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 donāt believe people so easily fit into one category.
ā¦with that being saidā¦
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 āWhat would you say there is to moderate?ā 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 āmajority rulesā 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 āfuck youā as a response.
When I see this, Iāll 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)ā¦ but swearing is not good enough, it needs to include a real counter argument.
The only real insult is āretardā (which can be stated a great many waysā¦ āignorantā, āwrongā, āshitheadā. Etcā¦
When stated that insults are a language unto themselvesā¦ in the context of a discussion it about who is using the term correctly for the topic at hand.
I was just speculating, because the downfall of certain web forums is a general trend, and ILP has no special status. We must be prepared for everything.
Do you believe that ILP will exist forever? And if so: Where will it exist forever, in heaven or in hell?
Something to think about is this: asking for perfect moderation is selfish because perfect moderation would be moderation that would only feel perfect due to it aligning with your own ideas of what good moderation is. The fact of the matter is moderating a forum would be awful and every user of the forum should understand that. How would you like to look through a bunch of threads that probably donāt interest you? How many threads are there that you donāt even bother taking a look at and why donāt you look at them? Answer this question and you will soon come to realize how awful moderation would be. This is perhaps the reason why many people are not coming forward applying for the position of moderator and if it is not for this reason then I would suggest someone who glorifies the idea of moderation in their mind to think about it - because people will expect something of you and when you donāt give it to them you will become tied up representing ILP and some members already have a low opinion of the ILP leadership which is woefully sad.
But this is typical of this day and age that people just come to expect! Some of us call it the āme me meā syndrome".
Others simply refer to it as āentitlementā.
It would not matter if you did a good job of moderation, there will still be people unhappy with you because truthfully, there is no pleasing everyone.
All this is just āfirst world problemsā anyway. It doesnāt even rank high on the list of the worldās problems that have the most detrimental impact.
Good moderation is definitely subjectiveā¦ different wants, different needs, different feelsā¦ n all that, as everyone cannot be pleased all of the time, but only some people some of the time.
People should be able to understand that, and make adjustments accordingly.
āPerfect moderationā refers to the kind of moderation that best serves a group of people. Of course, just because someone thinks that something is perfect does not mean that it is so.
I donāt think anyone is suggesting that people should be forced to moderate against their will. If you find it awful to moderate, donāt moderate. If people think they canāt moderate all discussions, let them moderate only those discussions they want to moderate.
Or it might be the case that people want to put all of their energy in making things better as opposed to preserving them in their inferior state.
Crazy is not a pejorative term to me. I always say to people, āif youāre not a bit crazy, Iām not that interested in you - youāre not that interestingā
Encode. Youāll figure it out eventually. Crazy is same. The same people are the ones who mirror reality as it is. Reality is violating the consent of everyone. Thatās real crazy. Thus, to mirror reality is to violate consent. To actually be crazy. Is to give the middle finger to existence is to say, āfuck you, Iām going to work every moment to violate consent as little as possible!ā
Iām wiser than iambiguous. Iambiguous has no chance of winning that debate with me. He stopped responding to me as āthe good guy who wonāt respond to someone with a conditionā
Heās a fucking coward. He knows in the back of his mind that heās already lost the debate. Heās afraid to debate me. Iāve been to the hells iambiguous refused to go toā¦ btwā¦ hell is not my debate. I learned from themā¦ I exceeded. I brought beings up that havenāt had hope in trillions of years. Iambiguous is a peon.
Iambiguous knows heās a peon. His best defense for not debating cosmic consciousness (which I am at this point) is that Iām too fragile for him. Talk about projection ! Iāve experienced much worse than losing a debate to a moron (which iambiguous is).
It would help heal the board and make life interesting for the board if we debatedā¦ but iambiguous is scared shitlessā¦ and he tries to spin it as being compassionate.
We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week. But all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting. By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs ā¦but by a two-thirds majority in the case ofā¦
