You said you signed up knowing specific rules were in place. I wanted to know what those rules are. For instance, you may have liked the rule of not insulting someone. Ok, but that’s a rule that would exist anyway because no one likes to be insulted. The only difference is how you want offenders punished. So it’s better to say that you signed up knowing punishment would be demerits rather than shaming-by-peers because the rules would be the same regardless if daddy were here or not.
Well we can propose one.
Hence the purpose of judges. No one person can change the rules and no one person can consider them unbinding.
No, it already exists, but is subdued by the existence of the authority because it’s their job, not mine, currently.
Well, yeah, but the alternative is: a mod will issue warnings or bans based on their “personal standards”. Then a person who disagrees has the choice of ignoring it, getting into an argument with the mods about the “standard” or leaving the forum.
What I had in mind wouldn’t be organized, but would rely on a handful of good seeds planted, as in members who could teach others by example. Carleas is a good example because he’s so fair-minded in speech. He notes when members make good points, he admits errors, and just generally has a good tone that I think should be copied.
I think when people make good points, people should quote it and say “good point!” Why only negative feedback? Why only punishment? Lead with both hands: one has a stick and the other a carrot. I think if more people started doing that, it would catch on.
I think I see what you’re saying… you may be led to feel shame in error. Yes, I suppose that’s true, but on the other hand, there should be other members who could come to your defense as well.
Yup. Well, luckily there are always more than just nazis. Just don’t go bragging about rescuing jewish babies on stormfront
How else am I to have a moral compass?
I’m asking myself if I’ve had better luck appealing to one person to change his mind or a group of people. Groups seem more open-minded. What do you think?
Carleas is rarely here. He only participates in some forums.
I think the forum is so small that you have very few potential “good seeds”.
You can say it in your posts and hope it catches on but is it reasonable to punish people for not saying it. Are you really going to shame people if they don’t say “good point”?
I think that you misunderstood what I wrote.
When part of a group, individuals tend to lose their sense of personal responsibility.
No that’s not the only difference. You have already stated that you would not punish direct insults (“retard”) and you that you would punish indirect insults (“fall off ladder”). That 's the opposite of what I want.
But in another post, you said that it would not be organized.
I’m confused because you seem to be contradicting yourself.
I have had several disputes with the admin about how the rules were applied. When someone was banned and I thought he did not get adequate warning. When threads were moved into rant. When Ecmandu’s threads were being deleted and moved. I think there were some others that have slipped my mind.
Those disputes were in the context of the “rules of the game”.
Jayson would read the posts and hold people accountable. That’s how moderating ought to be done. Even when I didn’t agree with his decisions I respected his integrity.
It’s a robocop with no common sense whatsoever, dispensing justice with no regard. An authoritarian wetdream come true!
No I don’t think I said that. Of course, a good daddy would shame the child who didn’t say “thank you”. But you don’t need a daddy, oh wait, you do lol
That’s possible.
Yeah I don’t know… one person is more likely to be unreasonable than a group, which is why we have 9 justices interpreting the constitution rather than one dogmatic old fart.
I don’t think I said that, but I said indirect is worse than direct, but both are insults.
Direct insults may not be insults, goofy. ← not an insult. Pejoratives aren’t always insults, so the insult is always derived from the context and therefore there is no such thing as a direct insult.
If a good friend of mine said “Oh you’re just being retarded”, I wouldn’t believe he thinks I’m retarded nor would I interpret it as an insult. All it means is he can’t understand why I’m saying what I’m saying and if anything, he is the retarded one.
What do you mean by organized? Reduction of entropy?
We can propose a system that evolves according to the evolving nature of society. No one element is fixed and corruptible. Lack of authoritarian control is the only way to ensure truth and guard against corruption. This was the underpinning of the US in that no one person can have all the power. Checks and balances abound.
Judges -plural.
And how did that end? Fell on deaf ears? I’ve never seen a protest sway one person in power. You’re better-off trying to convince a group.
I don’t think it needs to be formal. I have already been doing it. I have seen other people do it. Right now however, being a good seed can actually be interpreted as going against forum rules. But notice that no one has been punished for summing up what they consider the bad behavior of another poster, even in fairly blunt terms.
I actually see a core group already in action. It may fizzle. It may need to be brought up as an issue inside threads on other topics. There might be other ways to increase the use of it. But in Prismatics case I think I have seen four people do what could be called shaming him and pointing to specific behavior.
