Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did Mod cause the collapse of evcforum?
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 226 of 424 (567448)
07-01-2010 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by dronestar
07-01-2010 9:14 AM


Re: What is the conclusion (Part B)?
The next time a member relentlessly pursues (in different threads?) a point on a controversial topic in language that a member finds deeply offensive, what action do YOU think the moderator(s) SHOULD take, if any?
The way it has usually been handled, for as long as I've been here, is:
Argue the position, not the person.
If one member is being antagonistic by making personal slights (ad hominem), they are in violation of forum rules. There is no rule, however, for saying things that people find offensive by the simple fact that "offensive" is far too subjective.
Invariably, you could talk about eating meat and offend a vegan. You shouldn't be suspended for discussing eating meat and you shouldn't be suspended for disliking people that eat meat, but you could be suspended for needlessly saying that the vegan (the specific vegan you are addressing) is a pussy because he doesn't eat meat.
And even then there is room for discretion that really does need to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.
But generally speaking, the policy has always been:
Argue the position, not the person.

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by dronestar, posted 07-01-2010 9:14 AM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by dronestar, posted 07-01-2010 9:43 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 228 by Huntard, posted 07-01-2010 9:43 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 227 of 424 (567452)
07-01-2010 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by Hyroglyphx
07-01-2010 9:36 AM


Re: What is the conclusion (Part B)?
Thanks, but you didn't quite answer my question:
The next time a member relentlessly pursues (in different threads?) a point on a controversial topic in language that a member finds deeply offensive, what action do YOU think the moderator(s) SHOULD take, if any?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-01-2010 9:36 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-01-2010 10:05 AM dronestar has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 228 of 424 (567453)
07-01-2010 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by Hyroglyphx
07-01-2010 9:36 AM


Re: What is the conclusion (Part B)?
Hyroglyphx writes:
Invariably, you could talk about eating meat and offend a vegan. You shouldn't be suspended for discussing eating meat and you shouldn't be suspended for disliking people that eat meat, but you could be suspended for needlessly saying that the vegan (the specific vegan you are addressing) is a pussy because he doesn't eat meat.
I agree. However, if you were to go around, pursuing said vegan, and replying to all of the vegan's post with something like "Heh, you should eat some meat", or other things in that category, I think being asked to cease such behaviour would be the right thing to do. Don't you think?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-01-2010 9:36 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-01-2010 10:08 AM Huntard has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 229 of 424 (567455)
07-01-2010 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by dronestar
07-01-2010 9:14 AM


Re: What is the conclusion (Part B)?
dronestar writes:
The next time a member relentlessly pursues (in different threads?) a point on a controversial topic in language that a member finds deeply offensive, what action do YOU think the moderator(s) SHOULD take, if any?
If no rules have been violated, I only see two choices for the moderators:
  1. do nothing;
  2. move the thread to the Free For All forum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by dronestar, posted 07-01-2010 9:14 AM dronestar has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 230 of 424 (567466)
07-01-2010 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by dronestar
07-01-2010 9:43 AM


Re: What is the conclusion (Part B)?
The next time a member relentlessly pursues (in different threads?) a point on a controversial topic in language that a member finds deeply offensive, what action do YOU think the moderator(s) SHOULD take, if any?
It depends upon the content and the infraction. It also depends on whether or not the individual is being personal. Context is very important in a matter like this.
Specifics are a big help, so lets look at my case. Was I following around Berberry or was Berberry following me around? Was I personally insulting Berberry or was he personally insulting me? You would have to first answer these questions to get to the appropriate answer.
I happen to agree with the moderator's assessment in this case, but then, I could be charged with bias. You have to make that deduction yourself.
But again in general, argue the position not the person, is a staple mantra around EvC.

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by dronestar, posted 07-01-2010 9:43 AM dronestar has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 231 of 424 (567467)
07-01-2010 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by Huntard
07-01-2010 9:43 AM


Re: What is the conclusion (Part B)?
I agree. However, if you were to go around, pursuing said vegan, and replying to all of the vegan's post with something like "Heh, you should eat some meat", or other things in that category, I think being asked to cease such behaviour would be the right thing to do. Don't you think?
Goading is a forum offense, so in a general application of the law, yes. But so much is a matter of interpretation. (Was he goading, was he just having a conversation?) Those kinds of interpretations have to be made.
Spirit of the law, not the letter of the law.

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Huntard, posted 07-01-2010 9:43 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Huntard, posted 07-01-2010 10:21 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 232 of 424 (567476)
07-01-2010 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by Hyroglyphx
07-01-2010 10:08 AM


Re: What is the conclusion (Part B)?
Hyroglyphx writes:
Spirit of the law, not the letter of the law.
Then I think we are in agreement. I of course don't mean one such post, but continuous posting like that should be dealt with, I think.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-01-2010 10:08 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 233 of 424 (567478)
07-01-2010 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by crashfrog
06-30-2010 5:37 PM


Hi, Crashfrog.
crashfrog writes:
...literally more than a dozen of us saw what you say isn't there.
Were we delusional? Conspiring behind the scenes to feign offense at perfectly innocuous statements?
No, I don't think it was a conspiracy or a delusion. I think it was a bit of hyper-sensitivity, for which I don't really blame any of you: some of you obviously have a vested interest in it, and the rest of you have obviously seen enough of the ugly side of it to be concerned about it.
I just think the moderators' hands were tied: they can't censor controversial topics when they offend people and still claim to be a legitimate debate forum. So, I don't think it's fair to pin the troubles on Modulous or on the rest of the moderators.
-----
crashfrog writes:
But let me just leave you with this - do I strike you as the type to be oversensitive? Especially about the feelings and sensibilities of other people?
No, not particularly. Still, everyone has their triggers, and you seem to care a great deal about forum justice. I don't blame you for being upset about it (I would have been too): I just think the site would have suffered more if the moderators got into the business of punishing sub-par or unpopular arguments.
-----
crashfrog writes:
Let this be my last word on the subject.
Fair enough. You've made your point, and I understand it.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by crashfrog, posted 06-30-2010 5:37 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 234 of 424 (567481)
07-01-2010 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by dronestar
07-01-2010 9:14 AM


Re: What is the conclusion (Part B)?
The next time a member relentlessly pursues (in different threads?) a point on a controversial topic in language that a member finds deeply offensive, what action do YOU think the moderator(s) SHOULD take, if any?
Tell everyone to clam down and get some perspective?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by dronestar, posted 07-01-2010 9:14 AM dronestar has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 235 of 424 (567482)
07-01-2010 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by dronestar
07-01-2010 9:14 AM


Re: What is the conclusion (Part B)?
The next time a member relentlessly pursues (in different threads?) a point on a controversial topic in language that a member finds deeply offensive, what action do YOU think the moderator(s) SHOULD take, if any?
Since this forum serves an international audience and since not all of its constituencies condone such a thing I suppose capital punishment is out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by dronestar, posted 07-01-2010 9:14 AM dronestar has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(1)
Message 236 of 424 (567483)
07-01-2010 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by dronestar
07-01-2010 9:14 AM


Re: What is the conclusion (Part B)?
Straggler writes:
Did NJ relentlessly pursue a point with a gay member on a controversial topic in language that the member in question clearly found deeply offensive?
And I would say no. NJ repeatedly pursued a controversial topic, that at times involved Berb because Berb would involve himself on account of him being offended by what NJ was discussing, and NJ followed Berb to a thread on account of Berb discussing that very situation. And it was not the language that was found offensive, it was the actual content of the topic under discussion. As Hyro has articulated, he could not change the language without changing the actual argument. As far as I am concerned, this is the bleedin' obvious.
The next time a member relentlessly pursues (in different threads?) a point on a controversial topic in language that a member finds deeply offensive, what action do YOU think the moderator(s) SHOULD take, if any?
Suggest the language be changed so that the topic can be discussed without causing offense. In our historic case, it appears that the moderators had the intelligence to realise that it was not the language but the actual content that was causing offense, and thus no such suggestion could be made.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by dronestar, posted 07-01-2010 9:14 AM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by dronestar, posted 07-01-2010 11:21 AM cavediver has replied
 Message 260 by crashfrog, posted 07-01-2010 5:10 PM cavediver has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 237 of 424 (567486)
07-01-2010 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by cavediver
07-01-2010 11:10 AM


Re: What is the conclusion (Part B)?
cavediver writes:
And I would say no. NJ repeatedly pursued a controversial topic, that at times involved Berb because Berb would involve himself on account of him being offended by what NJ was discussing, and NJ followed Berb to a thread on account of Berb discussing that very situation. And it was not the language that was found offensive, it was the actual content of the topic under discussion. As Hyro has articulated, he could not change the language without changing the actual argument. As far as I am concerned, this is the bleedin' obvious.
In message 200, Hyro admits/concedes:
Hyro/NJ writes:
Maybe I wasn't trying to consciously "gay-bait" but was gay-baiting.
Edited by dronester, : whoops, wrong person attributed to quote

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by cavediver, posted 07-01-2010 11:10 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by cavediver, posted 07-01-2010 11:32 AM dronestar has replied
 Message 241 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-01-2010 11:50 AM dronestar has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 238 of 424 (567488)
07-01-2010 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by dronestar
07-01-2010 11:21 AM


Re: What is the conclusion (Part B)?
And I see no conflict between what I have just written and what Hyro has written. Do you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by dronestar, posted 07-01-2010 11:21 AM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by dronestar, posted 07-01-2010 11:44 AM cavediver has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 239 of 424 (567493)
07-01-2010 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by cavediver
07-01-2010 11:32 AM


Re: What is the conclusion (Part B)?
cavediver writes:
And it was not the language that was found offensive, . . .
hyro/nj writes:
. . . but was gay-baiting.
Are you saying that if some one admits to "gay-baiting," he isn't necessarily using offensive language?
Perhaps I need to see actual examples for clarity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by cavediver, posted 07-01-2010 11:32 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by cavediver, posted 07-01-2010 12:35 PM dronestar has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 240 of 424 (567496)
07-01-2010 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by Straggler
06-30-2010 6:26 PM


Re: Just curious.
Did NJ relentlessly pursue a point with a gay member on a controversial topic in language that the member in question clearly found deeply offensive? Yeah I think we all agree that he did.
Did he call the guy an animal fucking homo who deserved to be hated? I honestly don't see it.
What else is there to say on this?
How/why did so many people insist that the latter was the only proper interpretation? And so much so that not moderating NJ because of it was reason enough to abandon the forum?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Straggler, posted 06-30-2010 6:26 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Straggler, posted 07-01-2010 1:45 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024