Moderation thread: Purpose of the Forum

[Malcolm Ramsay]

I recently deleted a music video that Wolfbird had posted on the forum, and asked him not to post any more on other people's threads .... and suggested that it would be better if he posted things like that on his blog page. In response he made a complaint on the Forum Moderation thread about me deleting his post. I had already been thinking of starting a discussion about the purpose of the forum and the difference between it and other parts of the site; now that Wolfbird has decided to make that public complaint, this seems a good time to start that discussion.

I consider that the way Wolfbird has been using the forum over the last few months makes it virtually unusable as a place for thoughtful discussion - which I regard as its primary purpose. He has been constantly posting music videos and links to things which happen to have caught his attention, regardless of whether they have any relevance to the thread they're posted in. Every time he (or anyone else) does that, anybody who is following the thread receives an e-mail notifying them of the post; with the amount of spam there is generally, it's likely people get irritated by being alerted to trivial posts which are clearly irrelevant, and therefore stop following the discussion.

I believe it's also very off-putting for people looking at the site for the first time. If they look at two or three active threads and see that the most recent posts are nearly all music videos or links to miscellaneous sites which have no obvious connection to the topic, they're likely to dismiss the forum out of hand and never see any of the more stimulating exchanges. In my view, that kind of posting behaviour is likely to deter both long-term members and newcomers; if there's too much noise on the forum, the people who are looking for thoughtful discussion don't have anywhere to engage in it.

However, this site does provide a place for posting videos, and it also gives every member their own blog page on which they can post (more or less) whatever they like (and it allows for others, who are interested in them, to be alerted when they do post something). In view of that, I don't see any reason to allow people to post links or videos to the forum other than ones which are clearly relevant to a discussion - they should be posted either to the video section or the member's own page. Unless someone can offer a good reason to allow it, I intend to treat that kind of posting behaviour as a form of spam, in which case anyone who persists with it after being asked to stop would be suspended.

[ANNIE strawberry]

It's late and I'm too tired to post an in depth response, but for heavens sake, he hasn't threatened to castrate you, Malcolm! He's posting videos! I recall discussing everything from wolves to etymology on the Easter Island thread and you didn't have a problem with that... and it went on for weeks... with links, videos and everything!  What's changed all of a sudden?

[ANNIE strawberry]

Wolfbird, you're incorrigible!!!! ;-)

[bert louis]

I just prepared a reaction to Karin, and now I see your two posts ...

Malcolm:  I don't expect to get anything out of being moderator here.

No money or prestige or so?

M: I do expect to get something out of being a member. At the moment there's nothing for me here except the potential for a worthwhile discussion forum.

You have moderating powers, so you are not just a member.  In the end, after weighing the sentiments and arguments pertaining to the purpose of this forum, you must exercising your powers to your own discretion and understanding of the purpose of this forum. You have the power to give direction and you must use them.

 I wonder, does your ultimatum still stand?

====

My reaction to Karen's post:

K: ... I would like to say that although I appreciate the desire to keep threads strictly on topic and edited so that they are clearly constructed with a coherent argument, it is also completely human to have threads grow and develop organically.

Of course not, and no one has suggested that.  To stay "strictly on topic" is impossible -  'we' are no logical information processing machines.  For participants to have the wish to stay on topic, in this ever so lightly moderated discussion & argument forum, is enough. Hence my recommendation for a sticky ( a must read) that explains some basic rules of debate.

I take it that this forum ( I mean the discussion & argument section of it) is not just created for the Wolfbird (or anyone else,) as a platform for an ego show.

K: My understanding is that this is a forum for people with a broadly similar take on the world to have conversations. Unless I am actually taking part in a formal debate my conversations meander and flow into all sorts of unexpected places and imo that's a good thing.

The meandering of thought, the input of different views ... Of course! Thing is that in the discussion & argument section of the forum the topic should be central and not a person with a particular view.

K: The expectation that every word, statement and image should be on topic is a very demanding. One that would limit response. The desire to weed out anything that does not conform to one person's view of relevance is one that is profoundly at odds with creative and organic culture that I expected here.  I have (and had prior to joining) no problem at all with wolfbird's music and other posts.

You are being very speculative. You are reading far to much in what is asked. No one ever proposed anything like what you are suggesting.  
You say you are a newcomer, so you  can only have seen a very small part of  debate & argument section of the far bigger DM site. I think are still unaware of the dominating presence of the Wolfbird, and his ad hominem methods (that have nothing to do with  argument) to project his own views and ego.

K: To be honest, if I was looking for highly focused, intense and rigidly structured discussion and analysis I'd be reading news sites, professional journals and well edited non fiction.

Of course you would.

K: I have also found this thread extremely off putting in terms of what, where and when I should post and that can't be a good thing - can it?

Don't take this personal. This thread is not about you! You are free to post anything you like, anywhere you wish.

In the past others have expressed doubts and critique on the way the Wolfbird operates on this discussion & argument section of the forum.

I don't wish for the Wolfbird to go away, I enjoy his presence greatly. I just wish that he doesn't take over topics that he did not start. A man with such a strong vision should make use of the possibilities that the DM site offers to enfold his vision. Beside his own topics on the discussion & argument section, there are several other places where he can project his ego and world vision. There is the blog section for example.

Delve some into the forum topics and maybe you may discover for yourself that the Wolfbird is a complete egomaniac.

Stern words?  Don't worry for his sake. I love Wolfbird very much.  

[Karen Barnacle]

Thank you Malcolm and bert for your replies.

 

Don't take this personal. This thread is not about you! You are free to post anything you like, anywhere you wish.

 

My understanding of the kind of rules that this and other forums have is that they apply to all members. Whatever wolfbird's alleged behaviour (I haven't experienced some of what you describe) surely we cannot set up some sort of ghetto in which he is confined? That goes against the principles of justice and can't be supported.

As for the point about "taking over" threads that he didn't start I have two points to make. First of all if it seems irrelevant then the person can either explore to see whether there is latent relevant meaning. Second if it is manifestly relevant but strongly worded or somehow dominating then the person or others can reply and challenge. Most of us here have experience in activism of one sort or another and the way that we assume we can challenge the dominant culture is to act. On a forum that means posting doesn't it?

Finally if I understand correctly the issue that is being raised here is the posting of music videos and similar that are "irrelevant"? If that is so then wolfbird's alleged character in terms of using ad hominen argument and/or abuse should have no bearing on the discussion. Ad hominen arguments and abuse are easily dealt with by an experienced interlocutor.

In discussion it is almost inevitable for all but the most disciplined and professional debater that our own ego and worldview will be projected. I would argue that every action we engage in does just that. My getting out of bed this morning projects mine! The strength is something that we can deal with if we choose - either by pushing back or by ignoring the source.

I don't think that knowing the history is necessarily of any benefit here as it tends to cloud the immediate issue which is what to do about "irrelevant" posts.

[Alan Durant]

For myself I often like WolfBirds videos. The ones that I don't find interesting I switch off, end of story. He, nor anybody else, should be censored unless threatening or racist, I think even a certain leeway can be given to what might be perceived as abusive from some peoples point of view. I got more from some Rye Cooder that he posted than from this argument about arguments.

"There's a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in" (John Lennon). Perhaps WolfBird is a little cracked sometimes but (as far as I can tell he doesn't want to limit other peoples freedom of expression.

Alan

[bert louis]

ANNIE Strawberry to Malcolm:

He's posting videos! I recall discussing everything from wolves to etymology on the Easter Island thread and you didn't have a problem with that... and it went on for weeks... with links, videos and everything!  What's changed all of a sudden?

There is a difference. The Easter Island topic ) was started by Wolfbird himself. I still think that it was posted in the wrong section (namely the debate & argument section) ... but that doesn't seem to be an issue for Malcolm as long as Wolfbird posts to his 'own topic.'  

In the "Articles, Links & Stuff to Read" section of the forum he started the topic "What Does it Mean to Be You" That's the appropriate place for such a topic, where he can let his flow of consciousness expand on the subject with lots of videos and stuff -- 1620  'replies!' The topic could also have been posted on the "Stories & journeys" section. These sections are both within the forum section of the site. No problem there.

The removed video was however posted on a thread started by Ormus ... I think that's the point here for Malcolm.
Malcolm:  I recently deleted a music video that Wolfbird had posted on the forum, and asked him not to post any more on other people's threads .... and suggested that it would be better if he posted things like that on his blog page.  

Malcolm:  I consider that the way Wolfbird has been using the forum over the last few months makes it virtually unusable as a place for thoughtful discussion - which I regard as its primary purpose.

That's a rather vague I'm afraid, and a source of misunderstanding and emoting. At first I thought that you are concerned about the purpose of the "Discussions, Debates & Arguments" subsection of the forum, and not about the purpose of the whole forum section of the DM site. For that I thought it helpful to point out that the forum section of the DM site has several subsections (9). The title "Debate & Argument" is one of them, and strongly suggests that this is a place for the exchange of reasoned arguments for and against a proposition.

There are also the "Articles, links & Stuff to read" and the " Stories & Journeys" sections, and Wolfbird also posts there  - great, thanks a million!  People react positive, and so do I.

But you set me straight, Malcolm:

Me: The Wolfbird has no business in the debate & argument section because he does not debate his case with arguments but with ad hominem.
That means that he discards opposition to his view, not because of any evidence against it (or lack of evidence for it,) but because of the person who argues his position.  "

Malcolm: That's certainly true, though only up to a point (he frequently does debate his case with good arguments) .... but it's not relevant to the current issue. I'm not suggesting that Wolfbird shouldn't post in this part of the site at all, I'm simply saying that he shouldn't put particular kinds of posts here.

 Right ..?

Me: ..to make a constructive conversation even possible [....] don't multi post, don't cite the entire post you are reacting to - just the bits that count. Don't try to react to everything, just try to follow one line of thought till it brakes under argument.

Malcolm: There are arguments for and against rules like that .... but they really belong in a separate thread. The issue here is whether a particular kind of posting behavior is compatible with the purpose of the forum. I think it's better if we keep this thread focused on that.

I don't quit get. Still I think it's a pity that you don't seem to grasp that my supporting argument as to the purpose of the Debate & Argument section of the forum is really a strong reason to intervene against multi posting (which may also contain videos), and against polemics by a wide variety of ad hominem.

Unlike Wolfbird and some others think, there is no such thing as ad hominem arguments, for they fall in the category of fallacies!

[ANNIE strawberry]

Bert, get a fucking life!

[Malcolm Ramsay]

"You have moderating powers, so you are not just a member. [....] I wonder, does your ultimatum still stand?"

Yes, Bert, of course it still stands. The point I was making is that if I'm not getting anything from the site as a member, I'm obviously not going to be prepared to moderate it. And since Paul and Dougald are unlikely to let it go back to being an unmoderated forum, there would either have to be a new moderator or the forum would close. (Part of my reason for leaving Wolfbird's posts on the thread is so that any potential alternative moderator can appreciate the rewards of the job.)

"[....] that doesn't seem to be an issue for Malcolm as long as Wolfbird posts to his 'own topic.'  
[....]
The removed video was however posted on a thread started by Ormus ... I think that's the point here for Malcolm."

When I originally deleted that music video and sent my message to Wolfbird, that was indeed all I was asking: that he treat other people's threads with more respect. When he responded the way he did I decided to demand a bit more, and now that he has behaved the way he has in this thread I intend to go even further.

"I think it's a pity that you don't seem to grasp that my supporting argument as to the purpose of the Debate & Argument section of the forum is really a strong reason to intervene against multi posting (which may also contain videos), and against polemics by a wide variety of ad hominem. "

No, I do accept it - and agree with it. I just wanted to keep the debate on the two issues separate (and was still thinking how to proceed). This particular issue is very straightforward, and can be resolved with a fairly simple rule; the question of what guidelines there should be, on the other hand, is much more complex and deserves its own thread.

[Malcolm Ramsay]

I can't add much to Bert's reply to your first post, Karen, but before I reply to your second I will comment on this:

"if I was looking for highly focused, intense and rigidly structured discussion and analysis I'd be reading news sites, professional journals and well edited non fiction."

What you'd be reading in those places would be discussion rooted in the myths of civilisation. That's not what most of the people who join this site are after - they're looking for somewhere they can engage with others who share their recognition that there is something fundamentally wrong with the prevailing culture. And it's clear from the numbers of people contributing on this forum that they're not finding it here.

"Whatever wolfbird's alleged behaviour (I haven't experienced some of what you describe) surely we cannot set up some sort of ghetto in which he is confined? "

No. But what we can do is set up a ghetto where he and others can be unconfined. When I became moderator I set up a group, the Feral Forum, which allows wholly unmoderated discussion. What I'll probably do now is set up another one which will be loosely moderated, with the rules which have operated here for the last six months, which provide a basic mechanism for dealing with disputes .... without requiring the moderator to monitor everything. Then a tighter set of rules will apply in the main forum, but it will continue to be open to anybody, including Wolfbird, who is willing to abide by those rules.

"I don't think that knowing the history is necessarily of any benefit here as it tends to cloud the immediate issue which is what to do about "irrelevant" posts."

In this case, knowing the history is more likely to illuminate the immediate issue than cloud it, Karen - the decision to have a moderator came about as a result of Wolfbird demanding that someone else stop flooding the forum with posts he thought were irrelevant to the topics at hand.

[Malcolm Ramsay]

Annie: "I recall discussing everything from wolves to etymology on the Easter Island thread and you didn't have a problem with that... and it went on for weeks... with links, videos and everything!  What's changed all of a sudden?"

What's changed, Annie, is the passage of time. Last autumn I committed myself to moderating the forum until the end of June; we now have six months experience of how the forum operates within the current rules, and only two months before my current commitment ends. We've now had long enough to see that the forum, in its present form, is not providing most people who join the site with conversations they want to join; unless it changes significantly within the next two months, the forum is likely to be closed.

Alan: "He, nor anybody else, should be censored unless threatening or racist"
J.E Roberts: " Back to censoring again . . . . "

Dougald answered this last autumn in All Things in Moderation: "If the government takes away your access to the internet, you can reasonably say you've been censored; if you find yourself banned from a small online forum, it's more like being asked to leave a party because you wouldn't stop making a nuisance of yourself."

Wolfbird: "Without ANY consultation"

If you re-read the opening post, Wolfbird, you'll see that I state an intention to implement a new rule, unless someone offers a reason for me not to. This thread is the consultation.

[bert louis]

Malcolm is the moderator, because he has the power. Whether that's recognized or not is irrelevant.

I just wrote a response to the issue at hand, reacting to various persons,  but I won't post it because Malcolm has just covered it.

I respect his thoughtful and sincere effort to better the forum. (In particular the Debate and Argument section of it, or so I believe - I'm still not clear about that.)  

Malcolm: the point I was making is that if I'm not getting anything from the site as a member, I'm obviously not going to be prepared to moderate it.

Yes, that's crucial.

Malcolm: .. And since Paul and Dougald are unlikely to let it go back to being an unmoderated forum, there would either have to be a new moderator or the forum would close.

I believe you.

Malcolm: What you'd [Karin] be reading in those places would be discussion rooted in the myths of civilization. That's not what most of the people who join this site are after - they're looking for somewhere they can engage with others who share their recognition that there is something fundamentally wrong with the prevailing culture. And it's clear from the numbers of people contributing on this forum that they're not finding it here.

That's well argued because it takes all the members of DM into account, and there potential to make a difference, and learn from each other.

[bert louis]

Hoi Annie :)

You tell me to get a fucking life. I don't get that.

Do you mean to say that I am devoting an inordinate amount of time to a trivial or hopeless matter? 

Or do you mean that I should shut up and go away, because you think I'm an insecure person who has nothing to contribute here or anywhere else on DM?
Or something else still?

ANNIE strawberry said:

Bert, get a fucking life!