Uncivilised Behaviour

[Malcolm Ramsay]

In another thread, Coming to Uncivilisation, I wondered how long the forum would continue to work without a moderator and Wolfbird replied:

"The moderator problem was discussed before. It's hard to gauge the balance between free speech and chaos.
[....]
If we are going to have a moderator, how do we do that ? democratically ? who'd vote ? I wonder if anyone would have the time and patience to do it... should we invite suggestions ?"

I've always thought democratic processes work much better for getting rid of people than for choosing them. If it happens it'll probably be a result of a handful of regulars going to Dougald and saying 'we need a moderator' .... but what would we want a moderator to do?

It seems to me there are two distinct issues. One is the tendency for otherwise rational people to get into slanging matches; the other is the possibility of people who aren't actually capable of reasoned argument coming along and flooding the site with stuff that nobody wants to engage with. I think both of those problems can very quickly put people off, and my feeling is that the forum won't ever develop into a central part of the Dark Mountain project unless they're addressed.

On the first issue, I think some way of slowing things down might go a long way to solving it; if there were some way of requiring two people who are at loggerheads to wait a day or two before replying to each other .... well, it wouldn't necessarily remove the tension, but it would make it easier for calmer voices to dominate, and it would perhaps lead to a better quality of argument.

I don't know what can be done about the other issue though.

[Alan Durant]

Hi Malcolm. Part of the problem seems to be that to few people take part in discussions. If they did it might make for a more balanced discussion. Of course the slanging that goes on is quite possibly putting people of. The other side is that individuals might feel that what they see as very negative postings need to be challenged. You are left with going round in what could be described as a vicious circle. Perhaps a series of yellow and red cards like in football? If anybody has the stamina to take on such a task. Even that gives me pause for thought, do we really want any censorship?

 

Best  Alan

[Stranger]

   there is the same solution to the problems of discussion as there is to the problems of the world ... having a moderator has been proven NOT to work because the closed-minded bullies of this world love the position of power where they determine who shall say and who shall be censored ... are happy to put in the hours feeling important simply shutting out anyone who disagrees with them ... one ends up with an appeal process which is just as inadequate , becomes like a martial court where the outcome is simply that the admin support the moderator , just as the 'government' support the police , right or wrong ... 

   a loving community , as in fact God points  out,  needs a place for the unloving to live their way and see it is worse ...  the site needs to be set up this way , with a place for discussion of the points raised and another for those who get their kicks insulting each other and getting nowhere ...  a 'sin bin' if you like ... and the simple rule is that if you  don't stick to the rule that one discusses only topics, not members, then the topic part of the site is denied and one can go slang others wh like to slang where it doesn't disrupt discussion ... can come back when one undertakes to discuss instead of slanging others ... simple, easy to manage, and a learning process about respect for others who happen to still disagree ...   the decision is not hard as to whether one is talking about members in derogatory way and could be taken by the site owner alone or by say three folks agreeing in a simple automatic  voting system  ... increasing the number of votes automatically  required as the site grows ...  and putting anyone in the sin bin [or banning them] if they give false votes  ... in particular the sin bin is NOT censorship , the offender is allowed a voice on a special appeal thread in the bin... this system eliminates the ability of moderators to silence any criticism of their moderation, prevents the system corrupting folks as happens in the real world and on moderated sites... gets around theproblem of censorship and of folks whose only 'argument' is to slang anyone who disagrees with their current views, stops discussions coming to a halt even when only one person wants to slang for attention to their pain in life ...

[Stranger]

You are the problem wolfie my friend... if you stopped your personal abuse and simply discussed the points of discussion then there would be no need of this thread ...

[Stranger]

wolfbird :

Yes, I am a problem for you,

 

stranger: You are a problem for everyone because your only words are personal abuse of folsk with whom you have decided you disagree.... you filled the site with abusive words and yet you don't even rad the explanatin of your MISTAKEN BELIEFS  about what I believe ... your ranting attacks are not only of no interest to ANYONE HERE , but you are not even ranting about me because you have a FALSE IMAGE of what I believe and won't even listen to the explanation of YOUR MISTAKES ...

 

wolfbird :I can see that, because I object to the fact that you have never discussed anything with anybody here.

 

stranger:  I have discussed some points with a few insofar as I have been allowed to do so, but your senseless ad hominem attacks on everything I say make it impossible for anyone to continue discussion here, you are preventing ALL discussion here with volumes of sheer irrelevant abusive nonsense of no use to anyone

 

wolfbird :  You use the place as if it was your own website, a platform for your preaching, and poetry publishing, and to promote your own peculiar religious beliefs.

 

stranger:  I publish my poetry on gspoetry.com not here , so again you are mistaken in extreme , but there is no reason not to use poetry here, many have done so with no complaint from anyone, not even you ...  and ths is a discussion site, it is a place for folks to put forth new and old views on the issues raised by DM ... everyone has just as much right as I to say their piece here , I have not in any way excluded anyone in the way you seek to do with personal abuse...   and I have explained REPEATEDLY that I am NOT religious, detailed the explanation , and stated that I do not seek to teach, preach, proselytise, convert or do any of those things religions do to condition, acquire, brain-wash their victims... I hate religion because it is EVIL- just as Jesus himself sad it would be  by now... so you are MISTAKEN my frend, yet again, in everythng you made up, yet again, about me... more STRAWMEN as is your way ... and that is not discussion

 

wolfbird :The first few times around that was acceptable and tolerable. Now it has reached the stage of being abusive, offensive and invasive, IMO. But it is not my forum. It's up to either Dougald or the members themselves to decide what is to be done.

 

stranger:  you are the abusive one my friend  , senselessly abuusive about everything I write  and offering no reason or discussion even of why , not listening to any explanations of your mistakes but ranting on as if nothing had been said... it is you who have clogged every thread with abuse of my commentaries instead of discussing them ...

You are the problem wolfie my friend... if you stopped your personal abuse and simply discussed the points of discussion then the site would work fine for everyone, even you ...

[Douglas Strang]

Sorry Stranger, but I'm afraid you seem to be in a bit of a state. I hope you get some help.

 

Wolfbird, I salute your perseverance. I also appreciate your contributions to the forum (particularly enjoyed recent post on mythos/logos, and I look forward to watching the doc on the mathematicians). It would be lovely to see more folk contributing and engaging, but then I don't exactly add much myself. Never enough time in the day...

 

I guess like others before him, Stranger will get bored, run out of steam, move on.

 

Meanwhile, out in the world, Monday looks like being an interesting day: Warning of a stock market rout on Monday unless a eurozone rescue p...

[Stranger]

[ it's self-awareness that makes folk into poets ,  my friend,  again you could not be more mistaken, but why continue blundering on like a bull in a china shop, destoying all communication on the whole site, inconveniencing everyone for nothing but you personal inner anger at the past ?  ]

[Malcolm Ramsay]

"Of course the slanging that goes on is quite possibly putting people of."

I certainly believe the slanging that goes on puts people off. I get the impression a lot of people who come to Dark Mountain are looking for a community to join, and an essential part of that is having somewhere to engage in discussion in an unthreatening environment (which does not preclude the existence of a separate, more feral environment).

"do we really want any censorship?"

Which 'we' are we talking about? The ones who do post, or the ones who would post if it were a more congenial atmosphere?

I think we should start from what Dougald and Paul hope for the site. I started coming here about the time Dougald started the How we treat each other thread, and judging from that, he's hoping for self-censorship - so is there any way we can help that happen?

The problem, as I see it, comes because the self-restraint that's required is essentially subjective, and people are good at convincing themselves that they're being reasonable. But as long as most people recognise that self-restraint is necessary, what I suggested above about slowing things down would offer an opportunity for more objective self-censorship. Alan suggested a series of yellow and red cards, as in football - it might perhaps be feasible to have a rule that, say, when a dispute blows up and someone(?) 'shows them a yellow card', the brawlers (what should we call them?) are obliged to ration themselves to one post a day on that thread or have to leave a certain amount of time before replying to the other person; with a second yellow card extending the penalty - eventually being required to take it to a 'rant room'.

That would give some objective criteria for a moderator to judge them against (they'd either be complying with the rule or not), and it would still leave room for robust argument - but ought to make it harder for that kind of behaviour to take over the thread. And in principle that kind of rule could be enforced entirely in software, though I don't suppose the ning forum currently provides any way of doing it automatically.

I met a couple of people at the festival who commented that they like to take their time thinking about what to say, but often find that, by the time they're ready to reply, the thread has moved on so far that they feel it's not worth it. I'm like that myself. But that's fine if the thread has moved on as a result of constructive, interesting posts .... it's when it's people at each other's throats that it's really disheartening. I think we'd hear a wider range of voices if we found an effective way of discouraging that.

But there should definitely be somewhere on the site for unmoderated full-contact engagement. And I don't see any way of preventing the other problem - people flooding the site with garbage - except by having a moderator.

[Stranger]

I only came here recently, on the recommendation of my son who has some close ties with Dougald and DM - and on the basis of many folks saying the wanted a greater spiritual representation in DM  offered the [objective, non-religious] biblical perspective from 40 years of bible4 study and meditation , linked with my knowledge of Medicine, Psychology , Philosophy and Maths and my poetry skills  ... I was immediately attacked viciously and  personally by two members who didn't even stop when I explaned their mistaken beliefs about me, and now wolfbird is spreading lies about me and my beliefs to other members  ... it rally si very upsetting and to em quite contrar to te spirit of this place , and seriousy someone has to step in and stop the disruption of the site caused by this absurd continual personal abuse which is on every topic I have tried to discuss and is ruining the site for everyone... it really is unacceptable tha the site allows members to continue ad hominem attacks i place of discussion of what are afte all very serious topics, it is limiting oen discussion to almost nothing that the site will not act to protect folk fromthis insane abuse which achieves nothing but stasis of the site ... which is seemingly what wolfbird wants , maybe someone can tell me why ...

[Stranger]

"Believe whatever you want, but the claim that you, and you alone, are correct in the understanding of God's purpose, and the meanings of biblical texts, is utterly grotesque and says a lot about your character, your claims to spiritual insight, and your personality problems."

 

I have never made such a claim, YOU invented the strawman ...  and you are still attacking me, not discussing

[Malcolm Ramsay]

A fairly simple change, which might have some effect, would be to establish a specific area for ad hominem discussion. It's quite common to see comments from onlookers saying something like "guys, can you take this somewhere else", but that relies on one of the antagonists starting a new thread. That usually seems to be a step too far, but I think many of them might be open to moving personal arguments - analysis of each other's characters, motives, reasoning ability etc - to somewhere that had already been set up.

Ideally there'd be a 'Reply elsewhere' button on each post which would automatically set up a new thread and leave a note (and link) on the existing thread that a reply had been posted elsewhere - but without sending notifications to other people (and with posts in the ad hominem area not appearing on the front page). I imagine that might need a bit of software development (and I don't even know if the ning forum is open-source), but I think it's worth trying manually.

So Wolfbird, Stranger, I've started a thread 'Reasoning with Strangers' - I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from replying to each other on this thread, and take your arguments there instead. Thank you.

[Malcolm Ramsay]

 

"isn't it a more sophisticated version of what Dougald tried"

Yes, but then showing people the door (and opening it for them) is only a more sophisticated version of asking them to leave - but it makes it that much easier for them to actually go, because it stops them fighting over who should open the door!

If both people are blaming the other person for starting it, they'll both regard it as the other person's responsibility to start the ad hominem thread .... so it never gets started. But if someone else starts it, or points them to an existing one, they don't have that excuse. As long as one of them is sufficiently responsible to take the fight there (and refrain from answering in the original thread), then the other one will almost certainly follow. If you've got caught up in a contentious situation, it's very difficult to initiate the switch to engaging responsibly - but it's often fairly easy to follow if someone else initiates it.

I had a quick look at ning yesterday, and it does seem to support some user modification at code level. But it might even be possible already - I think it would be worth looking into.

wolfbird said:

 

Hi Malcolm,

 

It might work, but isn't it a more sophisticated version of what Dougald tried, when he rearranged the forum ? There was supposed to be a separate area for arguments. But if someone puts what amounts to spam, onto every topic, then the same arguments arise on every topic. The 'reply elsewhere' button would be good but would need someone to make one. I wonder if the ning people are able or willing to make adjustments and additions like that ?

[Malcolm Ramsay]

 

Yes, I'll pursue it. I'll start by asking Dougald - maybe he'll say "oh yes, that's easy".

wolfbird said:

 

True enough. Yes, definitely worth looking into. Will you pursue it ?