New Moderators

Re: ever on and upwards

But all three -- and the administrators -- also know that all the watching in the world doesn't suddenly make this place a democracy. When people get admonished -- or worse -- by a moderator, they don't like it. Those who agree with them don't like it, either. If all those people then complain, they should not expect the administrator to do anything to reverse the decision of the moderator.

This is not the first time I've done this. Forums have been around a long time. There are many PDF files and even entire web sites devoted to how to moderate them effectively. I've read most or all of those PDF files and web sites over time, and one of the first things they say -- usually in large, bold letters -- is that the administrators must give the moderators their heads; and that they cannot get into the business of overriding decisions or being, in effect, the other parent to which the child can run to try to play one against the other.

If the moderator is to be useful and effective; and if his/her authority is to be respected and to have integrity, then his/her decisions need to be final (unless, of course, s/he, himself/herself decides to reverse them... as I've seen Bruce, for example, do here with his own decisions in the past... which is just one of the things that makes him good at this, in my opinion).

If the members here -- or in any forum, for that matter -- feel like they have a vote, then the whole construct falls apart. Moderators are not unfireable, mind you. I don't mean that. I'm just saying that an administrator should, only after a history of moderation blunders, simply say "it's not working out" and terminate the moderation rights. S/he (the administrator) should never do so after a uprising of some percentage of the group in response to an indentifiable (to the group) moderation issue. If that happens, it cuts the legs out from under other moderators because the group then learns that if it sufficiently organizes and complains, the administrators will yield to their wishes.

As both Chip and Bruce have pointed-out to more than one person whose posts or threads they have deleted, or whose usernames they have disabled, this isn't a democracy. I knew -- and said -- that around here even before I became a moderator. The moderator needs to be able to say to someone "knock it off" or "you're outta' here" knowing that said someone can't then turn around and expect to have success running to another moderator, or to an administrator, and getting the first moderator either admonished or reversed. Any administrator who would yield to and/or cooperate with that is no longer in charge. And if there's one thing that Chip and Bruce are around here, it's "in charge."

So everyone can talk all they want about "watching carefully" around here, but it matters not. The decision(s) of the moderators/administrators -- unless they, themselves, choose to reverse them -- should be final. If a given moderator, in the view of the administrators, is making too many bad decisions, then said moderator should simply first be counseled and then, if things don't change, quietly asked to resign, or should be fired, or something along those lines. But ever letting the group see a moderator be overridden, according to every "How to Moderate a Forum" document I've ever read, is a huge mistake on the part of the administrators. That being the case, the group's "watching carefully" won't have a whole lotta' impact.

But these kinds of discussions are so speculative... and I'm offended, frankly, that I'm being singled-out for it. I've written here from my heart and with great passion at times. But never abusively or anything that I'm ashamed of. I've taken some things back a time or two, and apologized, but that doesn't mean I'm ashamed of anything I've written or would not do it again under exactly the same circumstances. Just because there are people who vehemently disagree with me doesn't mean that I was wrong for writing whatever it is that I wrote. It just means that they disagree. My opinions sometimes rub all kinds of people the wrong way. Good! That's what forums are for. The marketplace of ideas -- and the opinionated ways in which they're expressed -- is not necessarily supposed to run smoothly. Discourse -- at least if it's worth reading -- can sometimes get uncomfortable... as it should be. If not, then no one's viewpoint is being challenged. Having to defend a position is one of the best ways of making sure it has merit. Without people like me, there would be no one to disabuse the misguided of their meritless and foolhardy notions! [grin]

Some of the comments made here most recently in this thread -- like Danny Ng's, for example, just to name one -- betray of their authors that they did not really read the two-part post I made earlier herein. Most all of these issues were quite adequately covered there. A thoughtful reading will reveal that that which they fear is not the issue they think it is. I wish that those who simply do not like me because we have tangled in other threads, or because my political positions with which they so passionately disagree (and which passion is, no doubt, exacerbated by my ability to so effectively express them) would not use this thread as an opportunity for some kind of weird, backdoor payback.

If you (and by that I mean the collective "you"... as in "any of you") want a piece of me, fine. My being a moderator doesn't mean we still can't argue; nor does it mean that I'll ever lose it and throw you outta' here just because you're winning. We just need to do it in the thread where I've written that with which you do not agree... where it belongs. That's how people, who truly understand how discourse works, behave.

Again, I thank those who have expressed their good wishes either here or privately; and I respect the opinions of those who think -- and have expressed that -- making me a moderator was a mistake. Neither of you, I assure you, will be disappointed by how I do the job. Now I wish everyone would stop talking about it, or I'll have to close this thread.

[pause while it sinks in]

Ha! Just kidding! Man, you people are easy.

 

Woo hoo!

 

Oh, yeah... one more thing...

One thing I forgot to mention that I've been thinking about today...

If you want to talk moderation -- or at least above and beyond the call of duty trying to hold this place together during the attack on Friday -- I think that John Bear and Uncle Janko deserve a real atta' boy!

Dr. Bear sounded the alarm to Chip and Bruce... and even hunted Chip down in the non-cyber world to make sure he knew what was going on.

And Janko posted, as fast and as furiously as he could, messages within the offensive threads to try to make sure newbies and others who were losing respect for this place, but fast, knew and understood that that knucklehead's words and behavior was not what this place was about and that Bruce or Chip really would do something about it as soon as possible. He (Janko) also PMed alot of people and further reassured them... and kept-up these activities for however long it took... until it was over.

Others behaved similarly, by the way, and should not feel left out or unappreciated just because I can't remember precisely who they were as I'm writing this.

They did these things for the same reason that I wanted to become a moderator: Because they care about this place; about how it appears to others... and they didn't want DI's good name sullied by a jerk over whom, and whose posts, they had no control...

...but whose words, bygod, they were not gonna' let anyone think actually defines this place. The threads and posts which began, "I thought this place was about..." and then cited the bigotry, the racism, and the foul language of the attacker... and, moreover, wondered if that's what this place either was about or had become; and lamented that it wasn't what they thought it was... well... I dunno about you, but that just made my heart sink.

Those like Bear and Janko and the others whom I cannot remember right now, but who jumped in there and did their best to assure the readers that this was an exceptional and temporary moment that did not have anything to do with the good work this place does, are to be congratulated. They were the heroes of the moment; and they, one and all, deserve an atta' boy... and our thanks.

 

I think Dave C. and Gregg are both right.

It's true that the crowd's "watching" should not influence decisions that are made. It undermines moderation's goal, which is (let's face it) an attempt to have a forum where posters abide by the TOS -- and the TOS is not something that should bend and twist with today's wind.

It's also true that poor moderational decisions can lead to a democracy of "the feet". (That is to say, an exodus or democracy of attrition.)

That said, how did Gregg end up in the "hot seat"? For being passionate? Hell, if that were a hangin' offense, I'd be the first to be hanged. For having opinions and stating them? Geez. Who here doesn't have those?

After my last explosion (over which I am still stingingly embarassed and humiliated over my own behavior) I realized that the first person who must "moderate" my behavior is me. I can't expect some external force to come in and tell me when I've gotten too heated or angry. I have to learn what the signs of that are, and nip it in the bud before it becomes a stain on my name.

I don't, on ideological grounds, agree with many people here. They know that, I know that. There have been a few specific things that I really don't like, even recently. But that is my problem, not the board's or its members' or its moderators'. I'm sure there are people here (and abroad) who don't like me or my decisions or my views. Such it is. Take this specific case, and you will likely be able to multiply it by the number of members here and abroad who post. We all differ ideologically, even those who are "close" on the line of ideological belief.

The key thing is not "agreement" but civility and respect for personal space.

We all come from different cultures, backgrounds, and ideological spaces. It's amazing public forums can function at all in as diverse a setting as the Internet. They only do so because people (implicitly or explicitly) agree to put aside their differences long enough to engage in discussion of matters that mutually interest them. That's something none of us had until the Internet (or at least Fidonet).

That's something our children have, that we did not. We are learning how to "get along" without kissing one anothers' behinds. We are setting up a culture that will be passed on to our children. Pioneers.

And the way it works is this: if people can't learn to police themselves, the state is always more than willing to come in and start throwing laws around to do it for them. Think about that. Who'd you rather have for the moderator of an Internet board? The patriarchal "state", or a set of private individuals with varying views on things?

Maybe it's just my crystal ball speaking, but if the Internet in general doesn't learn to police itself, the state will jump in and do it for us, for our own and the public "good". Can smell it already. In my opinion, it's much better to subject to the private system of moderation that to legislated homogeneity.

And that's why I support wholeheartedly a wide variety of personal styles and viewpoints from moderators of public boards, even when those views aren't necessarily along my own thinking. I can always vote with my feet in such a system -- but I can't vote with my feet once the whole game is taken over by force of the state.

 

Actually, I didn't mean to make it sound like I thought Dave C was wrong. I just happened to use something he wrote to launch from and make a larger point. I sure hope he doesn't think I was really aiming what I wrote at him, personally!

 

I think ALL the choices for new, additional moderators are good ones, and I have always strived to respect the wishes of the moderators of this board (even when I disagree with them).

Also, I'm looking forward to some really really long explanations from Gregg when he is kicking someone's butt out of here.....

 

In my view, FWIW, there remains but one albatross from the aftermath of the whole LL event. In the interest of fairness, I'd like to see it as publicly settled as it was publicly brought forth.

I'm sure it's a delicate matter, but it deserves some form of stated resolution. Well, IMO, anyway. I don't post enough here or anywhere to have my opinion matter, I'm sure, but it seems a deep matter of conscience that oughtn't be shoveled under a rug.

 

Quinn, your moderation here does not match your vituperation elsewhere.

 

What needs to be settled?

We all know hatred, bigotry, and racism are offensive and should not be tolerated on this Board, and it wasn't.

It was dealt with and has been resolved.

 

Your opinion certainly matters here. You've posted things with which I don't agree here and in other places, but that doesn't mean that what you post doesn't matter.

At any rate... to what, precisely, are you referring... just so we can all get on the same page? What's the albatross from the aftermath of the whole Libertarian_Larry event that needs to be "publicly settled as it was publicly brought forth"? What's the "delicate matter" that "deserves some form of stated resolution" and that's "a deep matter of conscience that oughtn't be shoveled under a rug"?

I'm not asking in a confrontational way. I'm honestly lost. Help me, here.

 

Re: Re: ever on and upwards

Appreciate you never get too dramatic.

 

Re: Re: Re: ever on and upwards

Me? Naaah!!! Never!

Listen, Jimmy... what do you think Quinn's talking about? Or anyone reading this. What did I miss? If DI needs to atone for something, then I'd sure like to know what it is!

Just askin'

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: ever on and upwards

I have no idea, hence my post. Quinn and I have been friends for several years but I just don't know what he is talking about here.

 

I spoke out against racism and baseless acusations of racism, translated a letter from French to English, updated someone who asked on the status of my dissertation, discussed the notion of original contribution as it pertains to graduate study, and I stated that I do not believe that Dennis Ruhl was Libertarian Larry and that I hoped he would receive an apology for that (and other) acusations.

Which vituperation did you find most offensive?

I've said it before, Janko, and I'll say it again: I believe in the separation of state and higher education, and I believe in the exercise of free speech, even when it flies in the face of my own opinions.

That said, I believe in live-and-let-live, which means that I do not, and will never support or endorse:

1. Attacks on people's private lives and careers,
2. Assaults on character hiding under a veil of anonymity,
3. Assaults on personal well-being (private or public).

I don't like the public smearing of individuals, and I pray it will all stop. Everywhere. It serves no purpose. It's ugly, and it's painful. It damages the sayee, and the sayer.

It can stop. People who badmouth one another can just plain stop it. In the past, I ranted and raved against my own moral code. You (and others) can now, as a result, say, "coffee calling the kettle black" or you can believe me when I say that I understand the spiritual damage that allowing one's anger to get in the way of one's standards for behavior can truly cause. It's an ugly scar to bear, and it does not vanish. But even scars are the sign that some healing has occurred, and there is repentance.

I do not believe in the "goodness of all". I am, from the ideological and spiritual point of view, rather of the belief that there is no good in mankind of mankind's own doing. I do, however, believe in compassion without condescension. And I do believe that the law is written on every person's heart, and that conviction is a personal spiritual matter that I am not worthy to interfere with. It is thus my conviction that all people are to be treated with compassion and understanding.

My own heart is no less putrid than the next. It must be made a slave to my Father's nature, and not allowed to be a slave of my own human nature. And so I do not sit in judgment of the masses, but have endeavored instead to address the ideals and the ideas.

And the ideals and ideas that I espouse are that men and women must be free to educate themselves as they see fit, within the boundaries of the Laws of Cesar. All else is totalitarianism, which reeks in all its forms. Men and women must be free from state authority wherever state authority is not absolutely necessary. This is "libertarianism" (a word that I hesitate to use, as it has become recently sullied, but will use despite this abuse).

But sometimes we see that when the heavy hand of the law is lifted just a bit, nature takes over nurture, and all Hell breaks loose. This is unfortunate. But this does not mean that we need more laws. Some things cannot be legislated away.

The state must not control what enters the minds of those who elect the leaders of the state. Believe it or not, once one gets behind all of the screaming otherwhere, that is the message that repeats itself. It is not a shill's cry. It is a cry as old as the American Constitution. I shed the shackles of being the judges of those who would behave loudly (often in response to perceived injustices towards them), and I listen instead to the ideologies related to libertariasm in post-secondary education.

I cannot seek to please you, Janko, or them. Some are not entirely happy that I post here, some are not happy that I post there. I don't seek to make you happy, but please be assured that I do not seek to make you unhappy, either.

In an ideal world, some of these things would not be so tightly bound together. The personal mudslinging, et cetera makes it very uncomfortable. But the world is not ideal, and my discomfort with the modalities and the dynamics that have evolved is of no major importance. Wish it were.

I am trying to live within the boundaries that the real world has presented. Wishing it were won't make it so.

 

Lessons from Lerner....

Methinks Quinn has recently taken lessons from Lerner on obtuseness.....

 

Re: Lessons from Lerner....

"I do not believe that Dennis Ruhl was Libertarian Larry and that I hoped he would receive an apology for that (and other) acusations."

How's that for crystal clairity?

 

So... um... Quinn... is somewhere buried in there the answer to my questions, to wit:

• Originally asked by DesElms:
  What's the albatross from the aftermath of the whole Libertarian_Larry event that needs to be "publicly settled as it was publicly brought forth"? What's the "delicate matter" that "deserves some form of stated resolution" and that's "a deep matter of conscience that oughtn't be shoveled under a rug"?

I really want to get to the bottom of your concerns so they can be addressed. Seriously. Help me understand what needs to be addressed.

 

Re: Re: Lessons from Lerner....

Oh... I see that you posted this (immediately above) while I was posting my (the previous) post, above.

So... is that it, then? Is that what you're talking about?

 

The very public pointing of the finger at (and specific naming of) someone for being Libertarian Larry, when the only way one might have possibly been confident is (perhaps) a pattern of static IP numbers that (one assumes) only board adminstrators have access to.