Guybrush

GB, I think you're too emotionally involved in this to see that I am talking about principles here. I am asking you to see the consequences of your own actions and own up to them. If I had used some other example that didn't involve your nemesis, perhaps you would've seen some sense in it, but I think your anger blinds you at the moment.

edit :

Nietzche didn't understand human morality.

I don't understand it. I see a lot of people derailing the thread. Some do so by breaking the site rules. Why should I consider Sop the only one responsible for all those derailing, trolly posts? Are we no longer accountable for our own actions?

__________________
Something Completely Different

GuitarBizarre

And neither has anyone else before or since, including you - You cannot possibly believe that you have the answers to getting us all to get along with sopsych. Enough people are so vehemently pissed off with him, for reasons good, bad, and in between, that it cannot possibly be your belief that his integration with the forum community is a reconcilable thing.

Stop dealing with some bull**** moral approach, and take a practical view - Can sopsych continue to contribute in any worthwhile way, to this discussion, or any other, in the foreseeable future, if his attitude does not either undergo a drastic change, or he is removed as a factor in those discussions?

I do not believe he can.

__________________

Guybrush

I will answer, but just read this first. What I want is a community in which threads don't get out of hand with hostilities. I want a community where moderators are the ones who deal with disruptions, not members. I want a community where people see that acting riled up and angry only adds to the drama. I want a community where, if people choose to break rules, they do so accepting that they may get moderated for doing so. I want a forum where people take responsibility in making this an enjoyable place for all of us.

I'm not saying I want a community where everyone agrees, but where even if you strongly disagree with someone, you do so in an orderly fashion () with the rules of the forum in mind. I do want more high road kind of thinking.

Just thinking out loud now. I know this probably sounds like a boring, impossible utopia to most.

As the community is now, I don't think Sopsych can continue to post as he does without stirring hostilities against him. I don't hold him personally responsible for the fact that his posts will generate anger in others if he's not doing that with intent, but from a practical point of view, his presence is a disturbance, like a crow in a hen house.

It puts the moderators in a pickle I do not wish on them. Sometimes, all your alternatives may seem like bad choices.

__________________
Something Completely Different

GuitarBizarre

Also tore, the funny thing about trying to run a moral system, is that as Nietchze said, "A moral system valid for all is basically immoral.".

We shouldn't be, and I hope we aren't, looking for a solution based on morals. If the finest minds in the history of mankind have failed to define a moral system that doesn't come up horribly short when applied practically, then I think the solution is a practical system. Adding some ridiculous moral high ground to the question of "is this working, and why not if not?", is just overcomplicating the issue entirely.

Sopsych IS the source of all of this disruption and his boundless arrogance has earned him no friends, nor do I think it is practical to try and save him from himself when it comes at the cost of everyone elses enjoyment. Get rid of the thorn in our side and we might be able to actually focus on something practical to solve our other problems.

__________________

GuitarBizarre

And as for Urban's post - I think the lenient moderation we have is perfectly fine, and, as I have said for the whole thread long, the forum community should be made aware that under a lenient system, they are more responsible for governing themselves.

With that said, there are some extreme examples of leniency that have been showcased regarding members like hermione, who have largely been inflammatory for long periods with little or no repercussion, and I think the mod team should take a role there, not in being less lenient, but in simply being more present as a known entity that can and will take action if a person's behaviour continues.

In short, if, say, hermione, is consistently inflammatory for a long periood and the mods are unhappy with this or discussing if action should be taken, then I think there should be a level before "banning hermione for 2 weeks", where the mod team make some sort of direct statement pointing out that hermione or any other member in need of this guidance, needs to tread carefully before hammers start falling.

It's no less lenient, in as much as the member is denied no priveledge until they wilfully disregard this advice, but it at least places the mod team more "in the fray" rather than the current system, which essentially makes mods no different to any other member until such time as a direct punitive action is taken.

That would in turn result in a greater respect of the mods capabilities, and should hopefully reinforce the previous statement I made regards a community that is aware it should govern itself so that the mods need not involve themselves in these ridiculous, drawn out, overly painful grey areas, where there is a clear problem that needs addressing, but the forum encounters a reminder of the mod teams function so rarely and ineffectually, that the respect for the mod team is lost.

__________________

GuitarBizarre

Can I also suggest by the way - I think the mod team need to re-establish some measures of respect. I can honestly say that before the big "member bans" thread that Dirty started way back when, I don't recall the mods ever getting this much complete **** from people.

After Dirty started that bandwagon however, the mods have seemed to recede from the forum and almost sought out a non-existence, where Janszoon the mod, and Janszoon the member, are two different people, and Janszoon the mod is some sort of alter ego brought out only to fight crime, and be hidden away at other times.


I suggest that the mods be less afraid to take their own moral stances on things in a semi-official capacity.

I mean, take for example occurences in the past where Hermione has, after working as a dominatrix, taken to the shoutbox to mock her clients preferences or gloat over their willingness to give her money.

Personally, I find that particular behaviour somewhat abhorrent - at the very least unprofessional, to mock an innocent person's extremely private life in a public forum, if not outright cruel, and/or betraying a lack of respect for others.

Now of course, this sort of moral judgement isn't within a mod's purview - or is it? Let's consider this - if I go into the shoutbox and express the opinion that Hermione doing that is abhorrent or unprofessional, I don't think I'd ever be a million miles away from the truth to expect an insult, a haranguing, or simple offensive language being tossed my way with abandon.

If, Janszoon the member shows up, honestly, very little stops Hermione from doing the same thing, since he's not portraying himself as anyone with the power to have a say.

On the other hand, if Janszoon the mod shows up, Hermione suddenly has to carefully consider whether she resorts to that same offensive or dismissive or confrontational language - not because Janszoon, with his mod hat on, has chosen to tell Hermione that he will moderate based on what he finds distasteful, but because Janszoon with his mod hat on, is someone where Hermione can't just give both barrels without a care as to the consequences.

Has Jansz in this instance moderated based on his opinions or morals? No. What he's done is he's laid down a line of respect between himself and that member that can be used as a measuring stick for how respectfully that member should treat OTHERS, who are NOT mods, in future. It makes plain that an acceptable level of argument or debate between Jansz and Hermione, is one that remains civil, respectful, and hopefully results in a mutual understanding of boundaries.

If in future then, Hermione oversteps that boundary significantly, with a non-mod member, Janszoon can, quite rightly, say "Hermione, you'd never treat me with this kind of disrespect, and if you continue to treat this other member with that disrespect, I will be forced to take action".

Is Jansz moderating based on his morals or beliefs there? Again, no - but his willingness to put his morals and beliefs against Hermione's informally, but with his mod hat on, has informed a situation where a more clear cut judgement can be made in a situation where a moral debate is occuring.

Mods, I'd really like your input from this perspective - do some of you feel that in aiming to be as close to the members as possible, or in the interests of avoiding heated debates or argument in order to seem professional yourselves, you have given up your ability to directly reference from personal experience, the levels of argument and respect that all members should use the moderators as a yardstick to determine? Is that sort of lack of defined mod example, perhaps a reason why some members can at times take a mile, from the inch of leniency you intended to give?

__________________

Trollheart

GB, I'm in awe at your reasoning, logic and debating prowess. You've said (and done) everything I was going to, but far better than I ever could.

Tore, I'm disappointed. Your frankly blinkered attitude here to sop makes me cringe: it's almost like you're looking for ways to defend the indefensible. I can't understand why you would believe that someone who constantly winds people up here is not a bad influence, and I think the mods have show incredible restraint in not banning him. I truly don't understand your position. If this were anyone else I'd doubt you'd be so supportive. I must agree I echo GB's sentiments about your purported new Eden: if this is the idealism that would drive it, then I'll stay here thanks.

Well, to be fair, I like it here and I was never going to move. But your unexpected attitude here has convinced me I made the right decision.

__________________
Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018

Guybrush

Trollheart, I am convinced that you're simply misunderstanding or misinterpreting my position on this. I am discussing this from the angle of principles, but I think those principles somehow continue to get lost in the communication. If you want, we can take it to PMs and discuss it there.

edit :

My idea for a new site is also being misinterpreted. I am not suggesting a site in which I somehow rule what goes and what doesn't. Either way, my ideal forum would be one where people are held accountable when they break the rules. That's basically what I ask and it seems strange to me that people find this to be some sort of unreasonable idealism. I thought it was universal!

__________________
Something Completely Different

GuitarBizarre

Tore, until you can apply your principles in a practical manner, they're so much hot air when it comes to solving the immediate problems of MusicBanter, or indeed the immediate problems of setting up a new forum.

If this were a forum that needed not worry about such practical concerns, then I and others might be more willing to consider the more philosophical points you're raising about interpersonal interaction, but at present we don't have that luxury and your insistence on making the discussion about that is really making it seem like you're simply building an ivory tower. Perhaps it's time to take that discussion (Which is worthwhile, just perhaps not here, and perhaps not now) to a seperate, more hypothetical thread, while we discuss more immediate or practical-minded suggestions in here?

__________________

Guybrush

I think it has real relevance here and now. As I wrote, this thread is about drama and hostility, right? This thread has generated lots of hostility and drama, right?

What is the general reaction to it? That it's Sopsych's fault. But that doesn't explain the number of other threads that get derailed by bickering. The simple fact of the matter is that the common factor for the drama and hostility that goes on on these forums is not Sopsych. By looking at this particular situation from an objective point of view, we could perhaps learn something about how drama arises, what feeds it and how it can better be moderated. But any attempt at that fails because people are still only interested in blaming Sopsych for it all and acting defensively. Regardless of my attempts at discussing this, I feel my posts are simply being disregarded as white knighting the guy who blew smoke up my ass.

Please try to understand?

Watching this conflict from an analytical point of view, I've made some observations.

• Newcomer with unpopular, somewhat uninformed and provocative opinions start discussing
• Other members get irritated by him and many start acting on their anger. They escalate the conflict and some of them break forum rules.
• Moderators join in the conflict on the side against newcomer.
• Situation escalates to the point where moderator feels he has to moderate thread by moving posts to a separate thread.

This is just matter-of-factly.

Do we want MB to react like that to situations like this? Perhaps some do, but I don't and I believe I can think of practical ways to go about this in the future that would lead to less hostility and drama should the situation arise again in the future. And that's what this thread is about, right?

__________________
Something Completely Different