It is currently Sun Nov 18, 2018 5:19 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 166 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: From ''transformed archaeology in Mexico''
PostPosted: Thu Feb 01, 2018 4:39 pm 
God

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm
Posts: 7392
Res Ipsa wrote:
Lemmie, I consider an accusation of lying to be a pretty serious thing. I also think it's an accusation too commonly made here. If in the very unlikely event that I think you're lying in the future, I'll let you know like this: "Lemmie, I think you're lying."

I don't think you're lying. I think your brain is filtering our conversation, like all brains do. I think you've been sloppy for not checking your own actual statements before you accuse me of twisting your words, and I think you're rationalizing when you describe this:

Lemmie wrote:
You really are that stupid.


as this:
Lemmie wrote:
I did indeed ask you if you really are that stupid.

You are of course absolutely correct, but you already assumed that before you read my posts, right? :lol: Not. Much like you are sloppily rationalizing what your brain is interpreting, now insisting that saying someone is "claiming" something is untrue is not the same as saying "you are lying," I am seeing that you don't understand that the colliquialism I used is the equivalent of asking a question. It is much like how my disagreement with you over the offensiveness of "bitching" was redefined by you as "twisting my words."
Quote:
But at the risk of subjecting you to another of my omnipresent theoretical lectures, I'll sign off now. See you around.

{Pssst -- did you see how I trolled you there?]

Why yes! Why leave now, dear Mod!? I find it quite exhilarating that tne mod who has a one in three chance of reading any reports I might make considers me bitching but in an innocuous way, non-truth claiming but not quite yet labeled as lying, and a sloppily rationalizing brain who he is happy to not-quite personally attack by using a verb form instead of a noun, but only down here in Telestial.

It's almost like this whole thing was a mission you were on just to get me to never report another mg post..... oh wait. :rolleyes: ok, I get it now. :lol: :lol: :lol:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From ''transformed archaeology in Mexico''
PostPosted: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:44 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:16 pm
Posts: 29428
Location: Off the Deep End
Shulem wrote:
I recall, years ago, you goofed up and gave me access into the moderators forum or something like that. I read some of it out of curiosity but felt a little guilty for doing so. Do you remember that? I recall telling you I had been given access by mistake.

:biggrin:

Guilty? Sir, you have no guts. When I found it open one time, I posted in it.

:lol:

_________________
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb


Stay close to the people who feel like sunlight ~ Arsu Shaikh


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From ''transformed archaeology in Mexico''
PostPosted: Thu Feb 01, 2018 11:22 pm 
Founder & Visionary
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:07 pm
Posts: 13050
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
LEMMIE:

This fact slipped my mind until now, but every so often I'll be stumped on the best or proper way to deal with a report, so I purposefully leave it alone in the hope that A) EAllusion will have a better idea on how to proceed and, uh, proceed accordingly, or B) a flash of insight will occur to me if I mull it over for a while or sleep on it.

A bit less commonly, the board will move fast some days and the "report flag" will move with its thread farther down the page than I'm used to looking, so I simply miss it for a while.

My point? If it takes a while for one of your reports to be acted upon, then sometimes it's because of one of those three issues.

_________________
"[Elder] Pearson says he uses a 'black box' for those issues that bother him. . . He forgot to mention that his black box has gotten so big he had to put an addition onto his house."

--kairos, 08-08-2018


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From ''transformed archaeology in Mexico''
PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2018 1:12 am 
God

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm
Posts: 7392
Dr. Shades wrote:
LEMMIE:

This fact slipped my mind until now, but every so often I'll be stumped on the best or proper way to deal with a report, so I purposefully leave it alone in the hope that A) EAllusion will have a better idea on how to proceed and, uh, proceed accordingly, or B) a flash of insight will occur to me if I mull it over for a while or sleep on it.

A bit less uncommonly, the board will move fast some days and the "report flag" will move with its thread farther down the page than I'm used to looking, so I simply miss it for a while.

My point? If it takes a while for one of your reports to be acted upon, then sometimes it's because of one of those three issues.

Dear Dr. Shades,

Thank you, but there is no need for an explanation. I took advantage of the opportunity to vent a little down here in Telestial and I had a little fun sparring with your new mod but I'm over it now.

Personally, I have never been comfortable making reports and I only made a few because it seemed that the board preferred that over responding to posters that I consider trolls. It has been a failed experiment as far as I am concerned, so the best course for me is to concern myself with only what I can directly control.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From ''transformed archaeology in Mexico''
PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2018 7:37 am 
Son of Perdition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm
Posts: 7752
Lemmie wrote:
Dear Dr. Shades,

Thank you, but there is no need for an explanation. I took advantage of the opportunity to vent a little down here in Telestial and I had a little fun sparring with your new mod but I'm over it now.

Personally, I have never been comfortable making reports and I only made a few because it seemed that the board preferred that over responding to posters that I consider trolls. It has been a failed experiment as far as I am concerned, so the best course for me is to concern myself with only what I can directly control.


Venting down here is good for the soul.

Mentalgymnast is a ____ troll -- he's a little troll and a big troll all rolled up in one!

____ off, mentalgymnast you ____ troll!

:lol:

Troll!

Troll!

____ ____ troll!

_________________
THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM FACSIMILE NO. 3

Includes a startling new discovery!

An original and authentic look at Facsimile No. 3 as never seen before.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From ''transformed archaeology in Mexico''
PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2018 9:16 am 
God

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm
Posts: 7392
Res Ipsa wrote:
...I've explained completely why I reviewed and kept IHAQ's post as the first in the split. What he's never addressed is his start of a derail, which is the primary reason why I kept it there.


Wow, I missed this before. So the "primary reason" you kept his post as a derail is because he didn't explain himself well enough to convince you to do otherwise? Is that how the troll gets mods to go his way--he explains himself better? No wonder ihaq was so ____ frustrated.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From ''transformed archaeology in Mexico''
PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2018 1:37 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:37 pm
Posts: 7594
Location: On walkabout
Lemmie wrote:
Res Ipsa wrote:
...I've explained completely why I reviewed and kept IHAQ's post as the first in the split. What he's never addressed is his start of a derail, which is the primary reason why I kept it there.


Wow, I missed this before. So the "primary reason" you kept his post as a derail is because he didn't explain himself well enough to convince you to do otherwise? Is that how the troll gets mods to go his way--he explains himself better? No wonder ihaq was so ____ frustrated.


No, Lemmie. As I've already explained, I kept it as the first post in the split thread because it is, in fact, the start of the derail. I actually explained that a couple of times. First, in response to IHAQ asking why his post was considered to be a derail, I explained:

Res Ipsa wrote:
The new topic introduced as a derail is something like “MG is a disingenuous troll.” Your post is the inception of the derail. You changed the topic from the BofA to MG and his motivations for posting. Several others jumped on the derail, interfering with the substantive conversation that others tried to continue.

Once a new thread has been created, the appropriate forum has to be selected. Calling someone a troll is an attack on the person, especially when combined with accusations of being dishonest. But also keep in mind, when splitting off a derail, we have to look at a thread as a whole to see where it belongs. That means looking at the thread as a whole.


viewtopic.php?f=2&t=48349&start=42#p1108892

Then, in response to IHAQ's request that I move his post back to the original thread, I posted this:

Res Ipsa wrote:
As background, the split was done in two stages. The first consisted of the first three posts. I didn't do that one. The next day, I reviewed the thread, including some comments on the way it had been split, and concluded that the "MG is a troll" topic had indeed derailed the thread. As I'm the new kid, I posted a suggestion in the mod thread that all posts addressed to MG's intentions, posting patterns, behavior, etc. be moved to the split thread and that the title be changed. After getting some feedback, I edited the split to its current form. I was originally going to change the title to "Derail/Personal Attacks From....," but I thought that sounded klutzy. So, I went with the more neutral "From" and added a mod note to explain the basis for splitting the thread and for assigning it to telestial. In the process of editing the thread, I expressly considered whether your post should be the initial post of the new thread. I concluded that it should because it initiated the derail. If you can persuade EAllusion or Shades to change that call, good on you. I think it's the right call and respectfully decline your request.

On the personal attack issue, I also think that your post fairly falls within the category of personal attack. In my opinion, your post did not address the subject of the thread and was devotes solely to attacking the character and motivations of MG. But, let me add, the rules also state that we are charged with enforcing the spirit and not the letter of the rules. We recognize that, from time to time, people are going to get snippy with each other and throw an elbow. We tend to let those slide in favor of letting the conversation continue unimpeded unless the thrown elbow escalates into a fistfight.

With regard to the past, there's a third set of eyes on the board now, so there is more time and resources for moderating. The new kid is also peppering Shades and EAllusion with questions like "what about this" and "what about that" and that may have tightened up enforcement a little.

I also want to make it clear. It's perfectly within the rules to start a topic called "Is MG a troll" or "Trolling as a mopologetic tactic." You just have to start it in the right place. Having a thread moved is not some kind of punishment. It's to give readers a choice among "academically polite" "generally polite" and "rough and tumble" Something like that.


viewtopic.php?f=2&t=48349&start=63#p1108950

So, I think I fully explained the basis for my decision. That basis was: after reviewing the thread, I concluded that IHAQ's post initiated the derail.

Now, just five posts after I gave a detailed explanation of how and why I left IHAQ's post at the start of the new thread, I responded to a post from Jersey Girl, in which she said that I wasn't "getting" IHAQ and that the mods needed to listen to folks more. That's when I made the post that you've purported to interpret:

Res Ipsa wrote:
Why do you think we're not listening? We're not a triune entity. i've explained completely why I reviewed and kept IHAQ's post as the first in the split. What he's never addressed is his start of a derail, which is the primary reason why I kept it there.


viewtopic.php?f=2&t=48349&start=63#p1108955

That post expressly references the detailed explanation for my decision that I'd just made a few posts above, in which I explained that I felt that moving the post was justified as both the start of a derail and a personal attack, but the main reason for my decision was the derail issue. Given that context, the meaning of my last sentence is crystal clear: the "primary" reason for my decision was "his start of a derail." My point was that IHAQ kept arguing about the "personal attack" issue, which I thought was secondary. I was simply pointing out that he had never, in all his statements to me, explained why I was wrong to consider his post the start of the derail. I have no problem at all reversing an incorrect call. But first someone needs to at least try to show me why the call was incorrect.

_________________
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From ''transformed archaeology in Mexico''
PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2018 1:37 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:37 pm
Posts: 7594
Location: On walkabout
Shulem wrote:
Lemmie wrote:
Dear Dr. Shades,

Thank you, but there is no need for an explanation. I took advantage of the opportunity to vent a little down here in Telestial and I had a little fun sparring with your new mod but I'm over it now.

Personally, I have never been comfortable making reports and I only made a few because it seemed that the board preferred that over responding to posters that I consider trolls. It has been a failed experiment as far as I am concerned, so the best course for me is to concern myself with only what I can directly control.


Venting down here is good for the soul.

Mentalgymnast is a ____ troll -- he's a little troll and a big troll all rolled up in one!

____ off, mentalgymnast you ____ troll!



:lol:

Troll!

Troll!

____ ____ troll!


Wasn't this a song in Lord of the Rings? :mrgreen:

_________________
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From ''transformed archaeology in Mexico''
PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2018 1:41 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 7:58 pm
Posts: 2693
Res Ipsa wrote:
Wasn't this a song in Lord of the Rings? :mrgreen:

I LOVE Lord of the Rings!!! My ring tone on my phone is the Lord of the Rings theme.

_________________
So you're chasing around a fly and in your world, I'm the idiot?

"Friends don't let friends be Mormon." Sock Puppet, MormonDiscussions.com.

Music is my drug of choice.

"And that is precisely why none of us apologize for holding it to the celestial standard it pretends that it possesses." Kerry, MormonDiscussions.com
_________________


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From ''transformed archaeology in Mexico''
PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2018 1:46 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:37 pm
Posts: 7594
Location: On walkabout
Troll sat alone on his seat of stone,
And munched and mumbled a bare old bone;
For many a year he had gnawed it near,
For meat was hard to come by.

Done by! Gum by!

In a cave in the hills he dwelt alone,
And meat was hard to come by.

Up came Tom with his big boots on.
Said he to Troll: 'Pray, what is yon?
For it looks like the shin o' my nuncle Tim,
As should be a-lyin' in graveyard.

Caveyard! Paveyard!

This many a year has Tim been gone,
And I thought he were lyin' in graveyard.'

'My lad,' said Troll, 'this bone I stole.
But what be bones that lie in hole?
Thy nuncle was dead as a lump o' lead,
Afore I found his shinbone.

Tinbone! Thinbone!

He can spare a share for a poor old troll,
For he don't need his shinbone.'

Said Tom, 'I don't see why the likes o' thee
Without axin' leave should go makin' free
With the shank or the shin o' my father's kin;
So hand the old bone over!

Rover! Trover!

Though dead he be, it belongs to he;
So hand the old bone over!'

'For a couple of pins,' says Troll, and grins,
'I'll eat thee too, and gnaw thy shins.
A bit o' fresh meat will go down sweet!
I'll try my teeth on thee now.

Hee now! See now!

I'm tired o' gnawing old bones and skins;
I've a mind to dine on thee now.'

But just as he thought his dinner was caught,
He found his hands had hold of naught.
Before he could mind, Tom slipped behind
And gave him the boot to larn him.

Warn him! Darn him!

A bump o' the boot on the seat, Tom thought,
Would be the way to larn him.

But harder than stone is the flesh and bone
Of a troll that sits in the hills alone.
As well set your boot to the mountain's root,
For the seat of a troll don't feel it.

Peel it! Heal it!

Old Troll laughed, when he heard Tom groan,
And he knew his toes could feel it.

Tom's leg is game, since home he came,
And his bootless foot is lasting lame;
But Troll don't care, and he's still there
With the bone he boned from its owner.
Doner! Boner!

Troll's old seat its still the same,
And the bone he boned from its owner!

--Sam Gamgee, The Fellowship of the Ring

_________________
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From ''transformed archaeology in Mexico''
PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2018 6:42 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 7:58 pm
Posts: 2693
Quote:
Sam Gamgee, The Fellowship of the Ring

And Sam is my favorite character! :mrgreen:

Thanks for the memories.

_________________
So you're chasing around a fly and in your world, I'm the idiot?

"Friends don't let friends be Mormon." Sock Puppet, MormonDiscussions.com.

Music is my drug of choice.

"And that is precisely why none of us apologize for holding it to the celestial standard it pretends that it possesses." Kerry, MormonDiscussions.com
_________________


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From ''transformed archaeology in Mexico''
PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2018 7:43 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 7:58 pm
Posts: 2693
"Fellowship of the Ring" is on Netflix. I'm actually watching it this morning.

_________________
So you're chasing around a fly and in your world, I'm the idiot?

"Friends don't let friends be Mormon." Sock Puppet, MormonDiscussions.com.

Music is my drug of choice.

"And that is precisely why none of us apologize for holding it to the celestial standard it pretends that it possesses." Kerry, MormonDiscussions.com
_________________


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From ''transformed archaeology in Mexico''
PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2018 10:37 am 
God

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm
Posts: 7392
Res Ipsa wrote:
In my opinion, [ihaq's] post did not address the subject of the thread and was devotes solely to attacking the character and motivations of MG. But, let me add, the rules also state that we are charged with enforcing the spirit and not the letter of the rules. We recognize that, from time to time, people are going to get snippy with each other and throw an elbow. We tend to let those slide in favor of letting the conversation continue unimpeded unless the thrown elbow escalates into a fistfight.

And that is a perfect description of how moderation favors the passive aggressive troll who is here to cause disruption.

Step 1: The troll throws a passive aggressive elbow, it's disruptive to readers but it is ignored by mods because it is not openly responded to.

Step 2: Second passive aggressive elbow thrown by the troll, participants grit their teeth, recall the Jubilee awarded to the troll and rise above, not responding. Mods ignore the elbow, but not because its not an elbow.

Step 3: Third passive aggressive elbow thrown by the troll, a little freer this time because he can always argue elbows are acceptable to mods (see step 1 and 2). Some participants leave because they can see the troll is determined to disrupt the thread. Troll wins that round. Mods ignore the elbow, but not because its not an elbow..

Step 4: Fourth passive aggressive elbow thrown by the troll. A participant reports the post. Because mods look at individual troll posts, they don't see the pattern and dismiss the report, because they "... recognize that, from time to time, people are going to get snippy with each other and throw an elbow. We tend to let those slide..." Participant notices report is dismissed with no action, is further frustrated, tries to respond to troll without commenting on troll component. Conversation is further impeded, but mods don't see that.

Step 5: Fifth passive aggressive elbow thrown by the troll. Frustrated participant defines the pattern as evidenced by elbows 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, and accurately identifies the behavior as trolling. Troll reports the post as a personal attack, frustrated poster sees his post is now moved and identified as a personal attack. Mod explains his post was an attack, but still does not recognize the disruptive nature of the pattern of passive aggressive elbow throwing. Troll convincingly argues that he is just here to provide another viewpoint and it's not fair that the echo chamber is so mean to him. Mods don't consider that a personal attack because the passive aggressive troll is careful to be just vague enough so that it is not clear, as a stand alone post, who he is referring to.

Final outcome: Frustrated poster leaves, conversation is further impeded, other posters see that the troll will be allowed to troll and decide to not participate in future threads after the troll starts posting there, reporting a troll is seen as ineffective because patterns are not taken into account and passive aggressive elbow throwing is rewarded. Troll takes sadistic pleasure in the disruption.

Repeat, Step 1: The troll throws a passive aggressive elbow, it's disruptive but...

Repeat, ad infinitum.

And in case you think mentalgymnast really isn't aware of all this....
mentalgymnast, November 19th, 2017, wrote:
That's where some of the residents of Shady Acres sort of messed up. They readily and repeatedly pointed out the "passive aggressive behavior" (which they will most probably continue to do) but then responded anyway and fanned the flames.

Epic fail.

I expect they will change their ways. One can only hope.

Regards,
MG

*oops. edit to add...sorry, I forgot that I wasn't going to post on any of these "All About MG" threads anymore. Impulsive response and memory failure. It won't happen again. Apologies.


Sounds like a troll who knows what he is doing.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From ''transformed archaeology in Mexico''
PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2018 12:00 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:37 pm
Posts: 7594
Location: On walkabout
And that’s one plausible interpretation of a long and complex series of events. An adequate response would be fairly lengthy, and I’m not inclined to put in the necessary time and effort, only to have my post dismissed as another of my “omnipresent lectures.”

_________________
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From ''transformed archaeology in Mexico''
PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2018 12:58 pm 
God

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm
Posts: 7392
Res Ipsa wrote:
And that’s one plausible interpretation of a long and complex series of events. An adequate response would be fairly lengthy, and I’m not inclined to put in the necessary time and effort, only to have my post dismissed as another of my “omnipresent lectures.”

Good thing we are down here in Telestial, then!
Res Ipsa, wrote:
"In my opinion, your post did not address the subject of the thread and was devoted solely to attacking the character and motivations of...."

On a more personal note, for how long are you going to play that victimhood stance because I objected to your lecturing? Thinking way back to when I said that, I was expressing my opinion that you have a habit of unnecessarily waxing theoretical. IIRC, in that thread you gave a long definition of the balance fallacy and then you gave a long, unrelated example. Meanwhile, I had defined the balance fallacy several posts earlier and related it by example to the ongoing thread, which it seemed you were ignoring by simply going over all the same material again. Your theoretical lecture was really quite unnecessary and when it happened again, I made my comment. I expressed an opinion. Obviously you disagree, but when you just keep mentioning it repeatedly as a snide aside, you just look like you think you were somehow victimized.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From ''transformed archaeology in Mexico''
PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2018 2:16 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:37 pm
Posts: 7594
Location: On walkabout
I have a proposal: that you and I have what I call a "good faith conversation" on the subjects raised in your post on passive-aggressive trolling and moderation. I would split that post and this one into a new thread. By good faith moderation I mean this: both of us recognize each other as intelligent adults who are love this board. In the conversation, we will make our best efforts to address only the subject and will not make process comments.
Quote:
Process commentary can be defined as comments on here-and-now behavior and the immediate relationships between people.
We won't comment on each other's behavior, motivations, etc., but address the substantive topic. And, most importantly, we will assume that the other is approaching the conversation in good faith: exactly as we are.

None of this is enforceable, and if are tempted at any point to think the other is not following these guidelines, we'll assume the other is doing his or her best and not post about the other's failure to comply.

At any point, either of us can terminate this mode of conversation by just saying so. The experiment ends. No hard feelings.

If you are interested in having a conversation along these lines, I'd propose splitting your post and this one into a new thread. I'd request that anyone else participating in the conversation follow these guidelines, but it's a nonenforceable request. You and I, however, would do our best to extend the guidelines to our interactions with anyone in the thread.

\Would you be interested in having a conversation under these guidelines?

_________________
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Personal attacks from ''transformed archaeology in Mexic
PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2018 3:13 pm 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am
Posts: 14675
Lemmie wrote:
Is that a new rule? Or is it one of those Jubilee things where calling only mentalgymnast a troll is a personal attack?


I just started reading this long conversation, so I wanted to address this.

The terrestrial rules require people to refrain from blatant or obvious personal attacks. This is traditionally moderated to allow people to insult one another unless it is simple and/or repetitive use of insulting language or particularly harsh. This requires some moderator judgment to intervene, but is ultimately preferable to trying the alternatives of allowing any kind of personal attack or moderating legitimate discussion that happens to have the potential to offend or hurt someone.

What has happened with MG recently is people are responding to his posts by calling him a troll over and over as a dismissive insult when read in context. There does come a point when someone does that and it crosses over into what we think of as "personal attack" where mere discussion as to whether someone's posting constitutes trolling does not. There's an art to this, but if someone writes, "I think this behavior constitutes trolling" or references a poster's history of trolling to bring into context something they've written, that's substantively different than writing several posts in sequence that say things like, "Nobody cares what you think troll. So why don't you shut up. Cowardly troll." That sounds more like a blatant personal attack than anything resembling conversation. When it comes to the word "troll" being moderated as a personal attack, that's the kind of context in which it has come up. I think the "little troll" example probably is on that side of the line. It hasn't been moderated a lot, though I have personally moderated a few examples of it and messaged some posters. The only true warning I issued over it was extremely blatant in terms of its use as attack. I have no doubt the poster I issued that warning to knew that was their intent, but was trying to walk the line. I said that was the wrong side of the line, and that was that.

Derailing is a separate issue. Again, there is an art to this. All discussions ebb and flow naturally. The goal isn't to prevent any tangential discussion or allow a person to censor threads they start by calling any comment they don't like a "derail" and requesting it be moved. Rather, the goal is to prevent discussions from going out of control because people pull the central discussion away to another topic in such a way that it sabotages discussion of the original topic. Res Ipsa made a judgment in the case of this thread that the "MG the troll" subtopic on this thread had functioned more as a derail about people's contempt for MG. It's not that this can't be discussed at all, but this goes to format rules for how to discuss it.

I discussed both these topics in the moderator forum recently. For the sake of transparency, I can quote myself. These were in discussion with moderation history with Res Ipsa:

Quote:
Personal attacks are a difficult thing to moderate because we do not moderate all personal attacks. Doing so would dull meaningful exchanges a great deal and there is a subjective quality to when a criticism functions as an personal attack. After all, the mere act of saying somebody is wrong about something is almost always also saying something is deficient about them. There is precedent in moderation for when personal attacks are severe or habitual enough to warrant relocation, but you need to develop a feel for it and watch closely how it gets moderated.

For example, I noticed recently that several posters were dismissively calling MG a "troll" in nearly every reply to him. At first, I was iffy about moderating, but after reading the context more, it was apparent that the intent was dismissive name-calling and it had become a pattern. So I stepped in and acted on some posts while messaging a few posters. At the same time, if someone spent some time arguing MG is a troll in a thread, I'd be in favor of letting that go.

The Celestial forum has a higher standard and the only personal attacks that have a chance of sticking are those that are literate and subtle, as you would expect in an academic publication. The formal rule is no personal attacks whatsoever, but again, there is no perfectly clear line between disagreement and personal attack, so the standard really revolves around policing intent, focus of discussion, and quality of writing.


and

Quote:
Derails I find to be the toughest area of moderation. It's also where a lot of reports we have been getting are focused lately.

The problem is that message boards promote discussions evolving on tangents by their very nature. That's part of the appeal. No one, not a single poster who reports a derail, wants us to kill any comment that isn't focused on the topic of the OP in the most direct, literal way possible. The board would become a ghosttown in a heartbeat, because people aren't generally interested in that. Everyone wants some ebb and flow to the conversation, including tangents inspiring other tangents. There are boutique threads started with a clear purpose of maintaining a singular topic, and it's easy to keep those threads focused at the starters' request. Those are rare, though. Most conversations aren't like that, and it would be boring if they were.

The real problem, and what we want to moderate in theory, is when people attempt to sabotage the flow of discussion by purposefully trying to pull the conversation away to another topic (usually inter-personal conflict). The borderline cases are tough to pick apart.

Shades can speak to this too, but what I'm seeing lately is people trying to control the kind of comments allowed by reporting what they don't like as a "derail" while blatantly leaving other posts that are just as much off the central topic alone. I think MADB's favorite Orwellian strategy was exactly this. They'd simply censor what they found disagreeable by declaring it "off-topic" while allowing equally or less off-topic material to stand. It was a sham basis to censor. I'm very sensitive to it, and I think we run the risk of allowing the crowd to censor speech similarly if we simply move and edit posts when people who don't like them report them as derails. I try to be very careful only splitting derails that have clear evidence of deliberate attempts to sabotage the direction of discussion, have absolutely nothing to do with the thread, or when all participants seem to prefer that the topic be split.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From ''transformed archaeology in Mexico''
PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2018 3:28 pm 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am
Posts: 14675
On the topic of splitting threads, there's a conundrum on moderating that comes up a lot.

Often times, when a thread has gotten to the point that it needs to be split, it's not because a post came out of the blue that needs to be moved. That certainly happens, but there are also frequent cases where the conversation goes sideways gradually. What you see is an arms race where participants gradually one-up one another in terms of insult, derail, etc. that just eventually gets to the point where there are posts that need to be moved. As a moderator, you have to decide where to cut off the conversation and move the offending items to their appropriate location.

My approach has always been to try and identify the point where a post crossed the line and move from there. I look at them on a single post by post basis. If things were gradually getting worse, but did not cross a line, I try to leave that intact. Other moderators try to find the beginning point where things got off track and split from there in order to preserve maximum context. It's a balancing act and there is no clear right way to do this. My approach prioritizes the adherence to the rules over thread coherence, but that's not an inherently superior way to do it.

I do know what whichever route we pick, there is potential for someone to be offended that their posts were moved or be offended that other posts were not.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From ''transformed archaeology in Mexico''
PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2018 3:31 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:37 pm
Posts: 7594
Location: On walkabout
Thanks for posting that, EAllusion. The one thing I would add is that, when moderating a derail, I try to focus on whether the new topic is getting in the way of the original topic. Sometimes conversation on the original topic dies out and someone introduces s different topic. Although that technically could be described as a derail, the new topic isn’t getting in the way of the old one, and so I’d leave it be. In the case of the thread from which this was split, what I saw was folks struggling to discuss the topic while others continued to interject the troll topic. The new topic was getting in the way of the old one, and so it made sense to have two threads, each discussing it’s own topic.

Although some details can be malicious, I generally don’t view starting a derail as a moral failure and don’t view splitting threads as any kind of punishment or disapproval. In most cases, it’s more like being a traffic cop.

_________________
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From ''transformed archaeology in Mexico''
PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2018 3:37 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:37 pm
Posts: 7594
Location: On walkabout
My last was a response to your first. It sounds like I tend more to look at thread coherence, but I do give weight to adherence to the rules. I use the same approach you do in deciding where to start the new thread. And, although there is no bright line, I try hard to distinguish between a natural meander and a derail.

_________________
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From ''transformed archaeology in Mexico''
PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2018 3:53 pm 
God

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm
Posts: 7392
res Ipsa wrote:
By good faith moderation I mean this: both of us recognize each other as intelligent adults who are love this board. In the conversation, we will make our best efforts to address only the subject and will not make process comments

Well, we are in Telestial and I have been snarking a lot down here where it is allowed, so pardon a process comment, but I assume you are not referring to interactions here, but are referring to interactions in Celestial, Terrestrial, or Spirit Paradise..
res Ipsa wrote:
I have a proposal: that you and I have what I call a "good faith conversation" on the subjects raised in your post on passive-aggressive trolling and moderation....
Would you be interested in having a conversation under these guidelines?

Thank you, no. I came down here, where it's allowed, to snark about this topic, to share some information from my research, and to express my opinion.

There is an inherent power structure differential in place that I believe would prevent a fair starting point in such a conversation. By that I mean a conversation started by a moderator, about moderation, where the moderator dictates that said conversation can only take place under the rules he sets. You comment that "none of this is enforceable," which is of course not equally true for both of us, because if one of us is "tempted at any point to think the other is not following these guidelines," only one of us has the power to do anything about it. I am not assuming you would mis-use your power, I am just stating that it is inherently an unbalanced approach.

If you are interested in my research, however, about the theoretical topic of passive aggressive disruption to online communities and the recommendations for moderation, I am happy to share more of what I've learned in a different thread.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 166 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group