Oh wait, is that too emotional for you, my little sensitive flower? — TimeLine

This is usually the part where someone points out that that's sarcasm and makes a big hoo-haa about it.

No! Bad Timeline! You must behave as we want you to behave. (N)

How dare you believe that you have the capacity to regulate another person' emotions. Can you not see how elitist and arrogant that is? — TimeLine

I can see how elitist and arrogant the strawman version of me that you've constructed is. The actual language I used is: "it couldn't hurt to try" and "attempt regulating." Once again you appear to sacrifice content for emotional impact, in this instance by employing an obvious fallacy.

Your claim that content is important and that attempting to consciously navigate the emotions of others is too ambiguous an undertaking to consider is unsound for the simple reason that emotions can either assist or stand in the way of the communication of content. It's really not as difficult as you suggest. Of course if content isn't so relevant that's another matter.

Your example of the bright but inarticulate youth is somewhat misleading in that it was about vulgar language, and not directed at an individual who might take it personally, such as a personal attack towards an individual such as yourself. I imagine you would have had the presence of mind to deal with it if he had been aggressive towards you personally. Your write:

I should overcome the emotions wrought by these expectations of decorum (which is actually my failure) and appreciate the content and by doing so return by giving them comments that may assist them to understand how best to explain what they are trying to say. That is my responsibility and that is the best way of influencing them to learn and develop. — TimeLine

I assume your comments were of a nature that would not intentionally elicit a negative emotional response that would in all likelihood inhibit communication. That would have been counterproductive and irresponsible.

Once again you appear to sacrifice content for emotional impact, in this instance by employing an obvious fallacy. — praxis

Forgive me, but I somewhat confused. I thought you were all for emotions? So, are you suggesting that you agree with me and an analysis of content rather than emotions is more valuable?

Your example of the bright but inarticulate youth is somewhat misleading in that it was about vulgar language, and not directed at an individual who might take it personally, such as a personal attack towards an individual such as yourself. I imagine you would have had the presence of mind to deal with it if he had been aggressive towards you personally. — praxis

No, you are being misleading with this red herring by diverting the attention away from the problem and I have already provided reasoning vis-a-vis what may elicit regulation or what crosses that line; if a person calls me stupid, my theories idiotic, that I am a mindless drone or however which way they express themselves, so be it, it is my responsibility to reason why they are saying it and suggest alternate routes in the discussion. If that is impossible, then I ignore and move on.

It is easy to fall into a trap that speaks of the benefits of holding transcendental values and idealist principles of decorum - just like sacrificing our privacy in the name of security - but if we set such a standard then what we are essentially doing is generalising the multivarious community that we have and creating the 'Other'. In our world it would be ideal to communicate with likeminded people in a likeminded manner, but we reduce the likelihood of experiencing the vast array of minds and normative interests that exist out there, thus stifling knowledge.

If a person incites vilification or personally threatens then it is the content that is in question and regulation there becomes a necessity. But we don't need to minimise differences; when we form this characterisation of "decorum" it enables people to form a set image where they can potentially commit vilification but with "decorum" by speaking in a very articulate and professional manner. It is content that is important. In the end, I am only responsible for my own emotions and all I need to remind myself is that relativism is the key that keeps me in check, that neither my personality nor my beliefs are perfect and so ultimately apply the Socratic the only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.

No! Bad Timeline! You must behave as we want you to behave. — Sapientia

How naughty of me...

Definition of sarcasm
1 :a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
2 a :a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual

Oh wait, is that too emotional for you, my little sensitive flower? — TimeLine

If TimeLine's reply quoted above is what "sarcasm" is intended to be and do, it would seem counterproductive to be used by those who wish to have fruitful and productive discussions.

I personally wouldn't categorize the quote above as "sarcasm". I categorize that as condescending.
Definition of condescending : showing or characterized by a patronizing or superior attitude toward others

Right on cue.

Right on cue. — Sapientia

Oh were you waiting for me?
At the very least you have read the difference between the two terms: sarcasm and condescending, so we are all able to use them accurately.

At the very least you have read the difference between the two terms: sarcasm and condescending, so we are all able to use them accurately. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Yes. I'm filled with a great sense of achievement. Are you?

Can you guys stop your bickering please. Neither of you is going to back down, neither of you is going to 'win', there's absolutely nothing at stake in what you're doing. Instead, you've been putting each other down in various ways over the last, I dunno, week? You're both forum staff, act like it.

I'm not on forum staff, so do I get to misbehave? :D

If, then at least until someone stops you.

Can you guys stop your bickering please. Neither of you is going to back down, neither of you is going to 'win', there's absolutely nothing at stake in what you're doing. Instead, you've been putting each other down in various ways over the last, I dunno, week? You're both forum staff, act like it. — fdrake

@fdrake No, I am not a member of the forum staff but yes I can back down, as I have never been looking to win. Thank you for your moderation.

O I thought you were a staff. Sorry. But thanks!

@Sapientia
I do wish to put this clash of egos to rest and try to move back to us walking on the same absurd side of the street that we once walked down together. I wish to call you my fine feathered friend again. My efforts will be focused on that and we will see where that takes us.

... are you suggesting that you agree with me and an analysis of content rather than emotions is more valuable? — TimeLine

I actually agree with you on everything except for a couple of absolutist positions you seem to hold, namely that content is relevant and emotion is irrelevant, and that we are only responsible for our own emotions.

When someone expresses condescension in this forum are they expressing their value of content or their value of emotion? If for whatever reason a person was conditioned in such a way they got a little dopamine hit whenever they put someone down, regardless if it interfered with the exchange of content, they might persist in this behavior because it feels good. In some situations at least, it would be all about the feeling and not the content. There are other reasons, of course, perhaps tactical in nature, to express condescension in this forum.

About only being responsible for our own emotions, I can appreciate relativism, but I don't believe it offers a carte blanche pass. If we're not sure about someone we can be cautious until getting to know them better, if we care to. The emotional landscape is not as dark and unnavigable as you paint it.

O I thought you were a staff. Sorry. But thanks! — fdrake

One of them (Tiff or Sapientia) is a staff and the other one is a rod. If they are not careful as they walk through the valley, they might both get the shaft, which will definitely not be comforting.

I'm going to weigh in cuz why not?

I'm of the opinion that public discussion of moderator activity serves no philosophical purpose, offers nothing but drama to the forum, and results in hostile interactions between posters. To the extent someone has an opinion about moderator action, he can share it privately with the moderator, but there is no added value to having the grievance aired for public debate. If Bob thinks I suck, Bob telling me may set me straight, but I really don't need to hear what Mike thinks of Bob's grievance.

If my boss called me to the carpet for poor performance, I think it would be destructive for him to offer a public reprimand and then allow me a public reply and then to open it up to the floor for public debate.

We're a philosophy forum, and it seems a stretch to suggest that philosophy includes hearty debate about forum rules. Or, put another way, if all the words in this thread were never spoken (including my own words), this forum would be a better place.

I personally wouldn't categorize the quote above as "sarcasm". I categorize that as condescending. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

No, being condescending would be saying something like don't you know how to read? since there is a reason for that response of mine to unenlightened.

The fact is that everyone here is a sensitive little flower who hates being told they are a crap poster or crap moderator, or not objective. — unenlightened

Hence the...

This is common sense and the fact that I am repeating this is disturbing to me. Oh wait, is that too emotional for you, my little sensitive flower? — TimeLine

So, what you think matters very little, my sensitive little flower. Or is that too condescending for you?

Children, children..

It's all water under the bridge, anyway. It's flowing away from us as we speak. In fact, it's almost as though the less we speak, the faster it flows.

If my boss called me to the carpet for poor performance, I think it would be destructive for him to offer a public reprimand and then allow me a public reply and then to open it up to the floor for public debate. — Hanover

Indeed it would. And yet this is how the law works every day of the week, except Saturdays and Sundays, and it is fundamental that justice must be seen to be done, and not done in private or secret. Just in case your boss happened to be a serial abuser of his power in some way, as very occasionally happens, I have heard, then it would be constructive to bring such out into the open. There has indeed been a deal of unpleasantness in this thread, and there is bound to be unpleasantness when a complaint is made in public. Lawyers, police, and moderators deal in unpleasantness.

But my original post was about this very question.

So here, eventually, and in coded language, is a very simple question about this feedback forum: Are we allowed to talk about Kevin here? Are we allowed to say he is naughty? — unenlightened

And the very first response was prophetic.

I don't know about jamalrob, @Baden, or the other mods, but I won't delete such a discussion if you posted one. Although I'm certain it'll turn into a game of insult tennis and so a lot of offending posts will end up in the trash. — Michael

In the normal course of events, when there is a thread room brawl, one calls the mods with the flag system, or for something a little more subtle or complex, with a pm. But here in this very thread, I found a moderator brawling. I remonstrated publicly, I think I also flagged the post, but I may have forgotten to.

At this point, you are all tarred with the same brush, precisely because it is all public and you have all seen it and found it acceptable for a fellow mod to be openly insulting to more than one poster. Fuck you all therefore. Destruction is now necessarily what I am about. It will be my own destruction on this site no doubt, but that is no longer any great loss to me.

I don't think it's desirable for a mod to be involved in an exchange of insults with fellow posters. I don't condone it. But in our capacity as posters, we mods do sometimes get into conflicts with other posters. I don't think any of us are immune from that. The difficulty is sorting out where to draw the line, and it might take some time for us to work out what to do on that. Anyway, the "fuck you" part is fine. It's feedback. I'd appreciate some patience though.

I've added the following, based on an earlier comment of mine, to the guidelines, which I hope will clarify things a bit. It won't satisfy un, I'm sure, but we're not going to satisfy everyone here. So, consider this official.

"Moderator conduct:

In discussions, a moderator is subject to the same guidelines as everyone else, and shouldn't, under normal circumstances*, moderate their interlocutors. You can report a moderator or ask that a moderator be moderated in the same way as you would any other poster: by flagging their posts or by sending a private message to another moderator. In other words, moderators, as posters, don't have a special set of guidelines to operate under. So, in this capacity, they should be treated like other posters. When it comes to moderating decisions, however, they are not like other posters, because they have powers other posters don't have. In these cases, the Feedback category, or, again, a private message, can be used to complain about moderators' actions in their capacity as moderators.

(*Exceptional circumstances may include instances of racism, extreme flaming, etc. When the decision is very obvious, the action needs to be taken quickly, and there may be no one else on duty to do it.)"

At this point, you are all tarred with the same brush, precisely because it is all public and you have all seen it and found it acceptable for a fellow mod to be openly insulting to more than one poster. Fuck you all therefore. Destruction is now necessarily what I am about. It will be my own destruction on this site no doubt, but that is no longer any great loss to me. — unenlightened

There's very little we delete in Feedback (and other off-topic) discussions. As far as I can see, Sap's passive aggressive insults are no worse than those of non-mods (which also haven't been deleted). It's really only the egregious stuff that gets removed.

I actually agree with you on everything except for a couple of absolutist positions you seem to hold, namely that content is relevant and emotion is irrelevant, and that we are only responsible for our own emotions. — praxis

When we made emotion relevant in this thread, it only led to disarray and conflicting opinions that choked the point the initial OP was intending to make. The moment the content was objectively clarified based on the overall content, it settled into what became a guideline. Is the guideline formed to control the emotion? Perhaps. Perhaps we can congratulate emotions for enabling content to prevail, but in the end, content prevails.

About only being responsible for our own emotions, I can appreciate relativism, but I don't believe it offers a carte blanche pass. If we're not sure about someone we can be cautious until getting to know them better, if we care to. The emotional landscape is not as dark and unnavigable as you paint it. — praxis

There is nothing else you can do; you can caution someone that you don't like their approach and they may realise that and work around your feelings, but what one considers condescension another may not and I am not going to walk around egg-shells because such-and-such will find it mean or because people will consider it bad. I say what I want, within reason. And I totally get why:

Fuck you all therefore. Destruction is now necessarily what I am about. It will be my own destruction on this site no doubt, but that is no longer any great loss to me. — unenlightened

Fuck you all therefore. Destruction is now necessarily what I am about. It will be my own destruction on this site no doubt, but that is no longer any great loss to me. — unenlightened

If you're disgruntled to the point where you feel you offer nothing but poison, at least have the maturity to realize you offer nothing but mutual misery to yourself and this board and simply leave voluntarily. Keep in mind that this assessment is yours, not mine, but if you've observed something so unacceptable that you believe your integrity forbids respectful contribution, why remain? Will the blaze of glory of the termination you predict offer you great joy as opposed to your offering a simple tactful farewell?

Don't misunderstand me though. I think you're dead wrong in your assessment of this board, its mods, your own ability to continue to contribute as a poster, and I believe your decision to resign as a mod was a loss to this site and was an unnecessary gesture to make us realize the extent of your objection to the way a prior poster was handled. Whatever you romanticized about the impact of your resignation has been lost by your now sniping on the sidelines with "fuck yous."

You want constructive criticism? Stop being pissed off and come back into the fold. Despite your assessment of how bad we suck, I'd suggest you consider how many other boards have mods so tempered that they'd tolerate an ex-mod quitting and then lurking around and telling the others to fuck off.

Such protestations indicate an unheard grievance and while it might be an intriguing phenomenon to you, his persistence identifies the clarity of this efficacy. You can examine his actions as an absurd tactic, but you are wrong with the effect it is having. All you are asking for is either silence or submission.

You can examine his actions as an absurd tactic, but you are wrong with the effect it is having. — TimeLine

? Are we in an episode of "House of Cards" now? We need to talk about Kevin (Spacey). Actually, we do need to talk about him. But not here. Carry on.

You want constructive criticism? Stop being pissed off and come back into the fold. Despite your assessment of how bad we suck, I'd suggest you consider how many other boards have mods so tempered that they'd tolerate an ex-mod quitting and then lurking around and telling the others to fuck off. — Hanover

Whatever I'm doing, it's not lurking. I'm not pissed off either. And I don't want to come back to the fold because I'm not a sheep. I'm taking a stand for what I think is right, and doing it publicly and I'm fully prepared to take the consequences. Is that the limit of your ambition - to be not as bad as a lot of other places on the internet? Again, rather than address my criticism, you choose to denigrate my character. Again, fuck off with your 'romantic', your 'lurking'; it's ad hominem bollocks. The substance of your reply is

I think you're dead wrong — Hanover

which thought you are fully entitled to express, but argument ,analysis, and evidence would be more persuasive, to me at least, than patronising innuendo.

That is just... (Y)