Eh, I see that comment as unnecessary. There's no need to set that tone or create a clear divide between posters and mods.

At the same time it's more useful to look at what the mods are actually doing than listen to what they say they are doing. Do you actually have an issue with the moderation, or just with something that Un said? I don't feel that there is a large gap between my interests and the mods interests.

There's a bit of a better vibe than the old place, there isn't the same feeling that everyone's head is just a couple bad posts from being on the chopping block. Maybe that's just an illusion since it's mostly the same mods here anyway.

Do you actually have an issue with the moderation, or just with something that Un said? — shmik

I did disagree with the decision to fold a poster's topic into a kind of trash-bin thread, but I didn't address it directly because the damage was done. I did comment in that thread that beliefs shouldn't be thought of as moral or immoral. That attitude actually closes down the possibility of discussion, and I believe Unenlightened's totalitarian demeanor does as well.

I appreciate Unenlightened's desire to protect the forum, but that attitude is not needed here and poses more harm than good.

There's a bit of a better vibe than the old place, there isn't the same feeling that everyone's head is just a couple bad posts from being on the chopping block. Maybe that's just an illusion since it's mostly the same mods here anyway. — shmik

Paul did admit to me that the old forum was over-moderated in regard to banning. He explained how that situation evolved. I've no issues at all with any of the mods feeling the need to be heavy handed except Unenlightened, who is falling into the exactly the same "I'm the thought-police" attitude that he had at the old forum. As I said, I don't think it's necessary.

I think you've taken un up the wrong way. To say it's not a democracy here is just a fact. Neither the site owners nor the mods are elected, and it's not practical to hold referendums on moderating decisions. That doesn't mean we don't consider the needs of the community as a whole here or how they like to see things handled. Our considerations on this issue are just what the guidelines are based on. But no set of guidelines or practices is going to fully please everyone, especially not on a philosophy forum. Further, these guidelines don't represent any changes in policy. So, if you didn't feel this place was totalitarian before, there's no reason to feel that way now.

...considering this forum is just a handful of people, most of whom know each other, that the moderators and admins draw on the advantages of community — Mongrel

We're expanding at a rate of about 4 members / day. At this rate, we're likely to hit 1000 members within six months. As I said before, that increases the workload on the mods and having a written set of guidelines helps alleviate that somewhat.

So, the answer to your question "How totalitarian does this forum really need to be?" is as little as is practically possible to keep members happy both in terms of the quality of the site, which is largely defined by the standards of discussion we maintain, and in terms of the amount of freedom they have to say whatever they wish. As those two elements sometimes work against each other, a balancing is necessary.

There's a bit of a better vibe than the old place, there isn't the same feeling that everyone's head is just a couple bad posts from being on the chopping block. Maybe that's just an illusion since it's mostly the same mods here anyway. — shmik

There are only two people who can ban anyone, jamalrob and me, and as far as I can remember at least, the only member who has been banned was a spammer. It's not in our interest or the interest of the site to alienate members by being ban-happy. Again, the way we work is intended to further everyone's interests. The site is the sum total of all the members not just the mods and admins. In other words, we go by option 2 above.

I think you've taken un up the wrong way. To say it's not a democracy here is just a fact. Neither the site owners nor the mods are elected, and it's not practical to hold referendums on moderating decisions. That doesn't mean we don't consider the needs of the community as a whole here or how they like to see things handled. — Baden

In that statement, Un. said that members vote with their presence, which I took as an invitation to leave. I would like to see Un endorse your statement that the moderators are interested in how the whole community thinks and feels.

In that statement, Un. said that members vote with their presence, which I took as an invitation to leave. — Mongrel

Again, I just interpret un's statement differently. It's a fact on any forum that members vote with their presence. That doesn't mean we want them to leave. We want as many to stay as possible, but not at the expense of keeping people here who would do clear harm to the overall quality of the site.

I would like to see Un endorse your statement that the moderators are interested in how the whole community thinks and feels. — Mongrel

OK, what he does or doesn't say is up to him obviously.

Seems like a bit of a false dichotomy. No, it's certainly not a democracy. Neither was the old forum, nor most forums, to my knowledge. You shouldn't be offended by that. But we do draw on the advantages of community, we don't act without any interest in the opinions of other members, and we do consider how the membership in general likes to have things handled.

You both agree with me that the moderators are interested in the opinions of the other members.

It's not a democracy, and while we all like to argue about rules and principles, decisions are made by the aforementioned offensive fuckers according to the kind of stuff they like and don't like to see — unenlightened

So, I don't know if Un was drinking when he wrote this, but no one was called an offensive fucker. I told him he didn't need to be fucking offensive, referring to the dictatorial tone he had just taken with another poster.

Come on, guys. His statement very clearly indicates that he has no interest in what anyone "likes to see" other than himself and the other moderators. You think I misunderstood him?

Really?

I did comment in that thread that beliefs shouldn't be thought of as moral or immoral. That attitude actually closes down the possibility of discussion, and I believe Unenlightened's totalitarian demeanor does as well. — Mongrel

Ironically, in both cases, it has lead to further discussion on those subjects. There is a meta-ethical discussion about what sorts of things can be rightly considered moral or immoral, but, counterproductively, if we were to rule out beliefs, that would surely cut off the possibility of much normative ethical discussion about whether this or that belief is right or wrong.

Come on, guys. His statement very clearly indicates that he has no interest in what anyone "likes to see" other than himself and the other moderators. You think I misunderstood him?

Really? — Mongrel

I see your objection caused more by the style of what un said than the substance. But again, un can speak for himself.

Could be. I appreciate your taking the time to discuss it.

No worries.

So, I don't know if Un was drinking when he wrote this, but no one was called an offensive fucker. I told him he didn't need to be fucking offensive, referring to dictatorial tone he had just taken with another poster.

Come on, guys. His statement very clearly indicates that he has no interest in what anyone "likes to see" other than himself and the other moderators. You think I misunderstood him?

Really? — Mongrel

Jeez Louise. Yes, I think that you've taken it the wrong way. It clearly wasn't the most diplomatic statement, nor I suspect was it intended to be. It was more in the style of "Here's how it is, like it or not. Deal with it". But I think that you've taken it to heart. Un's remark there was clearly tongue-in-cheek, and therefore shouldn't be taken so seriously. Seems kinda fair play to me, too, given that he was responding to your allegation that he was being "fucking offensive" - ramping up the tone with an expletive. And you've just used a slur about his drinking. I can assure you, he's only had ten whiskies tonight. Not nearly half as much as me.

But seriously, what's with all this drama on the forum tonight?

Fuckety.

Un's remark there was clearly tongue-in-cheek, and therefore shouldn't be taken so seriously. — Sapientia

You're probably right. I won't take it seriously.

But seriously, what's with all this drama on the forum tonight? — Sapientia

I'm not apologizing for it. I found Un's "I'm in charge and nobody gives a shit what you think" schtick to be unacceptable at the old forum. I'd rather not see it start up here.

That's all.

You're probably right. — Mongrel

I'm always right.

I just want to echo Baden's and Sapientia's comments and say that I can't see anything objectionable in Un's comment.

I found Un's "I'm in charge and nobody gives a shit what you think" schtick to be unacceptable at the old forum. I'd rather not see it start up here. — Mongrel

And I don't recognize this description. I'm guessing you just have difficulty seeing through Un's unique style and tone to the soft-hearted teddy bear beneath.

It is permissible, in my view, for moderators to act like that but only if posts are shared around forums in a Usenet-like manner so that if a minority doesn't like the moderation of a certain server they can change without disadvantages such as low post or reader rate.

I would like to see Un endorse your statement that the moderators are interested in how the whole community thinks and feels. — Mongrel

I am very interested in how the community thinks and feels, but I have learned to be very tolerant of how individuals feel about me personally. Nobody likes their own pearls disregarded, but almost everyone likes other peoples shit shovelled out of the way.

As it goes, I don't really do any moderating here, as I've had enough of it at the old site. So my impatience with the endless demands for total freedom from folks that would not like it if other people were free have very little impact except to annoy the 'right to opinion, no one can judge' brigade.

I see that comment as unnecessary. There's no need to set that tone or create a clear divide between posters and mods. — shmik

I didn't create that divide, its set up by the forum software. Moderators have powers of editing and areas of discussion that are not available to ordinary members. This is completely standard throughout the internet; the more people see it as unnecessary or offensive, the more needful I see it to make it explicit. Forums work this way because without such a divide, chaos usually ensues, and chaos is boring.

The radical democracy of the internet consists of the endless frontier, which allows anyone who doesn't like the regime of one site to set up a new one, as was the case with this site. And if people like the new regime or lack of regime, they will flock to it.

So while there is a deal of sense in discussing a particular moderating decision, a particular moderator, or the exact wording of a guideline in relation to the site as a whole and the feelings of members, it makes no sense at all to question the whole team, or the general direction of the guidelines or the whole notion of moderation, because that is simply what the site is.

It is curious, given that I have made not a single edit, deletion, move, or ban, that my statement of fact is being called offensive, totalitarian, unnecessary, and so on.

Generally speaking, I have found this forum to be congenial and the moderating pretty light. Most of what annoys me, is either my fault, or the software, which has some issues. But I've got no reason to criticize anyone who takes ownership for making the facility available, if I did I would vote with my feet (so to speak).

How totalitarian does this forum need to be?

Admins and moderators should act without any interest in the opinions of other members

Admins and moderators should consider how the membership in general likes to have things handled. — Mongrel

Too black and white to answer :)

Yall need to remember that we're just a little forum run by guys and gals (?) who like a good philosophical yarn once in a while. We aren't an institution run according to best practices and precedents and so on. The rules are meant to appeal to your intuitions, as they do ours. If you try and test our limits, we're likely to flounder every once in a while because frankly, we're making it up as we go along.

So at the very least, the rules against racism, sexism and homophobia are meant as a bulwark for the sake of civility. They're flags, they indicate the kind of forum we are, especially to new users. As far as we're concerned, we want to do as little work as possible. We follow the path of least resistance. If you want to give us work, you're not likely to to end up on our happy list. This includes when you try and test our limits.

Can you guys come up with a better brouhaha? This one is boring.

I had a re-read of the post, the tone can be taken as more or less aggressive - it looks like I took it as more aggressive than you meant it. Plenty of us probably don't feel that this is Jamalrob's site, or the mod's site. There was a community that moved here. They probably like me see the mods as other posters who volunteer to keep the place running, not some governing body or authority. I get that part of being a mod is needing to be an authority at certain times.

I do agree with what you wrote, that a site shouldn't be democratic. If you didn't mean it in the way of 'my way or the highway', then yeh there's nothing wrong with the comment. If people don't like the culture of the site, which includes moderating decisions they can leave.

I am very interested in how the community thinks and feels — unenlightened

Good. I'm glad to hear that.

It is curious, given that I have made not a single edit, deletion, move, or ban, that my statement of fact is being called offensive, totalitarian, unnecessary, and so on. — unenlightened

It was unnecessary and it was the kind of comment I've seen from you many times. The next time you make that sort of remark, we can hash it out again, OK?

I like the idea of an actively moderated philosophy forum, but the only sort of moderation I want to see is that the moderators make sure that it mostly stays on track--that is, so that folks are mostly discussing/doing philosophy.

I think that's valuable just because I like there to be an active place online to intelligently discuss philosophy in a focused manner, and I want that for purely selfish reasons--it satisfies my desire to "stay in practice" in that mode, to be challenged a bit and to be prompted to keep studying, to keep on top of things I've either mostly forgotten or that I wasn't really familiar with in the first place, since I have no significant social involvement in an academic environment any longer (and haven't for quite some time).

It was unnecessary and it was the kind of comment I've seen from you many times. — Mongrel

You've seen it many times, because I consider it necessary from time to time, and not unnecessary. Moderators are here doing quite tricky, and necessarily judgemental work for no pay, to make this a great place to discuss. They are entitled to the support and gratitude of the community, but they very rarely get it. Instead they get accused of being blinkered, totalitarian, uncaring, and worse things that I will not repeat.
These things must be tolerated by them in feedback for the sake of openness, but they do not have to like it or be impressed by it, any more than you have to like my tone in responding to such nonsense.

Generally speaking, I have found this forum to be congenial and the moderating pretty light. — Wayfarer

Glad to hear it. That's exactly what we want - to be in the background keeping things ticking along so you all can get on with what you do best i.e. filling this site with high quality content, and in the process making it the best place to do philosophy on the net.

Just don't expect us to be any more angelic than anyone else if you drag us out of the shadows. ;)

These things must be tolerated by them in feedback for the sake of openness, but they do not have to like it or be impressed by it, any more than you have to like my tone in responding to such nonsense. — unenlightened

So again, really simply.. there is no need for you to come across in a dictatorial fashion. Your fellow moderators agree with that and have informed me that I misunderstood you.

If this issue arises again in future, I think we'll just need to discuss it again and have you admit once again that in moderating the forum, you are interested in the input of the community of members that make up this forum.

Not hard to grasp, I wouldn't think.

There is need for clarity. This is how the site works. The owner sets it up, recruits some folks he has some regard for to help him, and other folks vote with their presence or absence. It's not a democracy, and while we all like to argue about rules and principles, decisions are made by the aforementioned offensive fuckers according to the kind of stuff they like and don't like to see. The guidelines give a general indication of what that is, and those that don't understand them or don't wish to abide by them are probably going to have problems with the site.

The internet is too big and people are too ridiculous to be able to operate without blinkers and get even part way round the course. — unenlightened — Mongrel

Wow, did you really say that unenlightened?

Btw, if so, which offensive fuckers were you referring to?