Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Other Topics > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 07-28-2005, 11:40 AM
BruceZ BruceZ is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,636
Default Re: Moderation thread

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We were made moderators because Mat feels that our judgment about what is acceptable and what isn’t happens to correlate almost perfectly with his own.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does he think suggesting we 'bomb Mecca to Dust and ashes' is acceptable? Apologies for any minor errors in the quote.

I would like to be first to waive my right entirely to not be insulted, hopefully I don't make personal insults, although....

[ QUOTE ]
To a poster who stated that “misquoting is not slander”, I responded “Sure, this coming from someone who stated that ‘child molestation is great and should be encouraged’”. To those for whom this was a complete woooosh hair job, my intention here was that this depends upon what the misquote implies about the person being misquoted, as well as to whether this is intentional. This was in regard to a specific thing, and I don’t expect it to become a general issue. My apologies to Niss if this was misinterpreted. I thought it was clear what I was doing, but apparently not. Clearly his reaction proved that misquoting can most certainly be slander (or libel).


[/ QUOTE ]

...... I saw that coming a mile off, and I can't believe his idea of falling for that. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Regards Mack

[/ QUOTE ]

Well then you're a much more intelligent person than I. As I said in the other thread, there is significant difference between "misquoting" and "slander" or "libel". In my opinion, the attempted analogy was so absurd that, at least to me, it was not apparent what BruceZ was trying to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but I didn't say that there was no difference between misquoting and slander or libel. I said that a misquote can BE slander or libel, and I gave you an example which you agreed was libel. Now if you are going to argue that I didn't misquote you, well then... [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-28-2005, 11:44 AM
DVaut1 DVaut1 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 27
Default Re: Moderation thread

[ QUOTE ]
There are very few hard and fast rules on this site, but one of them has always been that everyone on this site has a right to participate in any of the forums without being personally insulted or personally disrespected.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems rather subjective; if I claim Koran isn't the word of God, and I've personally insulted a Muslim, is that grounds for a reprimand from the moderator? What if I make a similar claim about the New Testament; can a Christian report me to a moderator?

Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding this. I agree there's a need for forum moderation, but 'personal insult' seems like an awfully poor standard, particularly in the Politics Forum where tensions run high and many legitimate discussions could be construed as insulting.



[ QUOTE ]
You also cannot refer to one as a “stubborn mule who cannot see past the end of his wet little nose”. This latter case is made especially egregious when it is said about a highly respected member of this community, during an argument for which the offended party is a world class authority, who knows more about the topic under discussion than the insulter could ever hope to understand in his lifetime.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really have no idea about the post being referenced here, but from what I’m reading here, I’m somewhat wary.

I'm particularly concerned about the subjectivism here; is calling a less-respected member of the community a ‘stubborn mule’ more acceptable than calling a well-respected member one? It seems to me some of the more ‘disrespected’ members of the community are the posters who need their expression most protected by the moderators, and not vice versa; I think it’s rather effortless for 2+2 to create posting standards in which the more popular, respected members of the community are given deference in conflicts against unknown or less respected members. A more equitable standard would seem to be in one in which newer/older, popular/unpopular, and respected/disrespected posters are all held to the same standard, regardless of their standing in the community. Perhaps that’s the standard which exists now. In which case, it seems rather irrelevant to site that the poster in question here is ‘highly respect’ and only might only add fuel to the fire that unfair reverence is being given to veteran/popular members of the community.

Secondly, and somewhat related, I’m all for giving authorities their due esteem. But claiming the offended party is a “world class authority, who knows more about the topic under discussion than the insulter could ever hope to understand in his lifetime” also reeks of the subjectivism I referred to earlier. Authorities ought not to be given special protections by the moderators.


[ QUOTE ]
However, the danger of this situation is what if the world class authority were the type of person whom we might risk losing as a contributor because of this offense? I will do whatever is in my power to ensure that doesn’t happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, this seems patently unfair. Can a world class authority legitimately take offense if someone with much less knowledge disagrees with them? I think they can; it’s certainly a personal affront to the time, energy, and resources the world class authority has put into studying whatever subject their expertise lies in. But authority ought to be challenged; and challenging authority is almost always offensive to the authority, and well it should be.

If you take nothing else away from my post here, realize that I’m standing in objection to “taking offense”, or the preventing of such offenses being taken, as a standard of behavior on this forum. Standards such as that are doomed to fail, IMO, because they’re so completely arbitrary. If the world class authority is so clearly correct, the (respectful) scorn and disapproval of fellow members of the community against the uninformed party who is in the wrong is punishment enough.

[ QUOTE ]
Now that doesn't mean that you can’t insult or disrespect people’s ideas or arguments. Feel free to insult and disrespect those all you want. It is only when one insults not ideas or arguments but individual users that it is clearly over the line.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, there’s a real fine line here, and I don’t feel the moderators (or any human, for that matter) is fit to judge this standard. I imagine some ideologues on both sides feel that disrespecting an idea or an argument they make/have constitutes a personal insult to them. I can’t see the enforcement of this as anything other than arbitrary and hopelessly selective.

[ QUOTE ]
When I used to inspect software, we had a simple rule. When we found an error, we would say "the program is doing this [incredibly stupid thing] here". That was fine. We could not say "the author of this program is an idiot because of this error he made here". See the difference? That's all I'm talking about here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see the difference; but if the author of the program complains that calling his work (a computer program) stupid is somewhat akin to calling him stupid, and therefore you insulted him (as he’s a professional programmer who’s life’s work has gone into programming software), and that you should stop criticizing his work – I’d think he had a point. Which is why I think things such as “offense”, “criticism of authority”, and “insulting” are rather arbitrary standards here.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t try to prevent overly-insulting, mean-spirited, cruel, pointless posts that do nothing but inflame – but mere insult, even if the insulted party is a world class authority, ought not to warrant punishment.

[ QUOTE ]
This leaves plenty of leeway for vicious attacks on one's ideology and thought processes. The only attacks it excludes are ones which simply attach a negative label to someone in lieu of debating his ideas. These serve no purpose to anyone, and are the product of weak minds and weak arguments. We don’t lose a thing by disallowing this type of attack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Paying attention to what I bolded, this again smacks of subjectiveness. If I call David Duke a racist (a former Klan leader), this is clearly a negative label and contains absolutely no debate of his ideas; yet I find it perfectly legitimate and suitable for this board. What if I call Trent Lott, or Robert Byrd, a racist? Certainly, that’s much more debatable (I personally don’t think it’s true, and I think it’s patently unfair to both Byrd and Lott) – but I find it’s a perfectly legitimate comment to make, and one I would take no action to prevent.

Imagine that, hypothetically, I call Robert Byrd a racist – and as I said, I think this is perfectly legitimate (and unfair at the same time; as I said, I don’t think Byrd is a racist) – and now Poster XYZ comes to Byrd’s defense; I think it’s clearly legitimate to call Poster XYZ a racist, too – certainly I’d label anyone who came to defend David Duke a racist.

Political discourse is highly situation-dependent. While I don’t think labels are particularly useful, they can facilitate discussion, and labeling someone doesn’t necessarily indicate either weak minds or weak arguments, IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
We are not going to have a legal document that defines a personal insult.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don’t think personal insults ought to be a standard here. But if it is going to become the standard, I think we ought to have some parameters for what constitutes an insult – but I think the moderators are hesitant to produce such a document because they’re aware it’s impracticable; ‘insult’ is so subjective that no document could fully encompass what an insult is, who can feel insulted, what can be viewed as insulting, etc. The same reasons that I doubt moderators can produce a document which define what constitutes ‘insulting’ is the same reason I think it fails miserably as a standard of behavior.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-28-2005, 11:48 AM
daveymck daveymck is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 388
Default Re: Moderation thread

Once moderation went to the masses I expected all sorts of crap to go on, I am pleased that I havent been dissapointed I am more surprised that the main moderation issues have all come up in OOT and politics probably the last places it was needed.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-28-2005, 11:50 AM
BruceZ BruceZ is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,636
Default Re: Moderation thread

[ QUOTE ]
Why the sudden talk of restrictive moderation in the politics forum?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because an unaccepable violation occurred here under my watch. No other reason. Hopefully I won't have to do anything else on this forum for a long time.


[ QUOTE ]
And why wouldn't a more regular and long term forum poster (like Dynasty) be the one to do this moderation if it were deemed necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not moderating the political forum per se, but there are certain rules of decency which apply throughout the site.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-28-2005, 11:59 AM
Broken Glass Can Broken Glass Can is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: GWB is a man of True Character
Posts: 718
Default Re: Moderation thread

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why the sudden talk of restrictive moderation in the politics forum?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because an unaccepable violation occurred here under my watch. No other reason. Hopefully I won't have to do anything else on this forum for a long time.


[ QUOTE ]
And why wouldn't a more regular and long term forum poster (like Dynasty) be the one to do this moderation if it were deemed necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not moderating the political forum per se, but there are certain rules of decency which apply throughout the site.

[/ QUOTE ]

The last moderator to moderate outside of his forum was suspended from moderating for a time. I'm not suggesting that this situation is similar though.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-28-2005, 12:04 PM
andyfox andyfox is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,677
Default Re: Moderation thread

Matt had to take action with eLROY. And he should have with Dr. Wogga. The guidelines Bruce has set up seem reasonable to me. There will be no moderation of political viewpoints, just of personal insults.

As you know, my political views are about 180 degrees opposite of Bruce Z.'s. But I have absolutely no problem with the moderation of the forum as he's described at; more than that, I welcome it.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-28-2005, 12:11 PM
DVaut1 DVaut1 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 27
Default Re: Moderation thread

After finally searching out the post that prompted BruceZ to take action, then seeing this exchange, I stand even firmer against the moderation proposed.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-28-2005, 01:30 PM
MMMMMM MMMMMM is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,103
Default Re: Moderation thread

[ QUOTE ]
What's pzhon an expert on?

[/ QUOTE ]

Excuse me, Nicky, but just how do you know that it isn't Cyrus who is the expert of reference here?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-28-2005, 01:41 PM
MMMMMM MMMMMM is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,103
Default Re: Moderation thread

[ QUOTE ]
This seems rather subjective; if I claim Koran isn't the word of God, and I've personally insulted a Muslim, is that grounds for a reprimand from the moderator? What if I make a similar claim about the New Testament; can a Christian report me to a moderator?

[/ QUOTE ]

Asserting that a religious text isn't the word of God is far different than personally insulting a member of that religion.

Some people, especially politically-correct types, might try to make you think the two actions are equivalent, but they aren't. Genuine debate on any topic cannot be rationally construed as an "insult".

[ QUOTE ]
Secondly, and somewhat related, I’m all for giving authorities their due esteem. But claiming the offended party is a “world class authority, who knows more about the topic under discussion than the insulter could ever hope to understand in his lifetime” also reeks of the subjectivism I referred to earlier.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is not necessarily a subjective assessment (especially if the discipline in question is a hard science such as physics or mathematics).
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-28-2005, 01:49 PM
andyfox andyfox is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,677
Default Re: Moderation thread

You guys are missing the point. Bruce Z is entitled to say that he wants to escort people out of Mecca and turn it into a parking lot. I'm entitled to say it's not a smart idea because it will result in a worldwide conflagration that will mean tens of millions of deaths. All Bruce is saying is we should not call each other names. Period.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.