech issue. It's not immediately obvious that the Milo and Warren cases are philosophically identical, and if one tends to think more pragmatically, it may take a while to get to the underlying principles. Repetition has more value than the "already-enlightened" may assume at first glance.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Feb 10, 2017 5:32:08 GMT -5
FWIW, I hate it when threads are locked. Unless there is egregious misbehavior going on, a mod locking a thread because s/he finds it unproductive or annoying and thus doesn't want the thread to continue.... really, really irks me. Y'all are entitled to do that, but I am less likely to participate on a board where I might be in the middle of a conversation (or heated argument - whatever) and suddenly a mod decides they're done with it and the thread gets locked. ETA: As for "You dislike Trump/Warren/Hitler, therefore -" I don't think it's much of an argument, but saying "Hey, you're biased about so-and-so" is just an observation. If you're trying to make an argument that an opinion is invalid or ill-informed because of said bias, go ahead and make the connection. What about "you dislike government, therefore..." without making the connection? Is that much of an argument? (I wasn't going to call this out specifically until I saw the Brazil thread.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2017 7:58:18 GMT -5
Also, what Christine said. Sometimes it takes continual examination from all sides to realize one's own biases may be in play, as with her Milo/Warren free speech issue. It's not immediately obvious that the Milo and Warren cases are philosophically identical, and if one tends to think more pragmatically, it may take a while to get to the underlying principles. Repetition has more value than the "already-enlightened" may assume at first glance. To note: it is not the repetition of reasoned arguments to prove a point I find irritating. It is the repetition of acrimonious accusations against other members I find irritating, and the "you said this!" "no I didn't!" "yes you did!" "no I didn't!" -- at least after several pages and days of it. (Some is fine.) If someone is contradicting themselves or being disingenuous, by all means point it out. Quote it, make the point forcefully, and move on. Calling out is fine. Defending yourself is fine. Some back and forth is fine. But PAGES and DAYS of parsing the same words and arguing about what someone did or didn't say in a thread? Really? We can all read the thread and judge for ourselves. I've only felt it got to that point once. As a rule, I share the dislike for locking threads and shutting down discussion. If you feel I've been too precipitate, PM me and tell me why the discussion has value. You might convince me I've been hasty. I'm human, I make mistakes, and I get grumpy sometimes. At any rate, I won't hate you (and certainly won't ban you) for making the attempt, unless you're a total trollish abusive asshole about it. And you can always appeal to Rob. There is nothing worse, IMO, than offering a well-reasoned position on an issue, then having that opinion dismissed because of a claimed bias, instead of met with a well-reasoned rebuttal. That means I've wasted my time, the responder has wasted time, and every lurker has been led down a garden path into a brick wall. This is almost a guaranteed reaction if one steps outside the Overton Window, so I'm perhaps more cognizant of it than most. I can guarantee a "but you hate government" response to any post regarding the social contract, for example, or most posts questioning the rationale for any particular coercive institution. Ask why the USDA has swat teams, and you're obviously an anarchist, apparently. Or ask for the Constitutional justification for the War on Drugs or Jimmy Carter's Department of Education (a payoff for union support) and you're a heartless bastard who hates kids. "You're bias is showing" is a reasonable response to an opinion. OTOH, it does not automagically transform facts into someone's opinion and create alternative facts that shall remain unspoken. Agree. We all have our biases and hobby horses. That doesn't necessarily make us wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Feb 10, 2017 8:21:21 GMT -5
What about "you dislike government, therefore..." without making the connection? Is that much of an argument? (I wasn't going to call this out specifically until I saw the Brazil thread.) If I actually dismiss an argument in its entirety because "You dislike the government, therefore your opinion is invalid," you will have a point. If I'm dismissing an argument because I think "The government is bad, ipso facto anything the government does is wrong and bad" is not a good argument, that's not the same thing. For example, "Ask why the USDA has swat teams, and you're obviously an anarchist, apparently. Or ask for the Constitutional justification for the War on Drugs or Jimmy Carter's Department of Education (a payoff for union support) and you're a heartless bastard who hates kids." seems like a straw man to me, at least hereabouts. Maybe you have experienced that reaction elsewhere, but I am certain I have never called you an anarchist because you asked why the USDA has SWAT teams, or a heartless bastard who hates kids for questioning the existence of the Department of Education, and I haven't seen anyone else so flippantly treat an actual serious point you've made.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Feb 10, 2017 13:16:31 GMT -5
I'm good with people calling each other out. If it actually illuminates something, or if it doesn't go on to tedious length, it's fine. But if the "calling each other out" goes on tediously for pages, and becomes about nothing except two members playing the dozens and parsing each others words for post after post (after post), making the same point again and again (and again and again) with no foreseeable end, it gets fucking tiresome. Occasionally, they get to the point where I want to throw my computer out the goddamn window, which is where my "lock thread" finger gets itchy. Note that I did not lock this one. Is there a reason you think it should have been? My issue is not whether you choose to lock a thread. My issue is when it comes without any warning whatsoever. That makes it seem arbitrary and capricious. Nobody knows for certain what triggered the lock and it's left open to speculation whether the action was sparked by Cassandra the Member talking to Cassandra the Moderator. From my perspective, it is extremely difficult for a Moderator to moderate a thread they are participating in as a Member. It is possible to serve two masters simultaneously, but it's a tough balancing act. At it's current membership The Colline Gate is still small enough that more than two moderators are unneeded, but as it grows, it would probably be a good thing to consider adding a third moderator. I feel totally the opposite. I write reviews of jazz music and mostly contemporary and smooth jazz. I respect free jazz, highly improvisational jazz, Dixieland, and big band, but I don't know enough about it or like it enough to review it. That's my preferences and my biases at work. As a former newspaper editor, it would make no sense for me to take a reporter who hates sports to be a sportswriter. They have no affinity for the beat and will do a shit job on it. It doesn't mean they're a bad person, but their bias is too strong and too ingrained to make them a good fit for the Sports desk. Other reporters are plug-and-play. They can do write about nearly anything and do so in a fair, balanced, unbiased and objective manner. But everybody's biased even if it's only biased in favor of Lindor chocolates instead of Birds-Eye spinach. If I know Fred Furkle has a historical or demonstrated mad-on against Congressman Bob Jones and a serious hard-on for Congresswoman Betty Smith, I'm not going to expect fairness, balance, an absence of bias and objectivity from Fred. Does that mean Mr. Furkle takes on Smith and Jones are less viable and less worthy of consideration than someone else? Of cuss not, but any claim of dispassionate neutrality does go out the window. FWIW, I hate it when threads are locked. Unless there is egregious misbehavior going on, a mod locking a thread because s/he finds it unproductive or annoying and thus doesn't want the thread to continue.... really, really irks me. Y'all are entitled to do that, but I am less likely to participate on a board where I might be in the middle of a conversation (or heated argument - whatever) and suddenly a mod decides they're done with it and the thread gets locked. A locked thread is a sign of failure. Failure on the part of the members and a failure on the part of the moderators. A locked thread is a muscle solution, not a thought solution. A locked thread is a show of force, not a guiding of the errant strays back onto the path of engagement and enlightenment. A locked thread is a pissed-off Moderator declaring "This thread blows. I'm gonna lock it down, chain it up, throw it in a trunk and drop it in the river weighed down with a rock." Some threads need to die a quick, merciful death. Others wither away into disinterest and irrelevance as the news cycle turns. Today's hot topic becomes tomorrow's cold pizza. One man's scintillating cogent point is another man's babbling incoherence. That's the natural order of debate and debate boards. Nobody asked me, but since this thread references truth and consequences, let's play that game for a minute. I used to be a member of another board somewhere in the wilderness of the World Wide Web that had some pretty good moderation when the board was lively and vibrant. There was never any confusion for any member on whether they were skating on thin ice because of the board's Strikes system. That seems pretty clear to me and so did some of the reasons strikes could be issued: It is not my intention to tell the moderators of this board how to do their jobs. I am only suggesting there are tools they can put in their toolbox to help them do it better as well as provide a better understanding by the membership as to why the moderators are doing what they are doing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2017 13:48:13 GMT -5
If you would like to start your own forum where, for free, you spend your time moderating but not participating in any of the discussions, go for it. I don't know anyone who would be willing to perform that function. Moderating is actually kind of a pain in the ass, to tell you the truth. People bitch to you. Someone or another is always pissed off at your calls -- and if you do nothing, someone is pissed off about that. You have to spend time reading threads that might bore or annoy you to make sure unreasonable lines aren't being crossed, and responding to people who are upset or pissed off. Seriously, who wants to spend time doing that shit for free, if you don't get the fun of participating in threads? I will also say this -- I am not the only person who thought that thread had gotten a tad ridiculous. Although I think the Milo/free speech discussion was worthwhile and interesting, I don't regret closing the thread. That said, I also wouldn't object to reopening the topic. robeiae -- the topic of locking threads seems to be derailing this one. Do you think we should we consider opening a new one somewhere so people can voice their views on it if they like, and perhaps porting these posts there? The discussion doesn't really belong here, IMO. ETA: As you probably can tell, I don't personally get all that worked up about people asking about my decisions, as long as they aren't a jerk about it. I can see how if and when we grow, it will get out of hand -- I can imagine with a huge membership, everything would be a free-for-all, and that just doesn't work. But right now we've just got some very opinionated members, and I wouldn't have it any other way. And I think it's worth discussing the balance between allowing people to speak their minds freely, and having threads devolve into fist-fights. I actually very much think it's a good idea to let members call each other out for (inconsistent, inaccurate, whatever) posts -- but I also don't think it should get to the point where the thread topic is utterly lost and it becomes all about personalities and meta-issues of what's really behind the threads. But it's ultimately Rob's call -- both what that balance should be, and whether it's worth having the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Feb 10, 2017 14:02:43 GMT -5
If you would like to start your own forum where, for free, you spend your time moderating but not participating in any of the discussions, go for it. I don't know anyone who would be willing to perform that function. If the only thing you got out of my post is I want to start my own forum and I don't want Moderators participating in any of the discussions, you missed my point entirely.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Feb 10, 2017 14:06:04 GMT -5
I know moderating is thankless (so thank you) and it's a pain in the ass. I'm just saying I am against locking threads, especially without warning. If you think a thread is getting ridiculous or verging towards a cliff, step in and tell people to get back on track, if need be, but abruptly locking it because you find it tedious rubs me the wrong way. That's just my $0.02.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2017 14:18:26 GMT -5
If you would like to start your own forum where, for free, you spend your time moderating but not participating in any of the discussions, go for it. I don't know anyone who would be willing to perform that function. If the only thing you got out of my post is I want to start my own forum and I don't want Moderators participating in any of the discussions, you missed my point entirely. I got more than that out of it. If you'll look up, you'll see I added to my post. I know moderating is thankless (so thank you) and it's a pain in the ass. I'm just saying I am against locking threads, especially without warning. If you think a thread is getting ridiculous or verging towards a cliff, step in and tell people to get back on track, if need be, but abruptly locking it because you find it tedious rubs me the wrong way. That's just my $0.02. Fair enough. To both of you (and Christine et al): I was finding the thread more than tedious (it seemed more of a fistfight than a discussion to me), but I could have given more warning. That's fair, and from now on if I'm feeling that itch, I'll do so. I always step back when I'm annoyed at an individual and try to think before I explode at them, and I think it is a good policy. Barring an actual fire in a thread, it's probably a good idea to apply the same principal to locking threads.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 10, 2017 14:25:28 GMT -5
Meh. Most everyone has put in their two cents, everyone knows where the discussion is. I don't know that anyone has anymore to say about the original topic, so I'm not going to split this off.
I appreciate the points of view on all of this; there some good info, some stuff to think about.
But per some of what Cass said, let's remember a few things:
1) This forum isn't set up to make any money and I can't see how it ever could be set up to do so. Nor is it being run as asome sort of charity or necessity to serve the needs of some specific group of people.
2) Despite the various subforums, this place is about politics, about what's going on in that regard, and about expressing opinions on the same (with a strong likelihood that this will lead to "debate").
3) And in that regard, I set it up to serve MY need for such a place, first and foremost. I knew of others who I thought might have a similar need, so I rolled the dice and hoped some might join. Since it is mine, I'm not going to relinquish any control over it at all. I'm also not going to stop participating in discussions, because then I'd still have the same unfulfilled need.
And frankly, if I stopped participating, there would be significantly fewer threads. In that light, there's been some talk about the typical bent of threads here. That's mostly a consequence of me. I have a point of view and my thread starts are going to reflect that point of view. If people want threads from different angles, then they have to start some threads. Seriously. If members here enjoy the forum and want it to continue, I actually would like them to pitch in. I know some people like the idea of a forum where they can scroll the topics and just comment from time to time. There's nothing wrong with that. If that's what some people want, fair enough. But I would ask that if you want to take issue with how the forum is being run, if you want criticize the decisions being made, that you at least be in the group who is pitching in (and I know some certainly are pitching in; there's no need to name names, people know what they are or are not doing, imo), to some extent.
This place--right now--is like a scene from The Princess Bride. Every night, I look at the forum and say "goodnight, I'll most likely shut you down in the morning." But then I find actual posts from after I hit the hay, actual points being made, so I push on.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 10, 2017 14:35:19 GMT -5
And I should also add that Cass has been here since the beginning and I actually wouldn't make any drastic decisions without her input. Also she probably spends way too much time checking up on this place, already. I'm not willing to lose that, so there's not going to be much second guessing going on here. Actually, there won't be any at all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2017 15:38:26 GMT -5
Thank you for the vote of confidence, Rob. I will try to deserve it. (And of course, as always, I will consult you before making any drastic calls.) We may never have another issue on which Ohio and Amadan are in full concurrence. That being the case, I cannot help but listen. From now on, barring a totally out-of-control wildfire in a thread, I'll issue a warning: "MOD NOTE: My "lock thread" finger is itching." (Possibly adding something more specific -- "tone it down" "drop it, please" or whatever, if I think the reason isn't plain -- and you can always ask.) I cannot imagine I'll issue them often, either -- generally I'm happy to let you guys duke it out. Also note -- if you really have a problem with a call, you can PM me and tell me why. I can't promise I'll agree, but I do promise I'll at least consider what you're saying.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Feb 10, 2017 15:55:55 GMT -5
My two cents...
|
|