Limits to Free Speech

[Godot]

I have no problem with that idea either, only that there are pre-existing boundaries built into the system. Asking the community to evolve and set it's own boundaries is a boundary itself. That a certain frame of mind is needed to determine what you feel are appropriate boundaries, is a boundary itself.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Godot

I have no problem with that idea either, only that there are pre-existing boundaries built into the system. Asking the community to evolve and set it's own boundaries is a boundary itself. That a certain frame of mind is needed to determine what you feel are appropriate boundaries, is a boundary itself.

I am sorry, but I am not following your line of thinking. Culture and community develop from individuals getting together and talking. There are no rules of interaction that I am aware of.

[Godot]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am sorry, but I am not following your line of thinking. Culture and community develop from individuals getting together and talking. There are no rules of interaction that I am aware of.

But simply getting together to talk is itself a rule of interaction! Why talk about it instead of killing each other? Even in anarchaic societies, taboo serves the same function: to restrict the extent of dialogue and behaviour. Just because the rules aren't formalised and written out a la Hammurabi, does not mean that they do not exist. Unconscious, even subconscious rules dictate how we interact with one another.

Edit: the parliamentary analogy used earlier is one such example wherein a society dictates rules for being charitable and polite for other members. These rules do get broken on occasion, but they exist for a reason.

[HelenM]

Originally Posted by Godot

Do you know what it's called when we insist on politeness, respectfulness, kindness, charity, and so on in dealings with others, preventing them from swearing and insulting each other? Insisting on these things is called civilisation, and that it sets us apart from those who don't have a genuine commitment to lifelong learning and mutual understanding. The insistence on no rules it itself a rule; saying that people decide on the way they will interact is also a rule.

Insisting on civility does not prevent incivility. Editing out incivility does not either. And banning people who persist in being incivil doesn't prevent them from reregistering and doing it all over again. Having people assigned to check for civility and do editing and banning if necessary takes significant time. And it doesn't produce foolproof civility.

In any case, why would a rule make someone behave civilly on a discussion board who doesn't want to behave civilly? It's not as if anything worse can happen to them than banning, after all.

Since people cannot be made to be civil on discussion boards in a way that is foolproof, what do you suggest?

I suspect that if it were possible to make a board civil in a foolproof way, the IIDB admins would have done it. They seem to be strongly in favor of civility, as best I can tell.

Helen

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Godot

But simply getting together to talk is itself a rule of interaction! Why talk about it instead of killing each other? Even in anarchaic societies, taboo serves the same function: to restrict the extent of dialogue and behaviour. Just because the rules aren't formalised and written out a la Hammurabi, does not mean that they do not exist. Unconscious, even subconscious rules dictate how we interact with one another.

Edit: the parliamentary analogy used earlier is one such example wherein a society dictates rules for being charitable and polite for other members. These rules do get broken on occasion, but they exist for a reason.

Okay, so what is it you would like to see done here from an administrative viewpoint? Each member still carries their own subconscious, unwritten rules of social interaction to the table, and the community can react against those who cause problems based on those societal rules. Why is that a problem?

[Godot]

Originally Posted by HelenM

Insisting on civility does not prevent incivility. Editing out incivility does not either. And banning people who persist in being incivil doesn't prevent them from reregistering and doing it all over again. Having people assigned to check for civility and do editing and banning if necessary takes significant time. And it doesn't produce foolproof civility.

It does not, but this problem hardly calls for throwing the baby out with the bathwater as seems to be the case in this site.

Insisting on civility is one standard that is rather common is Western culture. People do react in an uncivil manner, but by and large, it does work. Saying it is just too much work to enforce is absurd; once the standard of conduct is put in place and enforced with extreme prejudice and no waffling, then those in that community will respond accordingly and improve their demeanor. Setting the bar as low as you can by suggesting that no rules are a good idea is asking for trouble.

In any case, why would a rule make someone behave civilly on a discussion board who doesn't want to behave civilly? It's not as if anything worse can happen to them than banning, after all.

This has largely been my point. There are rules in place even if some people choose not to see them. Creating a rule enforcing civility on pain of banishment will result in just that: banishment. If someone insists on being a cock anyways, they know what the response will be. Allowing them carte blanche will only cause the more sensitive members of the community to leave or to never post for fear of ridicule.

Since people cannot be made to be civil on discussion boards in a way that is foolproof, what do you suggest?

There is no foolproof way to ensure civility since the internet is mainly populated by assholes, present company included. Look at it this way: would you accept being treated poorly in real life as some people are treated on a message board? If yes, why? If not, why not? Why should the same rule structure not be imposed equally?

My suggestion is to find a balance that best suits both purposes and also suits the mission of this site. People will always complain about it, and that is their privilege. But to deny that a boundary of sorts exists is hopelessly naive.

I suspect that if it were possible to make a board civil in a foolproof way, the IIDB admins would have done it. They seem to be strongly in favor of civility, as best I can tell.

I disagree. The II admins have done the best that they can under the combined weight of the BoD and the userbase. They aim for civility as best they can, but do not apply it equally to all parts of the board. That is their problem. If you wish to see a board where the rules are applied evenly, look no further than Ebla. And I think a discussion of that sort should be taken to a different thread as to not derail this one.

[Godot]

What I would like to see is for the admins to acknowledge that rules and boundaries do exist, despite their best efforts to assert otherwise.

I would like them to try to list those pre-existing rules as best they can, with the input of the community.

I would like to see a lengthy and productive discussion take place regarding expectations and rules.

I would like to see what amounts to being something of a general consensus on this from the userbase as well as from the admins.

That's just for starters.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Godot

What I would like to see is for the admins to acknowledge that rules and boundaries do exist, despite their best efforts to assert otherwise.

Yes, the rules exist in the minds of each individual member of community. The admins here simply see no reason to codify them or list them.

I would like them to try to list those pre-existing rules as best they can, with the input of the community.

I see no need for this. the community should develop naturally in my opinion

I would like to see a lengthy and productive discussion take place regarding expectations and rules.

Is there any particular reason you are against the natural evolution of a community?

[Godot]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, the rules exist in the minds of each individual member of community. The admins here simply see no reason to codify them or list them.

The admins have to acknowledge that they exist.

I see no need for this. the community should develop naturally in my opinion

And how would you define a natural development? What constitutes natural? Without guidance?

Is there any particular reason you are against the natural evolution of a community?

Who said I was against it?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Godot

The admins have to acknowledge that they exist.

Each person's rules are slightly different until they are able to apply them in a community setting at which point the cutlture of the community will begin to emerge. My personal "rules" of social interaction aren't the same as yours, so effectively they don't exist on an objective level.

And how would you define a natural development? What constitutes natural? Without guidance?

Yes, without guidance. Just like someone may design and build a park, but how people interact in that park has nothing to do with the architect, there are no posted rules of how to talk each other.

Who said I was against it?

Well, in all honesty, I find myself completely unable to empathize or comprehend where you are coming from with regards to this issue. I apologize if I am misreading you, but I really am trying to understand your viewpoint.

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by Godot

The admins have to acknowledge that they exist.

An example of us acknowledging them in a some depth is the list of criteria we proposed for the voting system. As I said above, although the default system is currently disabled, the discussion is not and Inshallah, will lead to a fruitful solution.

And how would you define a natural development? What constitutes natural? Without guidance?

I consider those criteria to be guidance, just not of the editing and deleting variety. Unfortunately, some people did not wish to be guided by them; that too is standard fare online where incivility wears many, many faces, some of them impenetrable disguises. I just don't think the board is in any danger of turning into a cesspit while we work on developing a system more likely to implement those standards effectively without requiring deletions or authoritarian admonishment.

I've tried that and it sucked for me. Pretty hard, in fact. I want to try something else now; but it is something, Godot. It's not nothing.

On a personal note, I'm not sure what we've done to engender this reaction from you. We've thanked you repeatedly for your many contributions; we've implemented several of your ideas, sometimes within hours of your suggesting them. Your participation here hasn't been a waste of time from our perspective.

Tom said something along these lines in Ronin's thread yesterday, but just to be sure you know it comes from both of us, if I've treated you badly in any way or made you feel unwelcome I apologize unreservedly as it was certainly not my intent.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by Godot

Naive in the sense that they do not appear to have been fully thought out to their logical conclusion. Naive in that no (publicly accessible) contingencies exist to deal with any number of situations that could potentially arise.

In what way do you believe our rules have not been fully thought out to their logical conclusion? What are the situations that could potentially arise that you feel require contingency planning? If you could give specific examples of problems that might occur and how you recommend we address them that would be helpful.

Naive in the sense that you seemingly expect everything to come up roses with minimal hiccups along the way.

I'm not sure what either of us has said to give you the impression that we expect to have no problems or not at some point possibly have to reassess our methods. In fact I think I've stated the contrary numerous times now. As I said, livius and I have a lot of experience as moderator, administrator and participant in numerous forums. We have seen how many are formed, on what basis they structure their rules and policies, how they enforce such, and the result of their doing so in both short and long term. Does that mean we have all the answers? Not by a long shot. But we have a lot of ideas, most of which are outlined in our rules and policies.

Naive in that you ask for ruthless criticism and then get defensive and distant when it is sincerely offered. Naive in that as a result of your defensiveness, I have had to withhold from being fully ruthless; an action that may save a friendship (or two) but may harm a website. Naive in that you are attaching a pejorative meaning to the very term "naive" when it is clearly not called for.

I don't understand what you mean about me being "defensive and distant". Obviously I am trying to address you and every other member with a certain degree of professionalism, but I think anyone who knows me can easily understand that doing so doesn't come naturally. You know I have a short temper and a tendency to overreact from time to time. If I am to avoid doing so here it may unfortunately have to be at the cost of some warmness in my speech. I apologize for taking your 'naive' comment as a pejorative term, but it seemed a reasonable interpretation given the exceedingly aggressive tone of your posts here. When we asked for "ruthless criticism", we were in fact asking for you to be thorough and unrestrained in your critique. I don't think either of us wanted or expected you to be ruthless in your presentation.

But why choose this approach over the next? What was so appealing as regards this one? What exactly are the benefits of choosing this one relative to any of the others that you have meticulously and rigorously investigated?

I'm sure I can't possibly summarize our months of research and planning for you, but we weighed all of it and chose the approach that seemed the best possible way to accomplish what we wanted while upholding the principles most aligned with our desires and beliefs.

Please desist in making a circular argument and address the question honestly.

I don't appreciate your accusations that I am being evasive or dishonest, as I have given you no reason to believe I have been. If I have said I don't understand your point, it is because I don't. It is entirely up to you if you want to reiterate your argument or insist that I am being deliberately obtuse. However I would think you'd prefer to avoid the latter, as it seems to be exactly what you are accusing me of doing.

And this too doesn't address my question. I asked you what you mean by "freethought" and you replied by providing me with four "principles", all of which are wide open to interpretation. What are the operational definitions you are using when you use those terms? And why are they important above all else? As I said earlier: naive.

No you didn't. You asked me if my comment "You are free to say whatever you want to say provided you do not violate our written rules" is what I mean by 'freethought'. My response was that we have made no attempt to define freethought, but that we have a short list of principles we seek to uphold. I should have added then, as I will now, that my comment that you are free to say whatever you want within the rules most closely reflects our second principle, "Freedom of expression".

The relevant bit that I quoted reads thus: Later on in that post, you also said this: Apparently a civil environment resembles a playground to you, or one that requires babysitting. Now that I've answered your question, address my concern.

Again, I honestly don't appreciate your hostile tone. I will address your concern because you have taken the time to express it and because I'm interested in the development of this forum, not because you demand that I do. My "playground monitor" and "babysitter" analogies were meant to express our belief that it is entirely possible for adults to have "civilized" interaction without the need to be restricted in how they are allowed to interact with each other. It seems we disagree on that point, but if I misunderstand then I encourage you to restate your case if you are so inclined.

There really is no point in my doing so; I have stated my case a calmly and clearly as I can, multiple times even. Either my concerns are too esoteric or you just do not comprehend them. I dislike having to repeat myself at the best of times, so I will not do so again.

Fair enough. Obviously I cannot compel you to persist here. If you feel I am incapable of understanding your reason, perhaps we truly are at an impasse.

I never once said that it was inevitable, and you certainly have no idea what it is I'm thinking. It Is a possibility, and it is readily apparent that it is one that you have not considered. As I said earlier: naive. You would well do to read my comments about lifelong learning, particularly in the thread that warrenly started where I describe the Kolb Cycle. I'm certain that it would be of use to you.

I see. So you sincerely believe that livius and I spent months researching and participating in forums, as staff and members, and never once considered the possibility that the forum might eventually degenerate into a cesspit without some kind of moderation. Then you reiterate the word 'naive' for the third time, and imply that by a reference to your "lifelong learning" comment that I have abandoned any effort to learn. But then you want me to believe that you didn't mean naive in a pejorative sense. Okay.

I am quite aware that your approach is untested and unorthodox; that is why I can criticise it so easily. I have yet to see a case put forth as to why this approach is more desirable than any other. Why this approach is better suited to having you achieve your goals than any other. Above all else, why?

Obviously there is no way we can prove the effectiveness of this untested method short of testing it. I'm not sure what else you expect us to do at this time. If you want to ask such broad questions as "why this approach?" I really can't answer that. What specific issues do you forsee that you feel we have not anticipated or addressed?

I'm sure you meant this kindly, but I am reading this as a message to go fuck myself. I have been kicking back and enjoying myself when the time is available: look at my stats in the arcade, for fucks sake. That alone should tell you that I'm relaxing. But there is a time to relax and a time to be vigilant. I have no intention of letting you guys of so easily.

Well I'm very glad that you're enjoying yourself here, but I'm not sure what you mean about "letting us off so easily". What was our crime, exactly?

Telling me to "kick back and try to enjoy [my]self" tells me that while you may have read what I've been writing, you certainly haven't been paying attention. It has already been suggested to me that I should just relax and let it be, and let the problems sort themselves out when they arise.

Fuck that.

I've been arguing against that the entire time. To reassert such tripe is nearly enough to make not want to bother at all. I really think that I am wasting my time here.

I honestly don't have the slightest idea why you are so angry and hostile. As livius said I don't know where we have been even remotely as aggressive toward you as you have been toward us since the day we opened, but if you can point out where we have been we will try to explain and/or apologize for whatever it is we said or did. On the other hand, by all means if you think you are wasting your time here I will not try to insist that you do so.

As I said before, I'm quite sure you have a lot to contribute to this community. Hell, we've already adopted at least a couple of your suggestions and your arguments were instrumental in our abolishing the default voting system. Meanwhile, I have tried to respond to your every comment as respectfully and attentively as possible. What more can I do for you?

[Petra]

Telling me to "kick back and try to enjoy [my]self" tells me that while you may have read what I've been writing, you certainly haven't been paying attention. It has already been suggested to me that I should just relax and let it be, and let the problems sort themselves out when they arise.

Fuck that.

I've been arguing against that the entire time. To reassert such tripe is nearly enough to make not want to bother at all. I really think that I am wasting my time here.

How very passive-aggressive.

Textbook, almost.

[dave_a]

I don't get it.

What's the problem?

What we have here is a shiny new forum; the admins want to try some things out and see how they go.

If there are problems down the road things can be revisited.

Peace, love, happiness and all that stuff,

Dave

[Petra]

My view exactly, Dantonac.

All this pre-empting crap reminds me of a certain President and a certain Mid-east country. And as people said then, once that precedent has been set it will make it easier for anyone to pre-emptively attack any threat; real or imagined. Even on internet forums. God, how right they were.


Perhaps instead of spending so much time early on nit-picking every last foreseeable thing that may or may not go wrong, how about we just create and contribute to actual topics of discussion in the various fora supplied here, and dive into our journals, and write any articles we would like to submit, and go into the chatroom and just chat with people, and play games in the arcade, and all that other normal human community stuff.

[HelenM]

Originally Posted by Godot

Insisting on civility is one standard that is rather common is Western culture. People do react in an uncivil manner, but by and large, it does work. Saying it is just too much work to enforce is absurd; once the standard of conduct is put in place and enforced with extreme prejudice and no waffling, then those in that community will respond accordingly and improve their demeanor. Setting the bar as low as you can by suggesting that no rules are a good idea is asking for trouble.

Speaking for myself, it doesn't take stated rules for me to be civil. I aim to be civil anyway. Rules saying 'be civil' don't make me more civil and the absence of civility rules doesn't make me less civil. And I suspect a lot of other people are the same way too. I think that anyone who is going to be incivil enough to offend others more than occasionally is not going to change their ways just because a forum rule says "be civil".

This has largely been my point. There are rules in place even if some people choose not to see them. Creating a rule enforcing civility on pain of banishment will result in just that: banishment. If someone insists on being a cock anyways, they know what the response will be. Allowing them carte blanche will only cause the more sensitive members of the community to leave or to never post for fear of ridicule.

Well, maybe this forum is not going to cater to people that sensitive and so they'll leave. Whatever. Choices have to be made. In the focus group there was strong sentiment in favor of as little moderation as possible, if I recall correctly.

There is no foolproof way to ensure civility since the internet is mainly populated by assholes, present company included. Look at it this way: would you accept being treated poorly in real life as some people are treated on a message board? If yes, why? If not, why not? Why should the same rule structure not be imposed equally?

Because it's unenforceable on the Internet - I think you yourself pointed out that physical retaliation is possible in real life which is an effective deterrent to many types of offensive behavior. And there are other real-life responses which can't be done on the Internet where we don't necessarily know anything about the other person.

My suggestion is to find a balance that best suits both purposes and also suits the mission of this site.

That's fine. Would civility rules here have made any difference to what you've posted on this forum so far? I'm just asking.

I disagree. The II admins have done the best that they can under the combined weight of the BoD and the userbase. They aim for civility as best they can, but do not apply it equally to all parts of the board. That is their problem.

Exactly. However you describe the problem, I don't think it's one they choose to have i.e. if they could I think they'd either solve it or swap it for some other method they could apply to produce foolproof civility. The point is, IIDB in no way proves that it's possible to have moderator intervention that eliminates incivility. And - see below - I'm not aware that Ebla can be used to show moderator intervention can produce foolproof civility either because in my experience their response to persistent determined incivility has not been tested.

If you wish to see a board where the rules are applied evenly, look no further than Ebla. And I think a discussion of that sort should be taken to a different thread as to not derail this one.

I'm not aware that Ebla has had any members be persistently incivil to the point that they have had posts repeatedly edited or have been banned. Perhaps it has happened and I just don't know about it. But if it has not happened then Ebla's contingency plans for a person determined to be incivil have not been tested so we don't know whether they are effective or not yet.

Anyway, I don't see that it's off-topic to talk about the strategies other boards use to achieve civility goals and how effective they are.

Helen

[Larry]

Originally Posted by lunachick

Perhaps instead of spending so much time early on nit-picking every last foreseeable thing that may or may not go wrong, how about we just create and contribute to actual topics of discussion in the various fora supplied here, and dive into our journals, and write any articles we would like to submit, and go into the chatroom and just chat with people, and play games in the arcade, and all that other normal human community stuff.

Not a bad idea lunachick.



This discussion has been interesting.

Being an Administrator of two Boards I'm always interested in reading through these type of threads. Still, I wonder just how many pages it would take before most members (and the Admin. themselves) would just stop feeding it.

Oops! I guess I just tossed another morsel out on top of the heap. I think I'll go play some games.

Larry

[Ronin]

Being an Administrator of two Boards I'm always interested in reading through these type of threads. Still, I wonder just how many pages it would take before most members (and the Admin. themselves) would just stop feeding it.

I've declined to respond to this thread at all for that very reason, Larry.

Shit.

[HelenM]

Originally Posted by Ronin

I've declined to respond to this thread at all for that very reason, Larry.

Shit.

I hate when that happens

[Ronin]

Originally Posted by HelenM

I hate when that happens

Me too!

Next thing you know...mongrel, kwigibo, zeroangel...and the like start showing up with their smartass selves.

Like moths to flame.

The whole thing becomes destined for post-slut purgatory.

Good thing we have better sense about us.

You play curveball yet, Helen?

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by Larry

Being an Administrator of two Boards I'm always interested in reading through these type of threads. Still, I wonder just how many pages it would take before most members (and the Admin. themselves) would just stop feeding it.

Well there's a little history here, Larry. I for one have a bit of a reputation as being a relentless critic of various forum administrations, so I expect to take a fair amount of heat myself and it would be downright hypocritical of me to not at least try to respond to any critic as thoroughly and honestly as possible. That I have been able to do so thus far without the top of my head blowing off is something of a miracle.

Oops! I guess I just tossed another morsel out on top of the heap. I think I'll go play some games.

Oh well, me too.

[Godot]

I heartily withdraw my criticism.

After a lengthy deliberation with a certain redheaded lass, I also withdraw my presence. Perhaps I shall return in a few weeks.

[Larry]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

Well there's a little history here, Larry. I for one have a bit of a reputation as being a relentless critic of various forum administrations, so I expect to take a fair amount of heat myself and it would be downright hypocritical of me to not at least try to respond to any critic as thoroughly and honestly as possible.

It is a challenge when you find yourself on the other side of the table. I think you've done quite well in explaining your pov, while maintaining your patience.

Now, I have a rascal out there trying to one-up me in Blackjack, so I better get back to the table. The nerve of some people.

Larry

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by Godot

I heartily withdraw my criticism.

Sigh... I'm sorry, Godot. Again, your participation in these threads was of great value to me personally and, given the changes you already effectuated, to the site as well. I wish I had done a better job responding to your concerns.

After a lengthy deliberation with a certain redheaded lass, I also withdraw my presence. Perhaps I shall return in a few weeks.

Even though my hair is merely brown, I hope you do too.

[Ronin]

Now, I have a rascal out there trying to one-up me in Blackjack, so I better get back to the table. The nerve of some people.

Larry

Bring IT on, homey!!