If it is small, and it seems to be, then you don’t need many seeds.
Good point! (thought I doubt he would, one can encourage behaviors also as most social, professional and other groups do)
We got two tools now, encouraging and shaming - followed by shunning in the latter and post of the week awards for the former.
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”.
Well, there are something like 10 or 11 forums and the “good seeds” would have to be actively reading the posts.
Carleas has been proposed and I assume you would nominate yourself and Serendipper … who else?
You funny. 
You’ve simplified it too much.
Jayson’s rules for the Religion&Spirituality Forum:
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=169044#p2090563
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.
If he is not here, then where are the mods and what is their excuse? 
What? He can only find a gestapo, but no good seeds?
Youtube has a bot for that. beta.nightbot.tv/
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.
Thread nearing end.
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.
And you. 4/10 isn’t bad. Convert the remaining 6 and then 10/20 would be good one day.
Jayson has more integrity than you? No? Then you can do the same.
When you didn’t agree with his decisions, was that an error in justice? That’s why I don’t like capital punishment… it presumes we know for sure.
Conceding defeat but dogmatically charging onward anyway, eh?
“Your reasoning contradicts my worldview so let’s drop it.”
Maybe. Maybe not. What’s the idea with a post like this?
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.
Whichever one of you guys keeps saying “daddy”…just stop. That’s something girls are supposed to say when you’re fucking them. It’s just weird when you do it. So stop it. Fucking weirdos.
No substance, no dealing with posts responding to what you wrote. It’s OK, you’re not a philosopher or a good discussion partner. Your vote for no change is noted. You have an opinion.
I’m pointing out that someone is having to appeal to emotions and prod others with inflammatory language to bridge the gap in the reasoning that they’re able to produce. If you can’t accept that and address it then that’s on you. Eat a dick.
I’ll happily address it when you address some of the responses you got earlier in the thread. What I see is a potshotter, throw in a comment type of poster, not someone who is interested in engaging with ideas. Serendipity, Phyllo, Carleas and I have made a lot of points, reasoning our way through a number of ways at looking at the issue. Your criticism above fits your own posts much better per word than anyone else’s. But sure, if you actually participate in a way that shows you can discuss ideas, I’ll focus on your potshot above.
And you just keep breaking those rules you think cannot be changed.
Stop ad homming and stop baiting people with inflammatory language.
“daddy” and “potshot” are ad homs, and signs of weakness in your ability to reason.
Work on that.