Renewing the Moderation?

So who the fuck is Carleas?
Is he a ghost?

He’s a spook. An autistic spook cunt :mrgreen:

Who would dare to be an ILP moderator?

Do we even need moderation? The current ILP ethos would suggest otherwise, that we don’t.

We are moderators unto ourselves and unto each other.

he’s the stone cold pimp that runs this joint

Imagine, Carleas (whoever he is or was) simply deletes, without publicly justifying this deletion, all those threads that violate his rules. :laughing:

I would like to apply for the position of moderator.

What kind of moderation would you like to do, ideally?

aah you know just regular old moderating I guess. Moderate a little of this, moderate a little of that… just… you know… moderating… like what you do when you moderate something.

Haha. Ok. Well, personally, I think the admin should give you a chance, to see if you are up for it.
If it works, then great. Less clicking for me to do on my own.
When I am taking a break,
sometimes someone has to wait to be approved.
Most of the approve notices i get are from spam bots.
But every once in a while a real new member posts.
And I can be late to approve them, because i am
doing other non ILP things.

If you were a mod, approval could happen faster,
because we would both be on it.

I have not yet banned anyone.
The ad homs usually go both ways and i can’t tell who started it.

prom’s got my vote

I would only want to become a moderator under one condition: in a subforum only for trolls without access for others - and vice versa. In such a subforum I could continue my troll research and at the same time encourage the trolls to troll more and more.

Having such a moderator would be better than having no moderator.

What would you say there is to moderate?

I have seen a few threads locked that needed it.

Aside from that, things seem ok.

I think all that you could do apart from that is remind people to stay on track if they diverge too far from OPs. Perhaps prevent ad hominem from getting too far out of hand.

The only other thing I have seen(only once in the last year) is repeat posts in multiple threads(same post in multiple threads) aka spam.

we’re an autonomous collective

What you have just said assumes that there is no moderation, but such a premise is false; so you are assuming a false premise. What is true is that there is a moderation. However, according to some ILP members, this moderation leaves something to be desired. I am trying to remain neutral on this issue, but I know that the premise on which these people are starting, namely that the moderation is currently inadequate, is true. So my question is: Who wants what kind of moderation and for what reasons?

It sometimes looks as if there were no ILP moderation, but that is not right. What is right is that there is an ILP moderation.

Should the ILP moderation remain as it is now?
Should the ILP moderation even be abandoned?
Should the ILP moderation be renewed?

I see there are more than two sides on this forum as opposed to the two sides that some people are referencing. I see that the two sides being referenced are political in nature as opposed to being individual in nature. I don’t believe people so easily fit into one category.

…with that being said…

What I have said does not entirely assume no moderation. As I said, I have seen a few threads locked that needed it. My preference would normally be to stay out of it entirely but there may be already too many people staying out of it. My question “What would you say there is to moderate?” is a more open question to anyone and even rhetorical to a point. Usually, I will quote the person as I have done in this post if I feel the need to address them directly. I identified that you were attempting to stay neutral sometime back so out of respect for that identification I did not make it a direct question.

I was happy with the level of moderation there was before we started talking about it. I can see that there are some people who want more moderation just as I can see that there are some people who practice insulting behavior. I am guessing that those who use insulting behavior are either frustrated at which point they turn to insults or they somehow see themselves as above others.

The “majority rules” concept is fitting of the current situation so whatever the majority votes for is what I will settle with until such time that things need to change again - if that need ever arises. It would be nice to see people meet in the middle somehow like one side needs to toughen up and perhaps the other side should tone their insulting behavior down a little(or a lot, hahaha).

What constitutes an insult can be up for debate itself.

Insults are a language unto themselves.

Some people can type walls of seemingly innocuous non ad hom text that when examined closer, are just as insulting as typing “fuck you” as a response.

When I see this, I’ll outline a counterpoint and say fuck you back. Then they start whining about it. Fine. But you stated it.

In my experience, walls of text responding to walls of text are dumb. I try to be concise. Mostly, that includes swearing (strangely enough)… but swearing is not good enough, it needs to include a real counter argument.

The only real insult is “retard” (which can be stated a great many ways… “ignorant”, “wrong”, “shithead”. Etc…

When stated that insults are a language unto themselves… in the context of a discussion it about who is using the term correctly for the topic at hand.

In the example you gave, Iwas not primarily referring to you.

It may also be that with more moderation, things will only get worse.

Maybe the time of ILP is simply over.