A Discussion of Moderation

Unless there is something I am not seeing, someone like Magnus seems to be a sufficient choice for moderator.
It would appear that he would not let anyone get away with anything even if they were his friends. I don’t know, I could be wrong.

If I may make a suggestion, having someone that is trusted or respected to act as a moderator may require some minor revision.

The reasons are as follows:

  1. From my observation, there is not an overabundance of respect getting around on this forum at the moment.
  2. The current mood in many regions of the world does not lend itself well to trust.

While there are certain members that respect each other - some of those who would approve of certain recommendations are not likely to take part in this discussion and therefore their approvals would go unheard.

What we/you need and it has already been suggested in this discussion(not in so many words), is someone or more than one person that is capable of remaining neutral given any argument to moderate it. Mods need to clean the forum up a little when the need arises and as such: some threads need to be moved, some people need to be warned and others at times will need to be banned. I know everyone is aware of the painful truths and I am sure everyone would be happier with someone or more than one person who will take the action that is required and remain neutral where it is needed to ensure the peaceful, and most importantly, proper operation of ILP.

It may even end up being the case that someone or persons will need to be selected by you alone Carleas.
This is of course dependent on those selected, being happy to moderate.

Just a thought.

Oh shoot, I meant motivations, not addictions - I did not catch that.
…and nope, I am not assuming anything Magnus but thanks for taking the time to answer.

It may be difficult to fully address what you are saying about purpose if Carleas does not know why the place was created, to begin with. I am not entirely convinced that we all need to know - just going with his current suggestion of purpose seems like it would suffice to me. It is possible that you are overthinking it.

I am all out of ideas - it seems like everything has been covered

I blame lack of sleep for my impairment but I forgot to add this to the top of my last post.

Magnus, the contraption I presented tells me that you are able to go into the healthy mental territory required to give fair assessments on situations. I was not too sure as some of your points throughout this thread while right on the mark were very rigid. I am just making sure you are leaving enough room for the things that are not always obvious. Your responses are right on the mark with the exception of the last one which I take full responsibility for and I have updated my post to reflect that as well as commented under the quote to show that I am aware of the brainfart.

It is interesting that your reason for coming here has never changed - mine has changed a little over time but is mostly the same.
Lastly, I read the rules to make an estimate of whether the forum might be a good fit for me when I first arrived.

Noted.

There are benefits to revealing what the purpose of one’s forum is. But there are also costs. The benefits include things such as making it easier for others to influence you in a positive way e.g. by making you realize that there exists a better set of rules for your forum. The costs, on the other hand, mostly revolve around the amount of time you have to spend becoming conscious of what you really want. I believe the former far outweighs the latter.

The world in which everyone agrees with everyone else is nowhere in sight, so one can expect that for the foreseeable future there will be people who disagree with how things are run. That said, there must be a way to deal with such people. The simplest way to do so is to ignore them but I am not sure that’s the best way to go – at least not as a long-term strategy. My idea is to listen to what they have to say but to do so at your own pace (which should be negotiable but only up to a point.) If someone disagrees with the way a forum is run, they should be allowed to present their case; and those running the forum, they should be allowed to determine and communicate how much time they need to understand and respond to the complaints. I think the interaction between those who run things and those who use things should be a bit warmer than it currently is. (And to ensure that, I believe, forums must be sufficiently small.)

(I am of the strong opinion that many such interactions would eventually lead to the question of the purpose of the forum. As many people try to influence the owners, they slowly realize that a lot of failed and unnecessary attempts are due to the fact that they don’t know – and are thus forced to presume – what those running the forum want.)

In other words, if you disagree with the way I think forums should be moderatored, you can discuss it with me.

Yes Magnus, this is a balanced viewpoint that you are presenting here.
A sufficiently small and sufficiently warm forum with the mods and users in understanding of each other’s respective positions is the around about way I would sum it up.

I agree. As long as it remains a two-way street is what is important to me in this case.

The rest is pretty simple at its heart - just one example: we just need to get the noxious comments(you know, the obviously unnecessary ones) out of the threads - there is a rant house for that.
Some expression is not fitting of the topic.

If it has become necessary to ban the ILP mass, because the regulations require it (see for instance: “this forum is supposed to be a community that must maintain a level of tolerance and politeness”), then the question immediately arises why the ILP leadership has allowed the banning of the ILP mass. The responsibility has - one way or another - the ILP leadership.

Thus, the ILP leadership is always left with the question of whether or not to take the risk of applying the rules consequently and consistently.

And yet: this forum must be a community that must maintain tolerance and politeness!

What is considered polite in one culture is not always considered polite in another culture.

A level of tolerance seems to be more important than politeness no matter where you go on the internet.

There is a lot more going on than just this, however, if we are going to be realistic about it. Realism is not humanity’s greatest strength at the moment.

It is pretty common to see people with one set of beliefs not be tolerant of other people with a different set of beliefs.

Discussion and debate seem like two very simple ideas on the surface but people never fail to complicate things more than they need to.

What is considered culture in one culture is not always considered culture in another culture.

Be realistic:

Impoliteness is booming in the ILP web forum.

Impoliteness can be detected, i.e. recognized as a fact. Intolerance is harder to prove because there are too many possibilities for excuses on the side of the accused.

Probability tells me something that my experience also confirms: One can be polite and still be intolerant; but if one is impolite, one is usually also intolerant - at any rate, this is more likely to be the case than the reverse.

Intolerance is harder to fight directly than indirectly; impoliteness is easier to fight directly than indirectly; therefore impoliteness must be addressed first and directly, because that is the only way to get both, impoliteness and intolerance, under control.

If we were to start here with the solution of the problem of intolerance, most ILP members would discuss this issue almost endlessly and probably successfully to the effect that they would not be punished. That is the situation we have here.

If we were to start here with the solution of the problem of impoliteness, an important step would already have been taken to solve both problems: (1) the problem of impoliteness and (2) the problem of intolerance.

Perhaps signaling intolerance? I fail to see the value in this statement if one is serious about moving forward to arrive at some resolution. This could be seen as the reverse of colonial mentality.

Of course, impoliteness is booming here at ILP. All we can do is talk about it. We don’t have the power to change anything here. There are not enough members in the leadership to manage things effectively now.

There actually only seem to be two outcomes given what we know. The first would be that everyone just chills out and makes the most of what is left and the second is the forum dies its seemingly inevitable death as a serious platform for provoking thought and becomes a half-baked social platform…unless of course something miraculous happens. I don’t see being realistic as anything outside of these two outcomes at this point in time…do you?

I don’t see anyone rushing forward to be moderator and I don’t see any significant turnover with regard to new members replacing members that no longer take part.

Wait. …

M_.jpg
… No. … I see nothing at all.

But … wait again, please … Yes, now I see the darkness.

Those who have been suggested as (candidates for) moderators have not yet responded. Is that a bad sign? No. We have to be patient.

Sure, not a bad sign at all. My vote is still with Magnus - he seems like the most balanced choice out of all the suggestions to me. Not everyone has the same outlook.
In the meantime, I have plenty of things to do to keep me occupied, satisfied and happy - on and off the ILP site. I am happy to wait for as long as it takes.

I have been enjoying reading through a couple of conversations on here, which is a good thing.

Magnus Anderson is the only ILP member of several years who posts consistently that has not gone crazy.

I add myself here but only because I was already crazy, I didn’t become crazy at ILP.

i feel attacked

That is again a lie. And you showed nothing except your unacceptable behavior.

He is not able to understand what you say, because he is not able to behave differently from what he is used to.

He believes - like a Wild West hero - that it doesn’t bother anyone when he says he wishes others should have a bullet in their head.

=D>

You have to unfortunately go crazy here to become sane. Why? Because we weren’t taught shit. That’ll make anyone crazy, they have to climb the hill of sanity by themselves.

Magnus A is a sock-puppet… I can tell.

No way! I would never have guessed. He seems legit.

Seriously though, really?

:laughing:

I could be wrong… maybe I just find him odd. :stuck_out_tongue:

But who’s sock-puppet?

what if you found out that i was literally every account on ilp except you and that for years you’ve just been having conversations with 1 dude?