On Moderation

I don’t understand about having to stay out of my own way? but I will not be interacting with the belligerents and short-sighted here… both, harmful qualities to others’ being. A case of too much J and not enough P being exercised, I’d say.

My brother, and a few of my nephews (not all), become belligerent towards me when I use my witty retorts, when they overstep my mark, but they have learned to not do so :smiley: What may work on the females in their lives, is non-transferable to me… I dare say that we have cases of that going on here.

This is good news.

Let us see now how the forum completely fails to change in the slightest as a result.

On a general level, the presence of mods would seem to be valuable only beyond a certain number of contributors and newcomers. These numbers both appear to be currently low, and everyone’s familiarity with everyone else seems to be enough to know what to expect, and to know how to deal with everyone else. Moderation from anyone in the vast majority of matters would appear to be unnecessary, except perhaps in the passive control of unwelcome newcomers - who appear to be few. I might be wrong on how much of a nuisance newcomers continue to be, as I have no involvement in dealing with them, but I know I’m not wrong with regard to regulars. Interference at that level highlights more than ever the difference between a busy body and someone who seeks only to maintain the forum at a simple minimal level.

It might be sad to admit the gradual decline of a forum over many years, but from previous conversation I know Carleas is under no delusions about how things have changed over the years. Most of the moderators haven’t been seen in a long time as it is, and the fact that any at all remain so long after any call to duty seems more like a flaw in their character to need to hold onto some semblence of authority - especially since most of their posts seem to be either being the only contributer to a 5 year old thread that was started to be nice to her, or failing to honestly acknowledge her failures in being effectual at moderating in others. Having an account apparently older than anyone else here, perhaps it’s coincidence that I’ve never seen philosophical content from this person, but I have absolutely no idea why they were appointed in the first place in any possible respect - though as ever I’m always looking for evidence to prove my observations and summations wrong. It’s just been hard to remotely respect someone who lacks every expected trait from a philosophy moderator whatsoever.

Just my opinion, obviously, but if not the internet - where else better to express it?
Only_Humean and Carleas have been easy to respect. Flannel Jesus seemed more like a joker to me from what I remember, and Dan comes across simple and straight forward - well intentioned at least, I’m on the fence. Uccisore seemed hard at the time but I’d accept him if he were still here even though I seem to remember we disagreed on plenty. Faust was easy to accept, though I don’t remember him being an actual moderator.

I neither expect my honesty, nor my “charged” attitude to merit me such a position myself, and I don’t want to make “work” out of that which I gain pleasure, despite the fact that I’d be good at it. So judge the taste of this response however you will, I have no ulterior motive here. If I hurt any feelings, I’ve judged it to be for the best.

“If I hurt any feelings…”

Who’s feelings? is that an assumption I read… why yes, it is.

Do peoples’ feelings get hurt over such things? really? I guess this person’s does… if their expressing a sentiment that they don’t know if another feels. I feel over things… sure, but not this… as why would someone feel hurt over a situation with deliberate causation to exact an intentional outcome, and I don’t mean this person.

Deeming someone not philosophical is on par with deeming someone a troll… said simply because they do not agree with you, or don’t share the same mindset as you. I deal in real results, not strangers’ words on a screen… we are simply in and from different worlds and backgrounds, but the smart would factor this in and adjust accordingly, but most don’t, because most aren’t smart.

My time here was up… I had been considering this for a few months now, but I did and do intend to post as a member… I am intrigued to see how the site will evolve.

I don’t think that you should bother engaging in this.

I will cease when I think that time has arrived Phyllo… I am not you, I am not feeling what you are feeling about my engagement here… this is not an obituary, where I can’t reply to others’ sentiments.

But there are some I won’t reply to or engage with, ok…

I offered moderation because I assumed carleas might be overwhelmed, not because I’d make anyone’s shortlist

I’m rough around the edges.

My greatest asset as a potential moderator is my extreme exposure to the truly bizarre…

It gives me more capacity to delve into the muck

That said, politics ruins a lot

I actually wish MagsJ well, and I know she reciprocates.

Sure. It’s completely up to you.

Haterz are going to hate.

But what are you getting out of it?

…making the haterz recognise, recog recognise :smiley:

I have no other intention, other than that, but it’s not really an intentional intention… things that need to be said, should never be left unsaid, or time soon makes it obsolete and therefore moot.

If it makes you feel good to let it out, to vent, to let them know what you think …

Then do it.

Don’t expect to change their minds. They won’t necessarily recognize.

It’s expressing what I think, but definitely not venting… I don’t do irked, which in turn irks others.

It’s not so much them recognising, as it is them realising… delusions should not be gained at another’s expense, otherwise they become reality, and that’s not good for humanity. I don’t deal in pretences, that suit the other/the others ego, no. Family, friends, strangers… no.

Carleas, I sort of find myself in disagreement with your decision. Mags is the only Moderator that has ever issued me a warning and I did deserved it. My part in it was not to get even but to act as a mirror for self reflection. I was aware of what I was doing. Crafted it willingly. I can admit that.

And I agree with your decision on the grounds that she didn’t seem capable of learning from her mistakes as a moderator. I have forgiven her already, and would like to apologize for my behavior. I never could totally loose respect for anyone, but I am a good actor, I can read the lines, play the part and be somewhat convincing. I am even capable of authoring a few zingers myself.

From my heart Mags. I apologize for my behavior. I deserved the warning I earned. If I misinterpreted your bringing my wife up in retort it was the trigger that made me feel defensive. You didn’t hurt my feelings, you attempted to use my wife against me. But it was the member Mags that did this, and she was not sensitive enough to realize the mistake in it. The member Mags called me flat out vile and miserable, and when I attempted to elude to this as a distortion in the experiential continuum, that I can be, but it is not the sum total of my being she made every effort to turn that against me as well.

I don’t regret it, she gave me what I was asking for, and I returned the favor. I didn’t shirk the experiences off with humor. As she suggested I focused it back on myself as means of self introspection, and ask, do I really know myself as well as I claim? Unfortunately some times the answer is no, and you guess again.

Fortunately no ones ability to guess again was harmed in the making of this chapter in the saga.

Whether I agree or disagree with your decision it is yours to make and I respect that it was not an easy one. I was a moderator on a forum and I made mistakes, the team of moderators attempted to assure me that I was not a bad moderator. It was a friend I had to moderate, I should have waited for another moderator to make the call. That was sort of the end of that relationship and I felt guilty it was me that dropped the hammer. I didn’t want anyone to think I was playing favorites. In the end the Administrator died unexpectedly, without any plans for the forums continuation. His family shut down the servers and the forum disbanded.

Once in that role was enough. It teaches you more about yourself then sometimes you are willing to admit or can assimilate.

No :slight_smile:

“Troll” could potentially imply competence, though overridden by ill will.
You come across as the opposite of this, though even when I try to honestly find something positive to say about you such as good will, it’s marred by a sense of narcissistic pride that I seem to pick up from everything you say - which is why I expect you to be hurt by my opinion, but also why I expect you to deny and repress this, and likely to resist the idea with passive aggression. It’s not in the nature of the weak to be honest with themselves, but as I’ll repeat it’s only the impression I get and I’m always open to evidence to the contrary. No hate whatsoever - I don’t waste my time with such things, just a chronic sense of irritation that I’d prefer to be dispelled through the appropriate parties being honest with themselves even if it’s hard, and learning and growing as a result - especially if it’s me, but also if I can do the favour for others because I like to leave things in a better state than I found them.

There are plenty of people who show philosophical competence who I don’t agree with. The fact that I don’t agree with you is not least because you don’t show neither philosophical competence nor competence at moderation, the agreement bit is irrelevant to me for the most part - it’s how you get there that counts. Philosophical argument isn’t just opinion and asking questions if we’re lucky, it’s far greater than that. “Dealing in real results” has obvious value since the real is an ultimate test of whether something is viable, but dealing only with what’s viable now doesn’t show any wisdom concerning what could be. Most people simply accept how things are and struggle with their lot in the terms they’ve ended up with, and others might get lost in what could be through a refusal of how things currently are - one of them was instrumental in you being rightly demoted. I try to explore the possibility of bringing the real and the potential together through innovative avenues that are backed by sufficiently strong logic, which I enjoy discussing. Your sentiment that the smart adjust to different worlds and backgrounds is hardly wrong, it reminds me of iambiguous, but the smart also have the ability to explore the potential beyond merely accepting current realities. Funnily enough, this ability would help you at moderating because you’d be more familiar and capable dealing with those from a different world and background.

I doubt this advice will go anywhere, ego is a barrier for the unphilosophical.

You don’t have to be a great hockey player to be a good or great hockey referee.

Was she a good or bad moderator?

But maybe that’s irrelevant because some people either don’t want to be personally moderated or to have the forum moderated. I suspect that’s the reason for a lot of the hostility aimed at her.

There are plenty of people who show philosophical competence who I don’t agree with. The fact that I don’t agree with you is not least because you don’t show neither philosophical competence nor competence at moderation, the agreement bit is irrelevant to me for the most part - it’s how you get there that counts. Philosophical argument isn’t just opinion and asking questions if we’re lucky, it’s far greater than that. “Dealing in real results” has obvious value since the real is an ultimate test of whether something is viable, but dealing only with what’s viable now doesn’t show any wisdom concerning what could be. Most people simply accept how things are and struggle with their lot in the terms they’ve ended up with, and others might get lost in what could be through a refusal of how things currently are - one of them was instrumental in you being rightly demoted. I try to explore the possibility of bringing the real and the potential together through innovative avenues that are backed by sufficiently strong logic, which I enjoy discussing. Your sentiment that the smart adjust to different worlds and backgrounds is hardly wrong, it reminds me of iambiguous, but the smart also have the ability to explore the potential beyond merely accepting current realities. Funnily enough, this ability would help you at moderating because you’d be more familiar and capable dealing with those from a different world and background.

“I doubt this advice will go anywhere, ego is a barrier for the unphilosophical.” Sillhluette said,

The philosopher’s concerns with ego are limited by differences which may not purport to distinguish effect.from intention. Or, such may be conflated and redirected elsewhere, not for the obvious reason of finding some more objective causal agency, but for finding a way out, of an existential contraption , too difficult to apprehend.

Such is sometimes the anomalie that political expediency has with basic defensive gestures.

Vanity, is a much less profound criticism of existence then pride or narcissism, the latter consisting of deceptions of mythically created reorganized fragments , most often resulting in a blow up of image.

Such blow up’s as expressed in hyperbolae become characteristic of referential connections of prior manifested senses of connections of the self with such objects, regardless of the state of criteria which determine it’s descriptive awareness and form.

Because it emerges from the higher and not the lower mediums of description, they appears as vague and unbalanced , but referentiality has partially descriptive functions: to reorganize it’s self in terms of a continuum of progressed general to specific and more real attributes.

The motive behind it is shrouded in uncertainty, the ego may be caught up in it in an intentional need to fabriquate or caricature an image so as to fit all occasions.

The Joker becomes wild because the only form befitting it is one to please, to entertain the thought , that interactive guesses, provocative images depend on the intentional disunity, with life projects, ambitions , that are of mixed, creating a notion of displacement and bad faith.

I think Your analysis is apt, but misses it’s mark by not signifying more aptly the two variants between the profound and the apprehensive.

Existential vanity, is not separate from mere ego ridden narcissism, and may not be derivable to the lower levels of unconscious motivation.Disagreement may not harbor any other motive then trying to find the way into, and not out of the enigma of existence.

After carefully looking for the difference, according to some sources , vanity consisted in a simple admonition of appearance, a surface preoccupation with appearances, with no other intention then gaining satisfaction in one’s appearance, without intentions.

Narcissism harbors bad intent, such as harming of others at their expense, thereby gaining satisfaction and self worth. It is much more a deeply underlying functional malaise.

Sure, but some competence in hockey is necessary to be a hockey referee at all, or at least if a hockey referee plays on a hockey court themselves you might expect them to play hockey at all, or at least with enough competence to remove doubt in their calls when they are refereeing - especially if they claim to be competent at hockey when not demonstrating as much.

But the analogy of hockey isn’t perfect, as forum moderation can be a separate skill completely to any main forum topic, whereas hockey referees need to know the rules of hockey as well as civility even if they can’t play themselves. I’m not saying that you necessarily need to have both in the forum context. I’m saying that it can help, especially if you also engage in discussions that you’re moderating rather than using the passive and detached approach that Carleas knows how to use (although he also actually has philosophical competence, which he occasionally treats us to) and especially especially when you claim competence in philosophy all the while.

But keeping to moderation alone, separate from philosophy altogether, you need a more objective approach that sticks minimalistically to indisputable facts, and when facts are disputable you need to show impartial discretion rather than to show personality weakness and resorting to mild name-calling.

And all this assumes moderation is necessary at all, which it is when forums are above a certain size, and/or if there are particularly malevolent posters at work, neither of which we have here anymore. Staying on well after the time has passed, continuing to impose in light of all the above is just bad taste.
This goes regardless of individual attitudes to authority.
I don’t think Ecmandu likes authority other than what agrees with him, whereas I’m fine with appropriate and competent authority that neither claims to be more than it is, nor imposes when unnecessary - especially when imposition is personalised. MagsJ fails in every single account, where others here have succeeded, though I’m sure she’s made the odd appropriate intervention as exceptions - such as communicated by Mowk. I don’t intend to detract from that.

Whilst I’m being direct and not presenting positive opinions, and these are associated with hostility, I have positive intentions and don’t speak out of aggression nor emotionality - I’m just honestly conveying the impression I’ve got over the years towards one individual in a way that could cause conflict, but not because I intend to cause conflict. Under the circumstances of a larger forum, with toxic individuals, where restrictions are impersonal and don’t result in a net negative impact, I’m happy for this place to be moderated. Until recent actions were taken, none of these conditions were in play and hadn’t been for a long time - which is why it’s a good decision to remove a bad moderator when moderation was unnecessary in the first place.

You will have to accept that I will never agree with your analysis of me… others’ here, yes… your’s, no… it seems to be steeped in a bias, but that is yours to have. I enjoyed reading Observs exchange with you on Entropy, but I don’t feel the need to share my thoughts in how I felt that went. :wink:

I felt my time here was up months ago… I’ve said that here already… pay attention :stuck_out_tongue: and my exit being an organic one, the catalyst of which being… how I felt. Never mind the mod-trolls and deliberate baiting over the years… of which such analyses you do not seem to get or factor in. Odd.

Hi MagsJ,

I thought that I would just send this hyperlink How to Get Out of Your Own Way and Let Your Life Shine to you. I think that it is both informative and full of pearls of wisdom. I myself am reading it. I need all of the help that I can get.

tinybuddha.com/blog/how-to-get- … ife-shine/

Yes, very toxic. I am still in the process of learning to be this way myself. Perhaps it comes down to how long a time we choose to engage these people ~ perhaps when we feel the toxicity beginning to stream through us ~ that is it.

At the risk of sounding imbecilic, what are P and J? 8-[

Again, enjoy your newly-found freedom to frolic.

At the same time, Meno, I think that guilt can be kind of like a beacon, at least for those who are willing to see and to follow that beacon to where it leads and to learn from it.
Of course, in and of itself, without utilizing it, guilt is nothing more than wallowing in our own ego and an excuse to deny responsibility for something.

I expected as much, but if I let futility get in the way of offering honest value to people, I wouldn’t get to say much at all.

You jump straight from things like “I just don’t like being disagreed with” to “I must be biased” - none of which is true - anything other than the faintest consideration that what I offered might have truth to it, and exactly as someone would who fit the criteria that I’m suggesting apply to you.
Every time you avoid my analysis of you, you prove its worth, so I’ll let your actions admit the truth even if your words will not.

I was surprised you were reading it, when so late in the day you finally jumped in at the first opportunity where obsrvr mistakenly thought he had some kind of upper hand, in spite of all the many times I pinned him down where you were silent - and you talk about “bias”. Only prom seemed to understand the difficulty he was in - but for someone who was at base trying to suggest you can define the undefinable, he was never going to emerge better than bowing out and feigning some degree of dignity as he did.

I already know how it went without your input, and it amuses me that you lamely feigned disinterest in what I had to say here and yet now come out with the truth that you were enjoying a debate I was involved in that was going on at the same time. Obviously that same ego-protection-reflex in the post I linked, but at least you admitted the truth to yourself this much later on in time - perhaps there’s hope for you yet. Now if you could only overcome that reflex and show at least minimal honest consideration of what I’m currently analysing of you, rather than waiting a month first. Immediate humility and a willingness to entertain criticism is an emotionally advanced skill that few possess - but it goes a long way to making you a good moderator if you can pull it off consistently. Take that or leave it, I have no expectations of you doing the wise thing but perhaps at least someone will pick up on it.

It’s odd that you think your time had only been up for a few months, and even more odd that you had to wait for the decision to be made for you, or “organically” as you put it. How many years has it been since we had those mod-trolls and deliberate baiting? I did factor this into my analysis when I said mods are needed when those people are still around and when forum sizes get beyond a certain size such as this place used to be. You accuse me of not paying attention - more psychological projection by your hands, playing even further to my analysis. Other mod presence faded away “organically” in line with the faded need for them, and yet you did not.

Like I said, I’ll let your actions prove my point if your words cannot.

Silhouette,

I am just wondering though ~ is it fair or just to analyze or critique someone who has not asked for that? Of course, if they have asked for that, if they are curious about what others think of them, that is different, right?

It is kind of like a deer being caught in one’s headlights. I wonder what the deer feels about that.