Re: Lebanon

In article <4il20rF49bgnU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Yowie <yowie9644.DIESPAMDIE@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Ian Davis" <ijdavis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ea2oo6$tme$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <AH3xg.11560$2v.34@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Charley Earp <charley63spamblock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Russ Nelson was banned briefly, due to his persistent verbal attacks, but
he's back on it, though he actually restrains himself better these days.

However, that was years ago, these days there seems to be no moderation.

peace - Charley


How is one to know "if there is moderation", if the ability exists to
censure or ban the words of others. For a long time I subscribed to a
forum at http://www.milosevic-discussion.com/discussion/index.php. I
ceased
doing so when it became gated, due to the offensive things some wantabee
neo-fascists were regularly posting on the forum. My position is that a
forum which selectively chooses to post certain view points, while not
posting those that the moderator disapproves of, is no longer a neutral
forum in which all may discuss the issues, but instead a vehicle by which
those who want to promote their own propaganda find themselves empowered
to do so. It is said that all power corrupts, and that absolute power
corrupts absolutely. The evidence that the forum is not moderated, are the
very posts that most offend the majority of the readership. Absent such
evidence I as a pessimist would presume sight unseen that far from "these
days there seeming to be no moderation" that "these days there seems to be
moderation".

As a moderator for 3 groups, I am a little offended (not much, bear with
me).


Not comfortably cause you offence. It would be too close to offending myself
for I am normally in sympathy with the positions you take.

I agree that moderated groups/mailing lists can and do run the risk of
becoming an "fan club" for whatever ideology the moderator(s) wish to push.

However, it is the quality of the moderator that makes the difference. If
you trust the moderator to stick by the rules they have set, and you agree
with the rules as set down by hte moderater, what is hte problem?


Well one problem is that that who are uncomfortable with moderated forums
such as I won't subscribe to them. These may not simply be the ones you
might not wish to subscribe. People were quite keen that I signed up
to continue providing input to the Milosevic discussion forum, and it
was there lose when I would not. Apart from anything else I was the
one who made it possible to search any of the transcripts pertaining
to the trial, which may perhaps have been of assistance to others, as
well as earlier discussions relating to this topic.

http://www.textserver.com/textserver/demonstrations/trial/index.asp
http://www.textserver.com/textserver/demonstrations/jurist/index.asp

Fundamentally, my problem is that supporting a system that discriminates
against those whose input is not welcome, for whatever reason, runs counter
to my mind to being open to that of God in all others. The minute that you
say to someone like Russell (who I know well from the time when he posted
here) is banned, you are denying me the opportunity to subsequently hear
something that it might be right for him to say, no matter how much doubt
others place in that notion. You are prejudging the future and that seems
presuming knowledge not in evidence. It also invalidates the possibility of
reconciliation, over some dispute that I might earlier have had with the
one so banned.

On SRQ I have the option as to who I will read, and who I will respond
to. Take that away and you have limited my choices in ways that I cannot
control or thus agree with. You are forcing me to be part of an
exclusionary group when I fundamentally believe that is wrong.

"inclusion
To be inclusive does not mean that you try and make your table a place where
everyone wants to sit - But it does mean that you try and make a place at
your table for everyone who wants to sit there. See exclusion.

exclusion
To intentionally keep someone or something out. To set a boundary that makes
some situations not possible. See inclusion."

http://www.freedomfriends.org/FF-WGloss.htm

Another problem with moderating a newsgroup is that the doing so is done the
better to avoid being troubled by that which is annoying. Particularly
on a Quaker newsgroup I think that the very act of being troubled by that
which annoys the group presents opportunity to respond to the situation in
a Quakerly fashion, and that does not to my mind mean shutting the door
on those who knock.

When I first came here there was an individual named Steve Winter (hi Steve
if you're reading this) who had got into no end of disputes on no end of
forums. There was even a lengthy FAQ devoted to describing how this
individual was to be avoided at all costs. He came to SRQ and was treated
kindly and with respect by individuals such as Engineer, who used the
opportunity presented by the presence of an individual perceived by most
to be nothing but trouble to practice what peaceful resolution of conflict.
Other individuals hunted Steve down to SRQ and attempted to reignite earlier
flame wars with him, but through it all SRQ was the stronger, and the better
at teaching Quaker values by not being moderated. SRQ taught Steve Winter
something about Quaker values, and Steve taught SRQ something about
being Quaker. It even taught all those who used SRQ as a launching pad
to try to reignite conflict, that this was simply not the forum where
such conflicts would generate the gratifying consequences they saught.

http://users.rcn.com/sadams.enteract/winfaq.html

Now take any subject where people will have strong opinions, and I think
you further risk biasing the opinions expressed if you require that the
forum be moderated. Jeff Slane who once posted here, did not feel it
appropriate to post on this forum, prior to becoming a member of the
RSofF. Having done so he posted at length here, and I personally kept
almost everything he wrote finding it of incredible relevance to SRQ.
He so offended people here that they contacted his meeting, dragged the
clerk of that meeting into apologising for Jeff's conduct here, with
the consequence that Jeff resigned his membership in the RSofF and
never again posted here. I disagreed with Jeff strongly on many issues,
but there was none here who would in my opinion measure up to what Jeff
accomplished in the few weeks that he was Quaker. If such as this can
happen on an unmoderated forum, why would I think a moderated forum
an improvement.

The minute that you tell me a forum is for Quakers I'll not subscribe
because I am not a Quaker. Tell me it is for Wicca and I'll not subscribe
because I am not Wiccan. Surely I am not alone in this. If you want
people who are not X to feel comfortable on a forum with X in its name
don't moderate it.

A further point about something like SRQ is that there is a record kept of
what has been said. That record with all its flaws is none the less a
record of what has been said. On a forum such as the one dedicated
to championing Milosevic's innocence while providing an unbiased
commentary as to issues pertaining to the daily events relating to
his trial would you trust such a body to not fudge the record as
a politician might fudge the vote if able. The assurance that a
forum is not so manipulated is that everyone who posts, no matter
what they say can see that there voice is recorded. Start moderating
a newsgroup and I as a reader of the historic record know that the
very fact that it is moderated makes the historic record as it
subsequently appears highly suspect. I am not personally prepared
to contribute to a situation where I even indirectly aid and abet
the process of contributing to such a flawed historic record. I
think the truth about the past, too important to take such risks
with.

http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/

Yet another issue is that some who are abusive are so because they
have mental problems. I think it wrong to deny such people equal
access to forums just because they are abusive. I don't think that
the mentally ill should be given fewer rights than you or I, just
because the caring for them is troublesome.

For example, my biggest moderating job is one of the 5 moderators of
Alt.Religion.Wicca.Moderated. We have a charter that we must stick to. It is
a public document for all to see. We moderate based on the principle that it
must be on topic, and not contain abuse (ie, we moderate so that psots fit
the charter requirements). Occasionally when one of us moderators is findig
it difficult to be even handed, they disqualify themselves to moderate the
posts that they feel they may be biased towards. Moderators are elected, and
can be removed by election. All Admin business is posted on group. All
rejected articles can be read by the group if hte choose to. And, the way
the group is set up, once a person makes it clear they are capable of
posting on-topic, non-abusive posts, they go on the "white list" and don't
need to be moderated (although that priveledge can be removed if the breach
the charter). Most of the readers of ARWM also read the unmoderated version,
and, if it was discussed on the unmoderated group that a mod of ARWM was
beign unfair, the whitelisted members of ARWM would kick up a heck of a
ruckus.


I approve of the notion that all rejected posts can still be read, and indeed
much of what you say above. But I still question the approach.

The point of hte being a moderator for that group is that, although I am not
Wiccan, the group trusts me and my judgement enough to be able to keep the
group free of spam and free of abuse so the signal to noise ratio is high.
Whilst it is a position of power, it is also a position of great
responsibility and trust. It is an honored position. If I screw it up, my
on-line reputation would be mud (I've had hte same online persona since 96),
not to mention I'd hav alot of angry witches directing their wrath towards
me. its not a position I take lightly, I do it for the love of the people
who post to ARWM, and feel very honoured and priveledged that they trust me
enough to allow me to do it.


My objection was never to moderators. You provide a valued service. But it
is not a service that I would be comfortable taking advantage of.

I run my other two groups in a similar way.

Are they gated? yes. But as topics, they attract alot of trolls and
spammers, and most people just dont want to wade throught he spam and
trollery to get the good stuff any more. If you don't want to join a 'gated'
community, you don't have to, but the gated community is only only as good
as the gate. If you like and trust the gate, what is the problem?


I've tried to explain, but a large part of what I'd write is predicated on
a gut feel sort of that this is right and that wrong principle. I believe
that we each are blessed with a compass that permits us to be conscious of
both good and evil. That is somewhat serendipitously the story of Genesis.
I believe that it is that compass which should be followed. The simple
concept of "if it doesn't feel right avoid it", is enough to make me
shy away from contributing to moderated forums.

Perhaps it all started out with a desire to justify why I stayed here, and
now has become part of my own mythology about newsgroups. If I make any sense
at all in what I say, I'd appreciate knowing it from a second source.

Ian
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Rich Burlew
    ... person should post to Usenet, not to high-volume message boards. ... Equally excessive as when the owner of the forum feels the need to ... I don't think moderation should be ...
    (rec.games.frp.dnd)
  • Re: Modest Proposal
    ... very much on-topic posts about BGA adopting AGA rules on ... people prefere moderation... ... Let's be definitive on this point: AGA Rules did not originate ... perhaps due to its "moderated forum" nature. ...
    (rec.games.go)
  • Re: Rich Burlew
    ... should post to Usenet, not to high-volume message boards. ... Equally excessive as when the owner of the forum feels the need to have so many nitpicky rules. ... I don't think moderation should be banned but I do believe that a lot is lost when moderation worms its way in to a discussion group. ...
    (rec.games.frp.dnd)
  • On Anonymity, Moderated Fora, and Usenet
    ... a moderated forum, because the signal to noise ratio on the group has ... Thus any forum that lacks effective anonymity limits discussion ... There is a saying that if the pilot survives the ... The other issue is moderation. ...
    (rec.aviation.piloting)
  • Re: Can a Muslim also be a Quaker?
    ... >>>I am now married to a Muslim and I am wanting to know if being a Quaker ... Soc.religion.quaker is an unmoderated forum. ... Thats not to say I think SRQ needs moderation, ...
    (soc.religion.quaker)