It depends on how closely affiliated to the LVMI it is intended to be. Minimum moderation would be ideal.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
I hate to continue in this vein, because I really thought we could gather ideas together and back a single, forward-looking alternative forum. Ideas on moderation are only one of many things we could improve. But, has anyone here ever used the comments in youtube? I feel like that alone is enough evidence to rest my case.
I support SkepticalMetal's insight that people who go to intellectual forums (or intellectual youtube videos) for discussion, tend to be interested in that content. If people want a 4chan experience, they already have 4chan. And for the umpteenth time, this elusive troll is a bogeyman: in 15 years on internet forums, I've never encountered someone who just signed up for an account to purely troll. But I have, on more than a few occassions including recently here, encountered mods abusing their power—I will go as far as to say that without exception, all mod activity I've ever been aware of was either abusive or, at best, unnecessary.
Moving threads has always an abused mod power. You try to post a thread in the category with the most users, and a mod moves it to some place it will never be seen; you try to post a thread that a mod doesn't like, they move it to the "graveyard". With the approach that categories and subcategories are optional, that eliminates at least one classic pillar excuse for moderation. My point is that mod abuse is a much more realistic threat than the troll bogeyman.
hashem,
This forum has had its fair share of troll accounts. TronCat was banned for creating the MissMapleLeaf troll account (who was also probably kylio). There was also mustang19. These are the only two that I can think of off the top of my head (and are quite recent), but I'm sure there have been others here.
It would be but personally I prefer mods to maintain minimum standards of etiquette, e.g. removing obnoxious pricks who go out of their way to antagonise other people. Not everyone enjoys that kind of discussion, and on academic fora it might not even be suitable or conducive to the kind of discussions you want going on there.
in 15 years on internet forums, I've never encountered someone who just signed up for an account to purely troll.
Maybe I'm beating a dead horse but I just woke up and am looking to argue something intellectual:
@gotlucky
Been here 3 years and never even heard of any of those guys. What were they doing that was considered "trolling", which was so offensive to our sensibilities and destructive to the reputation of these fine forums that they had to be banned outright? Why were the users here unable to ignore them or build a community character by dealing with them—other than just resigned failure to do anything because they knew that mods would. Again I ask, have you ever used youtube comments (they are unmoderated)? I invoke even the entire philosophy of youtube (at least, what got it off the ground). You could post any video, and youtube didn't have a philosophy that some content would be considered "trolling" or "offensive" or "damaging to youtube's reputation". It's been from this foundation that one of the greatest sites on the internet has flourished.
@marko
I literally haven't, and yet I agree that an integral part of humand bonding and community building is dealing with problems together. Personally, I'm inclined to ignore trash posts more than to flame. But back to community and bonding, I think people are better served exercising our brain muscle to think of creative solutions to problems than defaulting to force, and again I invoke youtube comments and of course the purpose of this thread: Surely the internet veterans here can use our collective knowledge to fathom improvements which, taken together, eliminate the threat of mods (which is greater than the threat of a bogeyman) while moving in a forward direction. Thus my biggest contribution, the suggestion that categories are optional, which simultaneously is progressive in moving to a unified forum while also eliminating the threat of mods moving threads.
@hashem
They were trolling. TronCat created at least 1 other and probably 2 accounts for the purpose of trolling. In other words, he had a somewhat productive account and contributed to the discussion on the forum with his TronCat account, and with his MissMapleLeaf (and probably kylio) account he cluttered the forum with posts to flame and disrupt ongoing conversations.
Now, I understand that you think we ought to just ignore those posts. But you know what? As others pointed out, I don't feel like tolerating people who shout and insult at dinner parties, and I don't feel like tolerating that type of behavior on this particular forum. You brought up Youtube, well people flame videos all the time. Some musician might put up music, and you'll get some asshole who will write about how much that person sucks. Okay, often it's true. But you know what? There are tactful ways to put it, and sometimes you don't say that at all. On Youtube, you can delete those comments. I support that. If someone puts up a video where they put a lot of work into it, they don't need to read "You fucking suck monkey balls, bitch. You should quit. You are so fucking bad my grandmother could do that better than you."
Most people don't care to read that about themselves or others. Maybe you are different.
I don't think you can delete comments on youtube.
And I understand a definition of trolling, my question was more specific: "What were they doing...which was so offensive to our sensibilities and destructive to the reputation of these fine forums that they had to be banned outright? Why were the users here unable to ignore them or build a community character by dealing with them—other than just resigned failure to do anything because they knew that mods would."
I see ridiculous comments all the time on youtube. Everyone does, and everyone deals with it. It doesn't ruin the community, in fact youtube has grown to be a gigantic community. It doesn't deter anyone from using youtube or from commenting there, and it certainly hasn't ruined the reputation of youtube.
Absent moderation, there is evidence that a community character spontaneously arises to deal with the problem. This is the whole point of anarchism, and it works! I don't come here looking for a dinner party, I come here looking for intellectually stimulating discourse. I don't go to youtube looking for a dinner party. If I want a dinner party or 4chan, I'll go to a dinner party or 4chan.
Of course we could just not respond and ignore them. Often that happens. I don't know why you are being so dense on this. If I am having a party at my home, and some jerk starts giving people a hard time needlessly, then I'm going to kick him out. It's the same with online forums. If they disagree with us, so be it. But if they are going to be jerks or be dishonest or troll or whatever, then I see nothing wrong with mods throwing them out.
We are all guests here. Kylio, Mustang, and MML were banned because they were running counter to intellectually stimulating discourse through dishonesty and general rudeness. That and MML was a delibrate attempt by TronCat to be a jerk. Sure, sometimes we have threads about pokemon marxists, but so what? Those threads are joke threads. But if a troll is going to go into a serious thread and LIE or INSULT people, then the mods will deal with it.
There is no reason to let those posts remain or let the user continue. I don't see how this is so difficult to understand.
Yes OK Kylio, Mustang and MML were trolls and they were baned, nice. So in all these years the existence of a whopping 3 trolls justifies having half a dozen moderators? So in some instance having a mod was a good thing. But mods did act in more instances than just this one, so question is was having them a net gain? On the one hand they banned these three trolls, but on the other I recall ERO Ollovietto and wilderness (and there could have been more) leave or be expelled due to issues with mods. I don't remember the specifics, but I doubt the blame for that lay with the two exclusively since they were quality posters and able to get along for a very long time before their banning/departure. And it's not like having a mod is a requirement to be able to get ridd of trolls. In fact in some instances having a mod may delay his departure, because a mod may give a troll unwarranted benefit of the doubt and in the mean time protect him from the wrath of users.
Those 3 are only recent trolls that were banned. I have only been posting since April 2011, and I remember there being trolls even back then. I don't remember specifics, as I have other things I care to remember. The mods barely act even now. I completely disagreed with SD's month temp ban by Sanchez, and in that sort of situation I agree with you that mods don't always do the right thing and they misuse their power.
But you need some sort of ability to get rid of trolls. Even wikipedia has taken meaures to stop people from posting whatever they want. It used to be that anyone could edit anything, but you see, trolls like to ruin a good thing. So some articles require special permissions to edit, and there are mods that police wikipedia now.
But you can't just ignore trolls to make them go away. They thrive on ruining other people's experiences. They clutter good threads with shit. If you want to voteban somehow, MAYBE that could work. But the problem with that is that people can just create a lot of accounts in order to start vote banning people. No matter what you go with, the system will have some flaw.
Besides, what about the advertising soccer threads? We need to keep those threads? Do we votedelete those threads? Do we voteban the creators? How many votes do we need? Do 50% of the forum users have to vote before we can have spam threads and posts deleted? Or maybe just 50 votes?
Or we can just PM a mod and have them clean it up. Problem solved.
But it's not like it's going to happen anyway. You're not going to see that type of poster on an 'academic' forum in the first place and if you do they won't stick around anyway.
We've had a few here. Like Nathan. And some other kooks.
I'm not fully sold on downrating/uprating posts as a means of curtailing "renegade" individuals, as this can sometimes lead to unfair picking on individuals and bullying, and can be as bad as a biased mod. There are positives to this kind of system, of course, in that it gives you an idea as to whether a particular individual has a history of causing trouble, and can constitute a more objective grounds for a mod to assess whether an individual is actually contributing to the forum or poisoning the atmosphere.
As far as I am concerned, the moderators should do no more than keep the forum clean and tidy. I wouldn't bother making parallels to anarchism. A forum is like a club, and clubs have their bouncers for people who begin causing problems for others. I am opposed to heavy-handed moderation which stiffles the atmosphere, all the same.
YouTube is moderated, to my knowledge, but relies on user-led rating for the most part.
So hang on... You're saying Youtube can't work (even though it does) because even though it can (and does) you would kick someone out of a party and therefore it would be a bad idea to try this even though it's been demonstrated to work on the most well-trafficked, biggest discussion sites of all time including FB, Youtube, and Reddit? This, because the threat of a bogeyman troll is worse than the demonstrated, well known threat of moderators.
gotlucky:There is no reason to let those posts remain or let the user continue.
There is no reason to not let the posts remain, or let the user continue. I gave some pretty solid examples, you gave an example of a troll and refuse to explain why what he did was a real threat to this community, on par or worse than the real, demonstrated threat of moderators. I don't see how this is so difficult to understand.
Will you at least acknowledge that the brilliance of spontaneous order is precisely that it does occur without the threat of top-down force? Please address youtube, because your only comment so far was that offensive comments can be deleted and I'm fairly sure that's not true (not to say you're a lying troll, just that I'm not aware that you can delete comments).
hashem: I think we can all agree that forum is best which moderates least. If it is used, it should be considered a necessary evil and handled like a nuclear device. I would support a forum where real attention was payed to general input and especially input regarding moderation. That aside, I feel like others have important ideas to contribute about how to make this forums successor completely awesome. Aside from ideas about moderation, let's gather here suggestions about how to make the next forum exceptional.
I think we can all agree that forum is best which moderates least. If it is used, it should be considered a necessary evil and handled like a nuclear device. I would support a forum where real attention was payed to general input and especially input regarding moderation.
That aside, I feel like others have important ideas to contribute about how to make this forums successor completely awesome. Aside from ideas about moderation, let's gather here suggestions about how to make the next forum exceptional.
Holy shit you just went Thoreau on us. I think I pretty much agree with most of your opinions, moderation needs to be a rare occurence.
hashem: So hang on... You're saying Youtube can't work (even though it does) because even though it can (and does) you would kick someone out of a party and therefore it would be a bad idea to try this even though it's been demonstrated to work on the most well-trafficked, biggest discussion sites of all time including FB, Youtube, and Reddit? This, because the threat of a bogeyman troll is worse than the demonstrated, well known threat of moderators.
hashem, you always do this, and I can never figure out why...Instead of LYING about what I'm saying, why don't you just directly quote me. Nowhere did I claim that Youtube doesn't "work", whatever you mean by that.
I already explained the problems with those people and why some of us like to see them get banned. Maybe you could try QUOTING me, that way I know you have actually read what I write.
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
Jon Irenicus: But it's not like it's going to happen anyway. You're not going to see that type of poster on an 'academic' forum in the first place and if you do they won't stick around anyway. We've had a few here. Like Nathan. And some other kooks. I'm not fully sold on downrating/uprating posts as a means of curtailing "renegade" individuals, as this can sometimes lead to unfair picking on individuals and bullying, and can be as bad as a biased mod. There are positives to this kind of system, of course, in that it gives you an idea as to whether a particular individual has a history of causing trouble, and can constitute a more objective grounds for a mod to assess whether an individual is actually contributing to the forum or poisoning the atmosphere. As far as I am concerned, the moderators should do no more than keep the forum clean and tidy. I wouldn't bother making parallels to anarchism. A forum is like a club, and clubs have their bouncers for people who begin causing problems for others. I am opposed to heavy-handed moderation which stiffles the atmosphere, all the same. YouTube is moderated, to my knowledge, but relies on user-led rating for the most part.
+1
Well put.
gotlucky: hashem: So hang on... You're saying Youtube can't work (even though it does) because even though it can (and does) you would kick someone out of a party and therefore it would be a bad idea to try this even though it's been demonstrated to work on the most well-trafficked, biggest discussion sites of all time including FB, Youtube, and Reddit? This, because the threat of a bogeyman troll is worse than the demonstrated, well known threat of moderators. hashem, you always do this, and I can never figure out why...Instead of LYING about what I'm saying, why don't you just directly quote me. Nowhere did I claim that Youtube doesn't "work", whatever you mean by that. There is no reason to not let the posts remain, or let the user continue. I gave some pretty solid examples, you gave an example of a troll and refuse to explain why what he did was a real threat to this community, on par or worse than the real, demonstrated threat of moderators. I don't see how this is so difficult to understand. I already explained the problems with those people and why some of us like to see them get banned. Maybe you could try QUOTING me, that way I know you have actually read what I write. Will you at least acknowledge that the brilliance of spontaneous order is precisely that it does occur without the threat of top-down force? Please address youtube, because your only comment so far was that offensive comments can be deleted and I'm fairly sure that's not true (not to say you're a lying troll, just that I'm not aware that you can delete comments). BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
I think he's making some solid points here. I often see material that is not offensive to me at all, get removed by moderators. Whether someone is a troll or not, I think people still get a little too sensitive on forums. I've been a mod at another place as well, our policy is to have mods that only remove porn, super weird stuff, and a couple of other things. We normally encourage obnoxious people to post whatever they want, and things have a way of sorting themselves out.
Jon Irenicus:A forum is like a club, and clubs have their bouncers for people who begin causing problems for others.
My whole argument is that a forum doesn't have to be like a club or a dinner party, that in fact, the most well trafficked sites around are not moderated.
John Irenicus:YouTube is moderated, to my knowledge, but relies on user-led rating for the most part.
As far as commenting goes, which was my point in bringing up youtube, you can post anything and nobody can do anything about it and youtube has thrived like this.
I have a philosophy of anti-censorship, that exposure to the harsh facts of reality build character, and that forceful saviors are barriers to progress. I think sites like FB and Youtube and Reddit and 4chan have proven this. I think an intellectual community can thrive without a lot of spam, and can build character and community by overcoming obstacles instead of expecting someone else to do it for them—and really, power corrupts, the threat of a mod is worse than the threat of a bogeyman troll.
h.k.: I think he's making some solid points here. I often see material that is not offensive to me at all, get removed by moderators. Whether someone is a troll or not, I think people still get a little too sensitive on forums. I've been a mod at another place as well, our policy is to have mods that only remove porn, super weird stuff, and a couple of other things. We normally encourage obnoxious people to post whatever they want, and things have a way of sorting themselves out.
As I said in a previous post on this page, I did not agree with Smiling Dave's month long temp ban. I think a number of people here were not happy with Danny Sanchez for it. I am not claiming nor have I ever claimed that mods are perfect. But I don't see a need to clutter a great forum like this one with useless $#!T from people trying to ruin a good experience for the rest of us. It's one thing for people to create fun threads about what we look like or about marxist pokemon. That's funny stuff and a lot of us clearly like those threads. But there are other more serious threads where some users have created troll accounts specifically to fill those threads with useless crap.
Not everyone wants to read through useless crap in order to find the good posts in a serious thread. If someone is going out of their way to ruin those threads, then I fully support mods removing those posts and sometimes the users too.
There are I think 2 people on this forum that I no longer respond to. I finally had enough of their shit and said I would never respond to a post of theirs again. Would I like to see them banned? You bet! Have they been banned? No. So I don't interact with a couple of those people. Okay...but guess what? There are others that are even worse than the people I don't interact with on this forum anymore. People who really do go out of their way to ruin the experience here.
If you want a forum where people can just post whatever shit they want, go make one and have a good time. In the meantime, Austrian Forum, Liberty HQ, and Voluntaryism Forum are going to remove people who ruin the experience. Fortunately no one has tested Blake, Wheylous, or Autolykos on their forums yet. Hopefully it will never happen.
h.k.:We normally encourage obnoxious people to post whatever they want, and things have a way of sorting themselves out.
Spontaneous order, as though it needed defense around here. I can imagine that things would sort out even quicker and more effectively if obnoxious behavior was ignored or not encouraged or even discouraged or, best, if we could come up with some creative solutions. Outright force always seems to be the answer of people who are too intellectually lazy to fathom real solutions.
gotlucky: h.k.: I think he's making some solid points here. I often see material that is not offensive to me at all, get removed by moderators. Whether someone is a troll or not, I think people still get a little too sensitive on forums. I've been a mod at another place as well, our policy is to have mods that only remove porn, super weird stuff, and a couple of other things. We normally encourage obnoxious people to post whatever they want, and things have a way of sorting themselves out. As I said in a previous post on this page, I did not agree with Smiling Dave's month long temp ban. I think a number of people here were not happy with Danny Sanchez for it. I am not claiming nor have I ever claimed that mods are perfect. But I don't see a need to clutter a great forum like this one with useless $#!T from people trying to ruin a good experience for the rest of us. It's one thing for people to create fun threads about what we look like or about marxist pokemon. That's funny stuff and a lot of us clearly like those threads. But there are other more serious threads where some users have created troll accounts specifically to fill those threads with useless crap. Not everyone wants to read through useless crap in order to find the good posts in a serious thread. If someone is going out of their way to ruin those threads, then I fully support mods removing those posts and sometimes the users too. There are I think 2 people on this forum that I no longer respond to. I finally had enough of their shit and said I would never respond to a post of theirs again. Would I like to see them banned? You bet! Have they been banned? No. So I don't interact with a couple of those people. Okay...but guess what? There are others that are even worse than the people I don't interact with on this forum anymore. People who really do go out of their way to ruin the experience here. If you want a forum where people can just post whatever shit they want, go make one and have a good time. In the meantime, Austrian Forum, Liberty HQ, and Voluntaryism Forum are going to remove people who ruin the experience. Fortunately no one has tested Blake, Wheylous, or Autolykos on their forums yet. Hopefully it will never happen.
I've seen these troll accounts, I have also seen other posters debate these trolls. I still see nothing that out of the ordinary, these trolls probably generate some traffic and hits for mises.org as well.
Youtube seems to be a pretty good success with some of the most annoying trolls ever, I still think we need to consider more limited moderation. I personally have never had to ignore anyone ever on a forum.
I agree with you to the extent that censorship is harmful to the interests of a community devoted to academic and philosophical exploration. However, I don't think moderators are inherently a bad thing, provided that they're there to serve a specific purpose. I also agree that many a moderator can be a petty tyrant. However, it largely depends on how moderation is managed. Leaving it down to users voting and flagging stuff for spam/trolling does work, which I am not denying. What I don't follow is whether you think mods should be done away with entirely.
Look, if you are looking for an anything goes forum, then these 3 alternatives are just not going to be for you. If you want an anything goes forum, go create one. Meanwhile, the rest of us who want a place to talk with reasonable people - whether they agree with us or not - we will go to one or all of those 3 alternatives.
You know, for people who are supposed to understand subjectivism, you guys really have no idea what it actually means. You can call Youtube and Facebook successful. But successful at what? Do Blake, Wheylous, and Autolykos share the same ideas of success that you do? Certainly Youtube and Facebook are popular. But so what? If Autolykos doesn't consider a popular anything goes forum his idea of a successful forum, then that will not be his goal. If you read his rules, you can see that his idea of a successful forum is a place where people can talk and debate ideas reasonably without dishonesty and insults.
Wheylous has almost no rules, but if you think you can post just anything, go try it and see what happens. And clearly Blake shares similar ideas as Autolykos.
Moderation has been inconsistent and heavy handed at times on here. It has probably been worse over the past year or so do to only a few active mods. Like Youtube these forums depend heavily on user reporting since unless the mod is reading the thread he doesn't know if he is do anything.
This does not mean that moderation though per se is bad thing for the reasons outlined above. I think the main issue is what type of forum atmosphere we want. I favour robust and respectful which requires light moderation.
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
I feel I've made a strong case against the value of moderators, so it's comforting to see at least a few people agree. Again, that was and is not the purpose of this thread.
I'm glad you guys intend to continue the mises forums legacy, but personally there are plenty of intellectual communities out there with status quo administrative philosophy which are already well established and well trafficked, and since I have no emotional attachment to anyone here I have no intentions of following you guys to an unestablished, niche forum with status quo administrative philosophy. Enjoy yourselves on those three forums, really.
Meanwhile, this thread still exists as a resource for gathering suggestions about how to build an improved community as successor to the mises forums.
But you need some sort of ability to get rid of trolls.
But you can't just ignore trolls to make them go away.
If you want a forum where people can just post whatever shit they want, go make one and have a good time. In the meantime, Austrian Forum, Liberty HQ, and Voluntaryism Forum are going to remove people who ruin the experience. Fortunately no one has tested Blake, Wheylous, or Autolykos on their forums yet. Hopefully it will never happen. Look, if you are looking for an anything goes forum, then these 3 alternatives are just not going to be for you. If you want an anything goes forum, go create one. Meanwhile, the rest of us who want a place to talk with reasonable people - whether they agree with us or not - we will go to one or all of those 3 alternatives. That's not even an argument anymore. That's just saying things for the sake of saying things. I don't really care what Blake, Wheylous, Autolykos or Babe the Talking Piglet do on their forums. I'm supporting my argument that I believe unmoderated forums, unmoderated in the sense that regulars don't police other regulars, work better and provide a better experience overall. We're allowed to do that right, debate opinion, theory, ideas? You want us to shut up and go start our own forums? Whoah, what an effective argument. You've really swayed us with that one.
Marko: That's not even an argument anymore. That's just saying things for the sake of saying things. I don't really care what Blake, Wheylous, Autolykos or Babe the Talking Piglet do on their forums. I'm supporting my argument that I believe unmoderated forums, unmoderated in the sense that regulars don't police other regulars, work better and provide a better experience overall. We're allowed to do that right, debate opinion, theory, ideas? You want us to shut up and go start our own forums? Whoah, what an effective argument. You've really swayed us with that one.
That's not even an argument anymore. That's just saying things for the sake of saying things. I don't really care what Blake, Wheylous, Autolykos or Babe the Talking Piglet do on their forums. I'm supporting my argument that I believe unmoderated forums, unmoderated in the sense that regulars don't police other regulars, work better and provide a better experience overall. We're allowed to do that right, debate opinion, theory, ideas? You want us to shut up and go start our own forums? Whoah, what an effective argument. You've really swayed us with that one.
Speaking of straw manning people....
Perhaps you didn't read the thread? The OP had this:
hashem: Those of you considering hosting the new forums, please listen here!!
Those of you considering hosting the new forums, please listen here!!
Or perhaps when he said later:
hashem: Can we try to keep posts to this thread on the topic of suggestions for how to make tge sucessor forum?
Can we try to keep posts to this thread on the topic of suggestions for how to make tge sucessor forum?
He also said:
hashem: That aside, I feel like others have important ideas to contribute about how to make this forums successor completely awesome. Aside from ideas about moderation, let's gather here suggestions about how to make the next forum exceptional.
And:
hashem: This thread is for contributing suggestions to people who might build the next forum. I gave my ideas about how moderation SHOULD work, based on my personal experiences with moderated forums over 15 years.
This thread is for contributing suggestions to people who might build the next forum. I gave my ideas about how moderation SHOULD work, based on my personal experiences with moderated forums over 15 years.
hashem: I hate to continue in this vein, because I really thought we could gather ideas together and back a single, forward-looking alternative forum.
I hate to continue in this vein, because I really thought we could gather ideas together and back a single, forward-looking alternative forum.
What you might notice is that hashem was talking about the successor to these forums. I mentioned the three already created possible successors, and I talked about how those particular admins are running their forums. Eventually hashem came out and said that he no longer cares about staying with one of the successors, and you might have noticed that he said that after my post.
So, when I say something like:
gotlucky: Look, if you are looking for an anything goes forum, then these 3 alternatives are just not going to be for you. If you want an anything goes forum, go create one. Meanwhile, the rest of us who want a place to talk with reasonable people - whether they agree with us or not - we will go to one or all of those 3 alternatives.
That's entirely relevant to the actual posts in this thread. Hashem repeatedly said that his suggestions were for the successor forum, and I said to someone who claimed to agree with hashem that these successor forums are not going to be for them, and that they should go create a forum the way they want to. Those admins don't seem to want an anything goes. Wheylous will probably have the lightest moderation of them all, but nonetheless he has said there will be some moderation.
Now, you claim you are for some light moderation, but hashem has said he was against it, and my post was not directed at you but at someone who claimed to agree with hashem.
Marko: But you need some sort of ability to get rid of trolls. Well I agree, and I'm in favor of having a few users with the mod ability. I'm just against them using it to police other regular users. (I'm flexible on policing new, unproven users.) But you can't just ignore trolls to make them go away. I don't propose ignoring them. I propose being rude to them, but if I try that on a moderated forum, I'll be banned myself long before the troll. So actually in a sense having mods disarms regular users and protects the trolls. And maybe it's more efficient to have the mods remove them (certainly not as satisfying), but with having classic mods come other dangers. I've seen trolls and literal troll invasions, including on a unmoderated forum whose administrator had dissapeared from the face of the eart, but never have I seen a quality user leave because of trolls. I have seen that happen over a conflict with a mod however. So which is the greater threat, really? Besides, what about the advertising soccer threads? We need to keep those threads? Do we votedelete those threads? Do we voteban the creators? How many votes do we need? Do 50% of the forum users have to vote before we can have spam threads and posts deleted? Or maybe just 50 votes? By this point you're just strawmaning me. I did say in my very first post here I see mods as a technical cleaning service to remove spambots.
Your comment to me was injected in the middle of a conversation with hashem. So when you disagreed with me I assumed you were taking his side, and he seems to have shifted away from his original position of supporting moderating spam to an anything goes unmoderated Youtube style. It's hard to say with hashem.
It was my mistake for thinking you were supporting hashem.
...I did not agree with Smiling Dave's month long temp ban.
Wasn't effectual. either. I just posted as RobinHood those 30 days.
Thanks for the support, lucky.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
I managed to miss that ban. What was the reason?
gotlucky:he seems to have shifted away from his original position of supporting moderating spam
Quotes? Either way, I'm not opposed to improving my stance as I learn, unlike some people around here. Optimally, I'd be for a forum tailored toward intellectuals, which literally allowed anyone to post anything, which would stress the importance of features allowing users to avoid being overwhelmed by bullshit. That will never happen because ultimately, governments moderate the internet and so you need bans on illegal content and maybe porn. I said I think creative solutions are better than force. Solutions lead to progress, whereas force parades as a solution while still being a threat because power corrupts, meanwhile the problem has no incentive to resolve itself. However, I did say that in the successor forums, I'd support moderating illegal content and nudity, and I stand by that.
gotlucky:It's hard to say with hashem.
It could be easier. A humble mind (in the sense that beliefs I openly take a stance on are firm and based on evidence, but I also acknowledge that it's merely the least-wrong answer I've encountered) always in search of truth would be open to new ideas would know my mindset where I'm willing to change my stance as I learn. I don't think I've conceded any points you've tried to make, if that's what you're implying.
hashem: Quotes? Either way, I'm not opposed to improving my stance as I learn, unlike some people around here. Optimally, I'd be for a forum tailored toward intellectuals, which literally allowed anyone to post anything, which would stress the importance of features allowing users to avoid being overwhelmed by bullshit. That will never happen because ultimately, governments moderate the internet and so you need bans on illegal content and maybe porn. I said I think creative solutions are better than force. Solutions lead to progress, whereas force parades as a solution while still being a threat because power corrupts, meanwhile the problem has no incentive to resolve itself. However, I did say that in the successor forums, I'd support moderating illegal content and nudity, and I stand by that.
Before I quote you, I'm going to redirect you to Clayton's post about this nonsense.
Now for the quotes. Your original post contained:
hashem: Absolutely no moderation whatsoever—with the sole exception of real spam. Not trolling, not offensive content, just spam. Everything is allowed without exception, except for illegal content and bot-spam.
Absolutely no moderation whatsoever—with the sole exception of real spam. Not trolling, not offensive content, just spam. Everything is allowed without exception, except for illegal content and bot-spam.
In a later post:
hashem: I will go as far as to say that without exception, all mod activity I've ever been aware of was either abusive or, at best, unnecessary.
I will go as far as to say that without exception, all mod activity I've ever been aware of was either abusive or, at best, unnecessary.
And later:
hashem: Again I ask, have you ever used youtube comments (they are unmoderated)? I invoke even the entire philosophy of youtube (at least, what got it off the ground). You could post any video, and youtube didn't have a philosophy that some content would be considered "trolling" or "offensive" or "damaging to youtube's reputation". It's been from this foundation that one of the greatest sites on the internet has flourished.
Again I ask, have you ever used youtube comments (they are unmoderated)? I invoke even the entire philosophy of youtube (at least, what got it off the ground). You could post any video, and youtube didn't have a philosophy that some content would be considered "trolling" or "offensive" or "damaging to youtube's reputation". It's been from this foundation that one of the greatest sites on the internet has flourished.
Later in that post:
hashem: I invoke youtube comments and of course the purpose of this thread: Surely the internet veterans here can use our collective knowledge to fathom improvements which, taken together, eliminate the threat of mods (which is greater than the threat of a bogeyman) while moving in a forward direction.
I invoke youtube comments and of course the purpose of this thread: Surely the internet veterans here can use our collective knowledge to fathom improvements which, taken together, eliminate the threat of mods (which is greater than the threat of a bogeyman) while moving in a forward direction.
Still later:
hashem: Absent moderation, there is evidence that a community character spontaneously arises to deal with the problem.
Absent moderation, there is evidence that a community character spontaneously arises to deal with the problem.
You start off the thread with saying that you are against moderation with the one exception of removing spam (and illegal content). Then in a following post you say that all moderation is either bad or unneccessary. Then you say that Youtube allows anything (it does in fact allow spam and nudity and illegal content; there is plenty of IP violating content on Youtube that never gets moderated) and would like that system. So, in keeping with your general attitude against mods, it seems that you have changed your mind regarding your original post.
But like I said, it's hard to tell with you.
hashem: However, I did say that in the successor forums, I'd support moderating illegal content and nudity, and I stand by that.
However, I did say that in the successor forums, I'd support moderating illegal content and nudity, and I stand by that.
Well, actually you said illegal content and spam, and seeing as you said you fully support Youtube's style, and Youtube does allow in practice illegal content, spam, and nudity, it makes it very difficult to know what your position is. On the one hand you say you are against that stuff, but on the other you say you "invoke even the entire philosophy of youtube" where "you could post any video" and "comments...are unmoderated".
But, since you are clearly stating now that you support moderating illegal content and nudity (but not spam, I guess you changed your mind on that?), I guess your beliefs are cleared up.
Wait, no they aren't. Your long paragraph was a response to me saying that you "seem[ed] to have shifted away from [your] original position of supporting moderating spam", and nowhere in your response to me do you state otherwise. In fact, you specifically invoke something in its place previously only mentioned once by another person entirely. Since you are giving me trouble over very specific claims you have made, I can only assume that this was intentional.
Thus I do not understand your objection.
What you might notice is that hashem was talking about the successor to these forums. I mentioned the three already created possible successors, and I talked about how those particular admins are running their forums. Eventually hashem came out and said that he no longer cares about staying with one of the successors, and you might have noticed that he said that after my post. That's entirely relevant to the actual posts in this thread. Hashem repeatedly said that his suggestions were for the successor forum, and I said to someone who claimed to agree with hashem that these successor forums are not going to be for them, and that they should go create a forum the way they want to. Those admins don't seem to want an anything goes. Wheylous will probably have the lightest moderation of them all, but nonetheless he has said there will be some moderation.
He brought his idea up as a suggestion for the new forums, but it's clear he became weary of this very early on, as he met so much opposition and called from early on for the topic to move past discussing the matter of moderation and move onto gathering and discussing other suggestions for the new forums. Therefore it should had been clear he was now only defending his idea because of how many challenges it recieved, as an intellectual exercise, and talking about a theoretical absence of moderation that he had no real expectation to see actually implemented at any of the successor forums. Ergo the calls for the matter to be sidelined and the focus to move onto other suggestions for the forums, not connected to moderation, at least some of which you quote: I hate to continue in this vein, because I really thought we could gather ideas together and back a single, forward-looking alternative forum.
He hates talking about moderation, he was actually looking forward to talking about other ideas about the new forums that may be gathered. That aside, I feel like others have important ideas to contribute about how to make this forums successor completely awesome. Aside from ideas about moderation, let's gather here suggestions about how to make the next forum exceptional.
Again he de-emphasizes the importance of the moderation issue for him. He wants to talk about other suggestions for the new forums instead. This thread is for contributing suggestions to people who might build the next forum. I gave my ideas about how moderation SHOULD work, based on my personal experiences with moderated forums over 15 years.
He tries to discourage debate on moderation that is too philosophical/theorethical and tries to keep focus on suggestions for the new undertakings, explaining that his idea on moderation is only one of such possible suggestions, coming from him based on his personal experiences with forums. And judging by your hostile-looking reaction to his position which included calls for him to drop defending it and move onto a forum of his own instead, along with attempts at ridicule writen in all-caps, it seems if you were a mod on here he would be just about to win this debate as you look ready to snap on him.
I like how youtube lets you vote on posts and if a posts gets too many negative votes it defualts to hidden. I worry more about anarchists/austrians trolling non-anarchists/non-austrians more than the other way around honestly.
Some of the comments on voluntarist reader against Trembley I felt were borderline trolling/abusive.
It's interesting that you would say that, Wibee, as I approved his early posts before he got the status to post without needing approval.
hashem:Been here 3 years and never even heard of any of those guys.
Just because you created an account three years ago doesn't mean you've actually "been here" at all. You seem to show up every few months to bitch about something or pick a fight and be dickish for a couple weeks, and then leave again. You had exactly 5 posts in all of 2010. And you didn't start posting in 2011 until August. You not hearing of certain people on this forum isn't exactly saying much.
hashem:Again I ask, have you ever used youtube comments (they are unmoderated)? I invoke even the entire philosophy of youtube (at least, what got it off the ground). You could post any video, and youtube didn't have a philosophy that some content would be considered "trolling" or "offensive" or "damaging to youtube's reputation". It's been from this foundation that one of the greatest sites on the internet has flourished.
YouTube has a character limit of 500 per comment. Users of the site can easily flag comments and make them hidden with just a few votes. And most of all, the uploader of the video has complete moderation control of what appears in the comments. He can block (read: ban) any commenter he wants, delete any comment he wants at any time, and can even turn comments off altogether.
How in the hell you can liken this sort of literal monarchy of the comment space to your "anarchy" described earlier, I have no idea. (Unless of course you're just that ignorant about how YouTube works, which is entirely possible.)
hashem:again I invoke youtube comments and of course the purpose of this thread: Surely the internet veterans here can use our collective knowledge to fathom improvements which, taken together, eliminate the threat of mods
Okay I'm really leaning toward ignorance now.
:EDIT:
And, confirmed.
hashem:[...]demonstrated to work on the most well-trafficked, biggest discussion sites of all time including FB, Youtube, and Reddit [...] My whole argument is that a forum doesn't have to be like a club or a dinner party, that in fact, the most well trafficked sites around are not moderated.
hashem:As far as commenting goes, which was my point in bringing up youtube, you can post anything and nobody can do anything about it and youtube has thrived like this.
hashem:I don't think you can delete comments on youtube.
I don't think I've ever seen anyone more adamant about something they know less about. You officially lose any credibility as an "experienced Internet user" with valuable insight on how online interaction works out. You have literally proven you know virtually nothing about your own shining example of your alleged "anarchy", the one you have invoked so many times and have essentially presumed to stand on this whole time. You evidently have no clue what you're talking about.
No wonder your prescription is so ridiculous. You're literally basing it on evidence that literally doesn't exist. You evidently have never actually used Facebook or Reddit or YouTube, and just assumed they worked a certain way...and then formulated a conclusion about how communication in Internet webspace goes based on your completely false assumptions.
The idea that you come in here touting "15 years of experience" and yet apparently have not even the first clue about basic functionality of "the most well-trafficked, biggest discussion sites of all time" is just insane.
And this is also not to mention your other claims...first it was 4 years on the Mises Forum, then it was 3...and in actuality it's more like 1. You are so full of shit it's unbelievable.
Fuck you. Shame on you, dude. You've been an asshole to me since your first response ever, with few exceptions. I've definitely been here almost 4 years, anyone is welcome to see my comments. I've definitely been on the internet 15 years and active in countless forums/message boards/blogs/whatever.
If your only argument is that I'm wrong about YouTube then fuck off, loser. Unlike almost everyone here I'm perfectly comfortable admitting when I'm wrong, you don't need to flip out on some irrelevant straw man red herring ad hominem rage induced rant; but I think if you look through the comments you'll notice that I was...how do you say...under the impression that you can't delete comments on youtube. I might have even used language like—oh wait, you quoted me, "I don't think you can delete comments on youtube."
mean flailer JJ:You are so full of shit it's unbelievable.
No. However, you did misunderstand my position and misrepresent me leading you to draw an irrational conclusion arguing a straw-man red herring ad hominem. And I can't blame you, that's much easier than forming a real argument or contributing productive ideas. Really a guy who posts 6.5 thousand times to at least one forum in two years needs to take it easy sometimes, so I'm not offended, you just need to get a grip.
My argument isn't that youtube absolutely, beyond any shadow of a doubt is utterly unmoderated. If youtube was relatively unmoderated as I thought, then it would support my case, but my case is by no means dependent on youtube. If you actually read my posts, I'm arguing that in my experience, moderation has been unnecessary (and usually abusive) at best, and just downright abusive the rest of the time. My argument is that in my vast experience, moderation is a bigger threat than trolls. My argument is that to the extent that trolls/spam are threats, they're lesser threats than mods, and both potential threats can be overcome through creative progress-causing solutions instead of perpetuating the default "necessary evil" anti-solution charge of lazy ignorant masses throughout history, "sure, X has power that has a history of abuse, but X is necessary because we're too lazy to cause progress by creating a solution that doesn't depend on X."
fallacy troll JJ:No wonder your prescription is so ridiculous. You're literally basing it on evidence that literally doesn't exist. You evidently have never actually used Facebook or Reddit or YouTube, and just assumed they worked a certain way...and then formulated a conclusion about how communication in Internet webspace goes based on your completely false assumptions.
1. You're arguing a straw man red herring. My prescription isn't based on youtube, it's based on my experience with mods and trolls/spam over 15 years on countless sites.
2. My conclusions aren't about how internet discussions GO, that's just your misrepresentation. My conclusions are about how the threats of mods and trolls/spam CAN and SHOULD be dealt with moving forward. Again, my (admittedly wrong) assumptions about youtube were supporting ideas, but I made it explicit my conclusions are based on my experience with mods and trolls/spam on many sites over many years. If you can delete comments on youtube then I have less supporting ideas, but that doesn't diminish my experience that moderation is unnecessary and tends to be abusive, or my view that we can think of creative solutions to trolls/spam that don't rely on "necessary evils" like mods.
speaking of insane:The idea that you come in here touting "15 years of experience" and yet apparently have not even the first clue about basic functionality of "the most well-trafficked, biggest discussion sites of all time" is just insane.
That carries a lot of weight, coming from a guy who insists on misrepresenting my argument, Captain Red Straw Man Herring.
blah blah blah:You seem to show up every few months to bitch about something or pick a fight and be dickish for a couple weeks, and then leave again.
Speaking of dickish, this coming from the guy picking a fight arguing a straw man red herring to conclude that I'm "full of shit".