Rule enforcement in the PPR forum.

Post Reply New Topic

Well, you know how it is gwenevyn: being a WP mod is just the first step to world domination .


Don't accuse me of that. It was our antipodean friend Postperson who used the word first, not me. I merely commented on her observation. It was, nonetheless, an accurate observation.


You can't wrap people up in cotton wool in a place where people discuss controversial and emotive subjects without disadvantaging a lot of other people and stifling debate. There are already areas for people of a delicate disposition to post where those with a more direct style of communication don't. Perhaps you could consider adding "safe" areas before taking actions preventing others contributing? Because preventing people contributing is where I can see this leading. A lot of us don't want to see this place degenerate into somewhere where only AS kids and the delicate sensitivities of their NT moms are welcome. I'm sorry if that also sounds rotten, but I really can't see any other way of putting it. I like this place just as it is, and see no reason to change it.

You said: "It has been for sure. Things are just fine now. It's unfortunate that a bunch of control-obsessed do-gooders want to change that."

I don't know whether the first part was accurate (I know the second part isn't). Certainly your view must be based on something concrete that happened, so let's talk specifics. Saying you don't like "overmoderation" or "control-obsessed do-gooders" really doesn't tell me much beyond the fact that you have strong feelings about the issue. What do you really mean?



I agree--to an extent. Direct communication does not need to include rudeness and insults. In fact, I'd wager it almost never does. "You are an as*hole" is a pretty nebulous statement. It proves nothing, presents no evidence, and makes no coherent point beyond a frustrated expression of the speaker's feelings. I don't call that direct or in any way admirable.

You say you're worried about preventing a portion of the membership from contributing to the PPR if the rules are enforced. I definitely share that worry. However, we need to keep in mind that this is already occurring. A free-for-all isn't everybody's cup of tea.

I don't think hurt feelings are at the center of this matter. This thread is not about protecting crybabies. It's about examining the effects of allowing those with short tempers and a penchant for rudeness to dominate the forum and harass those who have unpopular opinions. Without any intervention at all, members are reinforced when they act as bullies. Right at this very moment, I don't think the PPR is in horribly bad shape, but I don't think it's as good as it could be. I've also seen it at times when anybody interested in rational debate would have just rolled their eyes and left.

Ideally I think what I'd like to see is an environment in which the members keep themselves in check and do not tolerate or encourge violations of the ToS. I'd especially like to see a lot less hostility toward those whose views put them in the minority at WP. Can that be fostered? If so, how?

ok blame me, everyone usually does in RL.

ummm I wasn't referring to you, gwenny, when i used the term overmoderation, I was referrring to the mods of some years ago, duncvis, his wife and others who left in a huff over the issue, I vaguegly remember that they seemed to want to moderate Alex too, which was their largest error. Now they overmoderate at other site/s whose names I shan't mention.

Leave the PPR (Politics, Philosophy, and Religion) forum as it is.

Enforce rules evenly; don't give the trolls and flamers immunity whether the topic is controversial or bland. Whether insulting people individually or by the droves, these people shouldn't get away with it.

With an iron fist.

At least a good size banstick.

LET THE ANARCHY of the PPR STAND!!

Go, anarcho-PPR-ism!!

Why?

Just a thought, should the PPR forum be taken as an adult discussion and that being in the members area?

I strongly feel that the free and open exchange of ideas, sometimes with all the rash expression of emotion that comes with taking a strong stand, is a threat to the stability and welfare of our forum. In the future, we should take into consideration the wishes of the demure, who would avoid any disagreement or ideas too unexpected. Not offending anyone should be our highest priority, and to do this we must restrict not only the style of what we say (i.e., avoiding ad hominem attacks) but also the ideas we wish to express. Some philosophies and cosmologies are just too much for some of our meeker members to even read about; others are offended even seeing an idea expressed that is diametrically opposed to their worldview. We have been libertine and irresponsible to let this state of affairs to have ever come about. Now is the time to fix that.

If I am made dictator-for-life of this forum, I and the deputies I shall appoint will make sure positively no interesting discussion and debate occurs here, and the meek shall finally be free to express their lack of opinion!

Greenblue, I'm not sure what you are asking. Can you explain a bit more?

Sarcasm duly noted. Nobody's suggesting anything extreme. Why do you wish to make it seem otherwise?

Do you have anything helpful to contribute? I'd prefer it if you could do so in a straightforward manner so I can understand better what you're after.

well, if we leave the forum as it is, then I suppose it should be taken as a mature oriented forum, as with stuff that happens here sometimes, which it does not provide a good example for children, the younger ones, now it seems that it isn't clear if the PPR is intented to be "family friendly" or not, then in such case, the rules should be inforced more.

I also believe that it should be accesible only for members, if its been seen by anyone and bad stuff is happening, then it wouldn't look good to people who might want to join.

well, just a thought.

Because I believe in liberty!

You haven't been one of the bad ones, but whose liberty to do what?

Refering to the TOS isn't a lot of help. Most people read it once, at most. It's fairly clear that it's written to allow you mods to do what you want. I'm not criticising that, because I know there are reasons it has to be that way, but refering to them in a discussion involving members' opinions of how the site should be run doesn't get us anywhere. You'd be better off with a realistic statement of how you think communication in a particular forum should be undertaken stickied at the top of that forum and written in a concise, yet non-dictatorial, manner.

Furthermore, you (as in all the mods) could make a point of leading by example. That would include not using the word "troll" when refering to people who've fallen out with the social hierarchy, not engaging in or encouraging mockery of others even if you do think they have nefarious intent, and would also include stepping in with a word of encouragement for the underdog when you perceive certain folk are being unfairly targeted. Those are things you can do, indeed we all should, but the onus is on you as mods to make that happen. That doesn't require more rules, and it doesn't require you exercise your prerogative to officially ban and chastise anymore than you do at the moment.

I'll also say that some conflict, and some heated discussion that boils over into a little name calling can be fun, as can satire and insinuation. Dry philosophical discussion has its place, but there's more to the art of communicating than that. One only has to view PM's questions from the British Houses of Commons on TV, or Mr NeantHumain's amusing offering above, to see that.