quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
quote:
Originally posted by ddouble:

This discussion got derailed for about 4 pages. The way it was derailed is a normal occurence. And there were no consequnces for it.


So, what should the "consequence" be? If there were a moderator for that thread - what should s/he have done? Just close the thread - or what?


Lock the thread and warn the offending member(s), clearly stating the reason(s) for the administrative actions taking place. In the instance of repeat offenses, banning.

Vox laid it out. You should be able to disagree with someone without it becoming negatively personal. An attack against the argument was met by attacks against character. That's what happened in the thread I linked you to. Even when others tried to talk around the disruption, indicating an attempt to disengage, the baiting continued. Do you think that creates an atmosphere for healthy discussion?

Lots of big & small boards have moderators. Most of them choose moderators from within their communities. Some members will always complain about perceived unfairness. But the undesired behavior usually goes away pretty quickly too.

How would you verify real names & pictures anyway?

Like I told you earlier, I'm here no matter what you decide.
quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:
quote:
Originally posted by fabuluous:

I didn't take a 'dig' at you, I stated exactly what I believe to be true. It's MY observation that 'here lately' you only seem to pop up whenever there's drama.


This is a textbook example of a pot calling the kettle black. Mind you--this isn't a "dig" but my just calling it how I see it.


YOU are a texbook example of a pot calling the kettle black ... NOBODY does it like 'you' 4

Me? I ... I ... I just LOVE you baby flowers don't you know that 'love' makes the world go 'round? kiss
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
...We just need to agree on a set of behaviors that make sense to encourage good behavior here and to discourage poor behavior...


Well, one problem is that different people have different ideas on what's acceptable. Part of the problem is that some people get their feelings hurt over what would be considered nothing in a serious debate. The impact of this on free and vigorous debate and discussion around here can't be understated. You should be able to get vigorous in discussion on topics and issues without it getting personal. Here, there are members who can't tell between calling a flaw in an argument and making a personal attack.

So if you impose a rule against "personal attacks," someone will feel the rule was broken if someone suggests to them how their point could be "more intellectually honest." All hell will break loose, because to some, there's a big difference there, while to others it's a distinction without a difference.

We'll all agree to self-monitor, but we also have to monitor the mindset of the person we're engaging, to anticipate what we might consider unreasonable insensitivity and try to avoid saying something that would set them off. That is not only impossible, but it's completely anathema to vigorous discussion and debate.

If there were a moderator to definitively make the call, one person in an argument will call unfairness or bias. Maybe, MBM, you should start considering whether that's so unacceptable.
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
Why can't we just 'take the high road' and chill. So what someone calls you out or challenges your manhood or curses you. Can't we just walk away?


MBM, I had stayed out of this on purpose but would like to speak from the perspective of a "new member" (e.g. since Jan 1, 09).

I have contributed to great (and sometimes spirited) conversations on your board and learned a lot to boot. But I've also been effectively called a "net-ho" (this is funny to write, but is accurate) by two separate members of your board who each ALSO told me that I didn't belong (e.g. that essentially I was a troll with some covert "mission", for lack of a better word, to cause trouble).

I ignore them b/c I've done message boards for years and have learned the art of "ignore". Luckily, I have enough positive feedback from other topics and posters to make your board a worthwhile place to participate. But not every new person is that hardy and not every new person will find enough redeeming qualities in the board from other topics/posters.

I agree with you and others that the regular influx of new members will keep this board alive and dynamic.

But if you, MBM, stay silent when your new members are "told" that they don't have the right to participate on YOUR board (you are the owner after all), then you risk (imho) tacitly supporting the efforts of others to run new folks off due to some kind of unspoken "pecking order". It won't happen to me, but it can happen to others. In fact, I've already seen it with one new poster in my short time here. She got (unfairly) targeted for being a "troll" and she's gone. Why?

How many other new members just choose to "walk away"... altogether?

ddouble asked you a great question about the Condi Rice thread, but I don't think you responded. Aside from someone calling someone else a "bitch", was the direction of that thread acceptable to you?

best,
shulamite
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:

quote:
I've half-heartedly been trying to disengage Romulus for about 4 pages now.


Why do you engage him at all?


Thank You. Why can't we just 'take the high road' and chill. So what someone calls you out or challenges your manhood or curses you. Can't we just walk away?


You both are absolutely right and correct. tfro

But as Nmaginate stated earlier, part of the reason is it's fun to watch folks loose their mind. But I realize that it is disruptive so I will stop.
quote:
Originally posted by ddouble:
quote:
Once someone shows that they'll go as far out of control as imaginable in an argument, the other person who doesn't like to see things reach that point will back off. The other one more often than not takes that to mean that they've "won." Once the behavior gets below a certain point, or their opponent realizes, "WTF am I doing?", there are no consequences.


Exactly Vox.

So outside of removing nuggyt's b***h comment, you thought the dialogue in this thread was OK MBM?

http://africanamerica.org/eve/.../79160213/m/94110849

This discussion got derailed for about 4 pages. The way it was derailed is a normal occurence. And there were no consequnces for it.

I don't know if a social networking style would help.


I was wondering too.. what are the consequences for members who personally attack others then attempt to hide their hand in it ???

For example in the thread cited above a negative exchange between these two posters BEGAN with one poster attacking another poster personally ...

http://africanamerica.org/eve/...60213/m/94110849/p/4

most people would not take kindly to such a label..

such snarkiness is provocative... what began as a disagreement over the credentials of someone turned personal.. and then a defense.. counter defense.. etc..



quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:
quote:
Originally posted by shulamite:

Notwithstanding, if this is the only retort that you can offer re her "credentials", you are a very limited individual.




hmmm.... interesting...

I could have sworn i made a post about condoleeza rice and did not lobby initiate any personal drama toward anyone...

How very rude...


And everyone in this thread, including me AND MBM, have been engaged in passionate disagreements on this board... some more than others.. and yet there are some who just like to jump into arguments, goad, stroke and inflame the discussion then jump out and decry the downfall of board etiquette.. nawmean???


People make personal attacks all day long on every board.... on other boards when moderators decide that one person's consistent disruptive behavior is alright (through their silence or in some cases their support) but continuously interrupt what they feel are another poster's "disruptiveness"... then if moderators are needed, to be effective and fair moderators outside the bias of the "core" members will need to be sought...


erm.. I'm partial to you bringing "Joe" in as a moderator....

girl
I remember when I was in middle school. In PE class….if you had a beef with someone there was a room with Boxing gloves that the teacher let us go into. However, while the class was going on…such behavior was not tolerated. Hence, I propose that we have a boxing room. You can call it the “fallacy room”, where you can use ad hominem, strawman, red herring, as well as, signify, kap….to get it out your system.
I have another suggestion also.

I think MBM should keep a list of fallacies of reasoning at the top of every forum. Here is a list that I keep handy:

1. Ad Hominem
2. Ad Hominem Tu Quoque
3. Appeal to Authority
4. Appeal to Belief
5. Appeal to Common Practice
6. Appeal to Consequences of a Belief
7. Appeal to Emotion
8. Appeal to Fear
9. Appeal to Flattery
10. Appeal to Novelty
11. Appeal to Pity
12. Appeal to Popularity
13. Appeal to Ridicule
14. Appeal to Spite
15. Appeal to Tradition
16. Bandwagon
17. Begging the Question
18. Biased Sample
19. Burden of Proof
20. Circumstantial Ad Hominem
21. Composition
22. Confusing Cause and Effect
23. Division
24. False Dilemma
25. Gambler's Fallacy
26. Genetic Fallacy
27. Guilt By Association
28. Hasty Generalization
29. Ignoring A Common Cause
30. Middle Ground
31. Misleading Vividness
32. Personal Attack
33. Poisoning the Well
34. Post Hoc
35. Questionable Cause
36. Red Herring
37. Relativist Fallacy
38. Slippery Slope
39. Special Pleading
40. Spotlight
41. Straw Man

Description of Fallacies

In order to understand what a fallacy is, one must understand what an argument is. Very briefly, an argument consists of one or more premises and one conclusion. A premise is a statement (a sentence that is either true or false) that is offered in support of the claim being made, which is the conclusion (which is also a sentence that is either true or false).

There are two main types of arguments: deductive and inductive. A deductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) complete support for the conclusion. An inductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) some degree of support (but less than complete support) for the conclusion. If the premises actually provide the required degree of support for the conclusion, then the argument is a good one. A good deductive argument is known as a valid argument and is such that if all its premises are true, then its conclusion must be true. If all the argument is valid and actually has all true premises, then it is known as a sound argument. If it is invalid or has one or more false premises, it will be unsound. A good inductive argument is known as a strong (or "cogent") inductive argument. It is such that if the premises are true, the conclusion is likely to be true.

A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts. To be more specific, a fallacy is an "argument" in which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support. A deductive fallacy is a deductive argument that is invalid (it is such that it could have all true premises and still have a false conclusion). An inductive fallacy is less formal than a deductive fallacy. They are simply "arguments" which appear to be inductive arguments, but the premises do not provided enough support for the conclusion. In such cases, even if the premises were true, the conclusion would not be more likely to be true.





http://www.nizkor.org/features...ies/index.html#index

I think that people can then readily reference these fallacies and referee debates. I personally do not care how ugly a debate gets….I can do that thing to…with the best of them. I grew up kappin. However, going forward, I would prefer to either be in a kappin debate or an intellectual debate….I don’t want to mix the two.
^^ Noah, that's also a good idea.. I think MBM allots for this in the BIG HOUSE...

quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
quote:
Originally posted by Khalliqa:

quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
IDEA: What if we move more toward a 'social networking model' where individuals use their real names? Would that nudge people toward more responsible behavior if there was less of a shield of anonymity?


nope.. for many people,I would imagine, anonymity is a large part of the draw....


Why? If we're concerned about how we treat each other - don't you think that anonymity facilitates folks to be less careful about their behavior?


Yes.. and No.. I say this from personal experience for example:

I know WM personally and we argue on and off board it's the nature of our relationship lol... anonymity or not we know what buttons to push.. so having our real information released would not do much... (plus we've put ourselves in "time out" with each other.. ) Big Grin

AG can attest that at our alumni board site.. there was just as much drama there as there is here.. lol.. because of the nature of the personalities (highly degreed individuals with passionate opinions who know how to back it up).. so revealing info. would not help much.. outside of protecting people's personal information from strangers..

I think that's more important..

On the other hand.. on other boards without anonymity, many discussions are handled off line and only a few discussed via net.. so I'm not sure how effective it would be.. on fb.. I rarely engaged in disagreements but that was because the nature of fb is not set up for discussion unless you belong to a group.. all other discussions were really one on one on the phone... there was no need to go on the net but to conveniently check in with everyone...
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
At the end of the day, folks have been banned here. Folks have been asked to chill out.


I guess the question would be ... what was the result of these actions at that time? Confused Did they help to create a better atmosphere? Or was there virtually no difference in the overall tone of the board? 19

Of course, getting rid of/giving a warning to one disrupter has no bearing on having another one take his/her place or misconduct by another individual ... so, I'm just asking about the actions and subsequent results of those actions surrounding that person that got admonished.

If it helped bring calm, then it was a good thing to do ... and should probably be done again. If there was no noticable immediate result from those actions ... then, I suppose, they were pretty much in vain.
Ddouble's post about the Art of Trolling comes to mind. I thought it was funny at the time, but it seems relevant here:

http://africanamerica.org/eve/...254/m/4361091234/p/1


Sometimes posters are deep up in it before they realize they've been "trolled" or "flamebaited" by a fellow poster simply for entertainment purposes. I read a wiki blurb about flame-baiting which mentioned, as a courtesy, other members warning posters to "Do Not Feed The Trolls" and "YHBT" = You Have Been Trolled which i thought was very cute and might be useful to remind people (myself included) not to fall into the traps set by those who like to conduct both overt and covert flaming.
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:

If there were a moderator to definitively make the call, one person in an argument will call unfairness or bias. Maybe, MBM, you should start considering whether that's so unacceptable.


If we were at a cocktail party at someone's house - would these questions be so complex and perplexing? Why does interaction on a message board, necessarily, make things so much more difficult to discern? Why can't folks treat each other more respectfully - just because?
quote:
Originally posted by ddouble:
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
quote:
Originally posted by ddouble:

This discussion got derailed for about 4 pages. The way it was derailed is a normal occurence. And there were no consequnces for it.


So, what should the "consequence" be? If there were a moderator for that thread - what should s/he have done? Just close the thread - or what?


Lock the thread and warn the offending member(s), clearly stating the reason(s) for the administrative actions taking place. In the instance of repeat offenses, banning.

Vox laid it out. You should be able to disagree with someone without it becoming negatively personal. An attack against the argument was met by attacks against character. That's what happened in the thread I linked you to. Even when others tried to talk around the disruption, indicating an attempt to disengage, the baiting continued. Do you think that creates an atmosphere for healthy discussion?

Lots of big & small boards have moderators. Most of them choose moderators from within their communities. Some members will always complain about perceived unfairness. But the undesired behavior usually goes away pretty quickly too.

How would you verify real names & pictures anyway?

Like I told you earlier, I'm here no matter what you decide.


Here's an even better idea--in fact, it's so easy I'm wondering why no one else brought it up. How about instead of trying to sift through pages and pages of conflict, if the thread couldn't be caught sooner, go back to the inflamatory comment that started the whole thing, quote and post the inflamatory comment and warn the perpetrator about his or her actions? I mean--damn--is it that hard just to pinpoint when someone steps over the line by making some kind of unecessary insult? It's really simple--drop all the theoretical, philosophical rhetoric about an insult being 'relative' or some baseless argument like that, which is why so many members have slipped under the proverbial radar for so long with the 'No one insulted you, you're just seeing things' mantra.

I've said this before, Ddouble brought it up in this thread, and I'll say it AGAIN: Just because a member's comments do not contain any profanity does NOT mean their comments are acceptable nor does it mean their comments are appreciated, particularly when members decide they want to initiate an attack under the guise of "disagreeing" even though they have no basis for disagreeing. Just saying "NOT TRUE" doesn't cut it and saying "Enough with the bullshit" sure as hell doesn't cut it.

If this is supposed to be an intellectual, scholarly, professional discussion board, then members need to ACT that way--bottom line. They shouldn't be selective in how they interact with members--act conceited, disrespectful and condescending towards one member while coddling and borderline idol worshiping another; Criticizing what they deem to be shortcomings and character flaws in one member while totally ignoring the undesirable, disfunctional behavior in another. Don't make the mistake of thinking I'm trying ot propose an idealistic descussion board. But the dirty laundry needs to be aired--simple as that. I'm all for disagreeing--that's what debating is supposed to be about and in many cases if the debate is positive and constructive something can be learned, but when you're just disagreeing for the hell of it, with no evidence from a secondary source or even so much as an explanation as to why you're disagreeing, you're just disagreeing because you don't 'like' the person you're disagreeing with--that's immature and unproductive.


Certain members on this board want to talk with an air to them and flaunt $5 foot long words all over the place and call themselves engaging in scholarly debate but let someone have an alternative philosophy like--say for example--pluralism i.e. interracial dating, multi-culturalism or individual empowerment in the black community. Here come the conceited, condescending, browbeating remarks, which digress to labeling someone as not being black enough. One of the main aspects of being scholarly and intellectual is being multifaceted and impartial not rigid, prejudiced, and intolerant. One's intellectualism should be used as a learning and a teaching tool not as a weapon to cut someone down and put them in their place.

Members want to blame me for the current condition AA.org is in when, first of all, this board was screwed up before I even joined and, secondly, as if I'm the only member on this discussion board that has retaliated against another member. And let's not think I'm even REMOTELY trying to present myself as a victim. The point is I didn't come into this discussion board flinging profanity. I didn't come here displaying an aggressive stance--anyone can go back to the very first few pages of my archives and see that. I didn't start to get more aggressive until older members decided to take it upon themselves to tell me how to act and what to think or-else-we'll-tell-everyone-else-not-to-like-you kind of middle school cheerleading squad foolishness. I'm one of the new members that chose to stick around instead of running away or lurking for days on end. Enough of this foolishness. Every-last-one of you knows what to do--police yourselves. You know how to do it, so stop talking about it and demonstrate it.
quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:
One of the main aspects of being scholarly and intellectual is being multifaceted and impartial not rigid, prejudiced, and intolerant. One's intellectualism should be used as a learning and a teaching tool not as a weapon to cut someone down and put them in their place.


I have to co-sign this. Well put. appl

(all the while recognizing that you may be including me in the critique... but truth is truth is truth...)
quote:
Originally posted by shulamite:

But if you, MBM, stay silent when your new members are "told" that they don't have the right to participate on YOUR board (you are the owner after all), then you risk (imho) tacitly supporting the efforts of others to run new folks off due to some kind of unspoken "pecking order".


I agree and have been frustrated with that dilemma for years. I don't condone the behavior, but because I don't LIVE on the board and, in fact, don't see MOST (the vast majority) threads - all sorts of stuff happens that I have no clue about.

quote:
How many other new members just choose to "walk away"... altogether?


I agree. I have been frustrated by the fact that our community hasn't grown more over the years. We get thousands of visitors a day - but only a few new members a week - and only a small percentage of those stick around long enough to become real contributing members. There are two things - that I hear - that make it tough. Some are run off by the intellectual tone of the board. To your point though, most are probably turned off by the tenor of the argument. People are rude and rough and aggressive with each other. There's a reason why I'm not around here interacting in the threads more - it's because it's not fun sometimes - and I'm the one going broke paying the bills here. 14

quote:
ddouble asked you a great question about the Condi Rice thread, but I don't think you responded. Aside from someone calling someone else a "bitch", was the direction of that thread acceptable to you?


I have no clue. I think I read a piece of that thread at some point but didn't read everything and am still not aware of the issues.
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:

If there were a moderator to definitively make the call, one person in an argument will call unfairness or bias. Maybe, MBM, you should start considering whether that's so unacceptable.


If we were at a cocktail party at someone's house - would these questions be so complex and perplexing? Why does interaction on a message board, necessarily, make things so much more difficult to discern? Why can't folks treat each other more respectfully - just because?


*Raising my hand*

I remember waaaaaaay back when I first joined this discussion board I offered the option of having an AA.org meet-n-greet. I'm jus' sayin'. hat


Anyways, it really ain't that damn hard. Everyone is an adult here and can "discern" what comments are offensive, demeaning, condescending, and sarcastic. You don't need no damn playbook or a parts manual nor do you need a resident linguist or a cipher or a cryptographer. Certain members try to add complexity to the issue in an attempt to create more loopholes for them to slip through in their endeavors to be disrespectful and condescending.

Hell, I have a healthy sense of humor just like anyone else. But when you try to shroud insults under intellectual spiritedness that garbage needs to end.
MBM, thanks for responding. Also, thanks for your hard work.

quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
quote:
ddouble asked you a great question about the Condi Rice thread, but I don't think you responded. Aside from someone calling someone else a "bitch", was the direction of that thread acceptable to you?


I have no clue. I think I read a piece of that thread at some point but didn't read everything and am still not aware of the issues.


If getting *and keeping* "new blood" is a priority, then it may be worth considering having a moderator in these kinds of threads, specifically to intervene when folks attempt to question new posters' rights to comment based on nothing more than the "newness" of the poster.

Just a thought... thanks again for replying.
quote:
Originally posted by shulamite:
MBM, thanks for responding. Also, thanks for your hard work.

quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
quote:
ddouble asked you a great question about the Condi Rice thread, but I don't think you responded. Aside from someone calling someone else a "bitch", was the direction of that thread acceptable to you?


I have no clue. I think I read a piece of that thread at some point but didn't read everything and am still not aware of the issues.


If getting *and keeping* "new blood" is a priority, then it may be worth considering having a moderator in these kinds of threads, specifically to intervene when folks attempt to question new posters' rights to comment based on nothing more than the "newness" of the poster.

Just a thought... thanks again for replying.


Can someone post/link to an example of this please.
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:

If there were a moderator to definitively make the call, one person in an argument will call unfairness or bias. Maybe, MBM, you should start considering whether that's so unacceptable.


If we were at a cocktail party at someone's house - would these questions be so complex and perplexing? Why does interaction on a message board, necessarily, make things so much more difficult to discern? Why can't folks treat each other more respectfully - just because?


You're right. The vast majority of these discussions wouldn't happen in person, for a number of reasons.

Message board discussions don't allow for the visual, verbal, and tonal cues that we rely on in face to face convo. It's amazing how much those things contribute to communication. And because these threads don't occur in real time, there's no opportunity for instant clarification.

In person, if I'd said to NS, "What do you mean, 'what credentials'? Are u kidding me?" she would have immediately responded, "no-no-no, I'm not sayin' she has no credentials period; I'm sayin' what credentials can make up for her being a war criminal?" Then, I would've been like, "Oh, I gotchu." And that would have been the end of it. What would take 20 seconds in person takes like 2 days on a message board. So misunderstandings fester, and we also have MORE TIME to sit and pick apart the flaws in an argument. Stuff we'd miss in convo on the fly, we catch while reading on our own time. And because we catch them, and because tempers have already started flaring, we find reason to bring it up.
quote:
Originally posted by Fabulous:

quote:
and I'm the one going broke paying the bills here.


Eek And you should (most definitely) have help. Frown (not saying that you don't) But...

check your email and sorry for not contributing sooner (it slips my mind)


Fab - you're the BOMB! bow
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
quote:
Originally posted by Fabulous:

quote:
and I'm the one going broke paying the bills here.


Eek And you should (most definitely) have help. Frown (not saying that you don't) But...

check your email and sorry for not contributing sooner (it slips my mind)


Fab - you're the BOMB! bow


Awww...thanks & hug
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
quote:
Originally posted by shulamite:
MBM, thanks for responding. Also, thanks for your hard work.

quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
quote:
ddouble asked you a great question about the Condi Rice thread, but I don't think you responded. Aside from someone calling someone else a "bitch", was the direction of that thread acceptable to you?


I have no clue. I think I read a piece of that thread at some point but didn't read everything and am still not aware of the issues.


If getting *and keeping* "new blood" is a priority, then it may be worth considering having a moderator in these kinds of threads, specifically to intervene when folks attempt to question new posters' rights to comment based on nothing more than the "newness" of the poster.

Just a thought... thanks again for replying.


Can someone post/link to an example of this please.


MBM, sorry for the delay. I've PM'd you two examples of what I'm aware.
quote:
Originally posted by Khalliqa:

quote:
Originally posted by ddouble:

quote:
Once someone shows that they'll go as far out of control as imaginable in an argument, the other person who doesn't like to see things reach that point will back off. The other one more often than not takes that to mean that they've "won." Once the behavior gets below a certain point, or their opponent realizes, "WTF am I doing?", there are no consequences.


Exactly Vox.

So outside of removing nuggyt's b***h comment, you thought the dialogue in this thread was OK MBM?

http://africanamerica.org/eve/.../79160213/m/94110849

This discussion got derailed for about 4 pages. The way it was derailed is a normal occurence. And there were no consequnces for it.

I don't know if a social networking style would help.


I was wondering too.. what are the consequences for members who personally attack others then attempt to hide their hand in it ???

For example in the thread cited above a negative exchange between these two posters BEGAN with one poster attacking another poster personally ...

http://africanamerica.org/eve/...60213/m/94110849/p/4

most people would not take kindly to such a label..

such snarkiness is provocative... what began as a disagreement over the credentials of someone turned personal.. and then a defense.. counter defense.. etc..



quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:
quote:
Originally posted by shulamite:

Notwithstanding, if this is the only retort that you can offer re her "credentials", you are a very limited individual.




hmmm.... interesting...

I could have sworn i made a post about condoleeza rice and did not lobby initiate any personal drama toward anyone...

How very rude...


And everyone in this thread, including me AND MBM, have been engaged in passionate disagreements on this board... some more than others.. and yet there are some who just like to jump into arguments, goad, stroke and inflame the discussion then jump out and decry the downfall of board etiquette.. nawmean???


People make personal attacks all day long on every board.... on other boards when moderators decide that one person's consistent disruptive behavior is alright (through their silence or in some cases their support) but continuously interrupt what they feel are another poster's "disruptiveness"... then if moderators are needed, to be effective and fair moderators outside the bias of the "core" members will need to be sought...


erm.. I'm partial to you bringing "Joe" in as a moderator....

girl



I agree. If there is a moderator at all, it must be someone from outside AA.org. No one currently in consideration has the ability to rise above old grudges well enough to do a fair and impartial job of moderating.

Whatever happened to Joe?
quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:

I agree. If there is a moderator at all, it must be someone from outside AA.org. No one currently in consideration has the ability to rise above old grudges well enough to do a fair and impartial job of moderating.


Doesn't a moderator - to some degree - have the effect of allowing folks to do whatever until they get slapped? Why can't we just take personal responsibility for ourselves? Why do grown ass adults need a third party to come in and chaperone their behavior here? Doesn't anyone else think that odd?

In reality, we're probably talking about a real core active group of only about 20 members. That few number of people can't self regulate? Confused bang 14
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:

quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:

I agree. If there is a moderator at all, it must be someone from outside AA.org. No one currently in consideration has the ability to rise above old grudges well enough to do a fair and impartial job of moderating.


Doesn't a moderator - to some degree - have the effect of allowing folks to do whatever until they get slapped? Why can't we just take personal responsibility for ourselves? Why do grown ass adults need a third party to come in and chaperone their behavior here? Doesn't anyone else think that odd?

In reality, we're probably talking about a real core active group of only about 20 members. That few number of people can't self regulate? Confused bang 14



You have a good point O Esteemed Founder.
quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:


I agree. If there is a moderator at all, it must be someone from outside AA.org. No one currently in consideration has the ability to rise above old grudges well enough to do a fair and impartial job of moderating.

Whatever happened to Joe?


I'm sorry, but the statement above is projection. There is no way around bias, no matter how you choose a moderator. Like I've said multiple times, a moderator enforces the explicitly stated board policies - nothing more, nothing less.

The problem is not a biased moderator, the problem is that some members don't like being called on their flaming or faulty arguments. Some members don't even like a simple disagreement with their opinion.

MBM, if you are happy with 20 core members, then you do not need a moderator. If you want to grow faster and retain new members, you need to provide a welcoming environment. Healthy, passionate debate and discussion can happen without the baiting that is that status quo around here. A moderator enforcing explicit rules will force members to behave better or leave. If your core members really appreciate what AA.org has to offer, there should be a great willingness to follow the established rules and moderation.

You really should read all of the Dr. Rice thread then decide if you think members want to self-police.
quote:
Originally posted by ddouble:
MBM, if you are happy with 20 core members, then you do not need a moderator. If you want to grow faster and retain new members, you need to provide a welcoming environment.



This is the crux of the issue. Nothing more really needs to be written.
A competent moderator would enforce the rules regardless of who is breaking them. Ethical standards would dictate that a real not a FAUX one, look past his 2 yr personal grudge to call out a poster who has initiated personal attacks toward a poster who had not lobbied any personal attacks. A moderator without bias would have warned a poster about making ad hominem attacks like "you are a very limited individual", etc, REGARDLESS of who was making them.

MBM doesn't feel a moderator is necessary and there are no ethical mature candidates for consideration so...

police yourselves.
quote:
Originally posted by ddouble:

You really should read all of the Dr. Rice thread then decide if you think members want to self-police.



Also present within that same thread is a complete and total lack of ability to competently perform the role of a moderator by any aspiring moderators. Their lack of ability to be impartial is stunning.
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:

I agree. If there is a moderator at all, it must be someone from outside AA.org. No one currently in consideration has the ability to rise above old grudges well enough to do a fair and impartial job of moderating.


Doesn't a moderator - to some degree - have the effect of allowing folks to do whatever until they get slapped? Why can't we just take personal responsibility for ourselves? Why do grown ass adults need a third party to come in and chaperone their behavior here? Doesn't anyone else think that odd?

In reality, we're probably talking about a real core active group of only about 20 members. That few number of people can't self regulate? Confused bang 14


As you stated early on, you get 'few' complaints from members (regarding offensive posts)...

So it begs the question: how come folk weren't complainin' before now OR

why didn't they bring offensive posts to your attention...

to give you a chance to respond?

Seems to me

folks haven't utilized the FIRST option (notifying you) already in place....

instead, they choose to take it straight to the extreme.

19 A reader would think you had received a TON of complaints, the way some folk are carrying on here. Roll Eyes

Personally, I don't think we need a moderator.
quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:
A competent moderator would enforce the rules regardless of who is breaking them. Ethical standards would dictate that a real not a FAUX one, look past his 2 yr personal grudge to call out a poster who has initiated personal attacks toward a poster who had not lobbied any personal attacks. A moderator without bias would have warned a poster about making ad hominem attacks like "you are a very limited individual", etc, REGARDLESS of who was making them.

MBM doesn't feel a moderator is necessary and there are no ethical mature candidates for consideration so...

police yourselves.


yeah
quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:
A competent moderator would enforce the rules regardless of who is breaking them.



We agree. I've consistently said as much throughout the thread.

quote:

Ethical standards would dictate that a real not a FAUX one, look past his 2 yr personal grudge to call out a poster who has initiated personal attacks toward a poster who had not lobbied any personal attacks. A moderator without bias would have warned a poster about making ad hominem attacks like "you are a very limited individual", etc, REGARDLESS of who was making them.


The entire comment was if this is the best retort (argument) you can present, you are a limited individual. Even if you consider this ad hominem (which is borderline IMO), you had the choice to ignore it and not initiate 2+ pages of clearly inflammatory responses.


quote:

MBM doesn't feel a moderator is necessary and there are no ethical mature candidates for consideration so...

police yourselves.


More baiting. Thank you for proving my point to MBM.

P.S. Nmag for mod would be cool with me!
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:

I agree. If there is a moderator at all, it must be someone from outside AA.org. No one currently in consideration has the ability to rise above old grudges well enough to do a fair and impartial job of moderating.


Doesn't a moderator - to some degree - have the effect of allowing folks to do whatever until they get slapped? Why can't we just take personal responsibility for ourselves? Why do grown ass adults need a third party to come in and chaperone their behavior here? Doesn't anyone else think that odd?

In reality, we're probably talking about a real core active group of only about 20 members. That few number of people can't self regulate? Confused bang 14


Michael,

Healthy debate, and arguing even, is the greatest draw to the board.. the participants are drawn to defense or offense of their positions and onlookers enjoy learning from or being entertained by the display...

Though one can not eliminate bias from a moderator's decisions.. we can lessen its probability by choosing someone who has not displayed clear evidence of alignment over objectivity... and has long standing grudges which colors their posting style...

To be honest, flare ups WILL happen but the e-social dynamics of this board only flare up when alliances are shaken...

In other words.. fresh meat.. members use newer members as front line soldiers in their ongoing war with other members.. especially if they feel like in the past their position has not received the attention they feel is due.. that's what usually happens when things get way out of control... debates no longer become about the argument, but about personal beef with one another...

This will not be avoided when the parties within the fray are also the regulators.. and will occur no matter the makeup of the core members... if given enough time.. things often do become personal...

To alleviate this an outside moderator quells the old arguments that have been stewing.. while also establishing the "moderator" feel for newer members...

Is this embarrassing.. ? yep.. right now, I'm wondering why in the world I'm lending my opinion to something so silly.. but if your objective is self policing, I believe too many alliances and biases have been formed to alleviate this problem relying only upon that method...

shoot.. I can't believe I'm appreciating HB's posts again.. but that took almost a year of not speaking... sck


In addition, you know I have always been a huge advocate of the additional social resources brought to play on this board...

The highlighting of members.. the AA.org journalistic passes.. the online radio show... the interviews with prominent activists/authors.. this allows the energy to be dispersed and not allowed to intensify within the small net atmosphere...

When in dialogue on the board we often see a one dimensional view of a posters personality, concentrated in a dialogue within which we disagree... Seeing the person wholistically/dimensionally helps to alleviate this some...


Oh.. there is also time.. eventually people wake up and no matter their position will go "why am I lending time to such a stupid discussion? who cares?"

I really like ER's position here.. sck

quote:
My point was that I think we should be going even one step further and actually using our differences/specialties for a greater good. I mean ... we have doctors, lawyers, teachers, technology/science experts, marketers, writers, administrators, advocates (for a number of different causes, all with various contacts), we have Frats and political majors, military personnel, economists ... plus (we used to have) a radio show and a message board with which to collect, share and disseminate information.

And that's only what I can think of and know off the top of my head. There are some people who we don't even know WHAT they do .. and maybe shouldn't find out for the sake of our safety! Eek Razz But I'm sure they could be helpful, too!


I believe she very much captured the original intent of the purpose of this board.. it is these things that led us to consider hats, buttons, drives, and monetary support (remember? ).. when we have more opportunities to focus on such a thing, it helps...

other than that.. bonding within the core membership won't happen any time soon.. well... if you asked it might.. but the results would be temporary for sure...


ummm plus, although he would probably eat my positions for dinner, I want Joe to come on the board.. Big Grin
quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:

MBM doesn't feel a moderator is necessary and there are no ethical mature candidates for consideration so...

police yourselves.


That's not my position. I just want to push us to consider other options.
quote:
The problem is not a biased moderator, the problem is that some members don't like being called on their flaming or faulty arguments.


Interesting...

You're going to moderate faulty arguments? Cool but what explicitly stated board policies would regulate that?

I've yet to see board rules go quiet that far with an exception of arguments/complaints made in public about moderators.
What about if something like 5 or 10 people were given moderator privileges? Would that be complete chaos or would folks knowing that their ears could be boxed by any number of people create an effective deterrent? Kinda like the argument that the pro gun folks have. 16

Ex. what if everyone over x,000 posts is given moderator powers?

Add Reply

Likes (0)
Post
×
×
×
×