• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

improving imminst


  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#1 basho

  • Guest
  • 774 posts
  • 1
  • Location:oʎʞoʇ

Posted 16 February 2007 - 11:23 PM


We need someone on the inside like Boris Yeltsin to bring about change.
...
Who will bring about change to imminst?

The nice thing about the Internet is that, for a couple of dollars, you can register your own domain. So, you could start your own Xanadu Institute if you believe deeply that an alternate organisational structure would do more to advance the cause of life extension research.

And one major advantage you'd have over ImmInst is that you already have a great theme song by Olivia Newton-John and ELO:

A place where nobody dared to go, the love that we came to know
They call it Xanadu

And now, open your eyes and see, what we have made is real
We are in Xanadu

A million lights are dancing and there you are, a shooting star
An everlasting world and you're here with me, eternally

Chorus:
Xanadu, Xanadu, (now we are here) in Xanadu
Xanadu, Xanadu, (now we are here) in Xanadu



#2 lightowl

  • Guest, F@H
  • 767 posts
  • 5
  • Location:Copenhagen, Denmark

Posted 16 February 2007 - 11:37 PM

The nice thing about the Internet is that, for a couple of dollars, you can register your own domain. So, you could start your own Xanadu Institute if you believe deeply that an alternate organisational structure would do more to advance the cause of life extension research.

That is not a healthy attitude towards people who would like to make a difference in the community. We should listen to people who see things that could be better, not tell them to go away. If you think things are all good, then argue that point.

I agree with Xanadu that the leadership structure is broken in several places. We should all make our opinions available for deliberation so a consensus can be formed. A further split of the community is not in the interest of the mission.

#3 Live Forever

  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 16 February 2007 - 11:46 PM

That is not a healthy attitude towards people who would like to make a difference in the community. We should listen to people who see things that could be better, not tell them to go away. If you think things are all good, then argue that point.

I agree with Xanadu that the leadership structure is broken in several places. We should all make our opinions available for deliberation so a consensus can be formed. A further split of the community is not in the interest of the mission.

Unfortunately, xanadu isn't interested in extending people's lives in general. He just likes to pick fights. If he had a different attitude, I think his criticisms would be better received.

#4 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 16 February 2007 - 11:51 PM

I agree with Live forever as far as Xanadu is concerned. His attitude makes it difficult to listen to him even when he does say something that isn't purely for the sake of antagonism. A failing on my part perhaps.

However

I agree with Xanadu that the leadership structure is broken in several places. We should all make our opinions available for deliberation so a consensus can be formed. A further split of the community is not in the interest of the mission.


I am very interested in feedback in regards to how exactly you think the leadership structure is broken. We're certainly open to suggestions on how to improve things. What ideas do you have lightowl?

#5 basho

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 774 posts
  • 1
  • Location:oʎʞoʇ

Posted 17 February 2007 - 12:05 AM

That is not a healthy attitude towards people who would like to make a difference in the community. We should listen to people who see things that could be better, not tell them to go away. If you think things are all good, then argue that point.

True. But it was more a response to the over-dramatic comparison of ImmInst with the situation in the old Soviet Union. The internet enables anyone with a minimum of resources and a strong vision for change to explore alternatives, while the challenges that faced people with similar desires in the Soviet Union were significantly greater.

#6 Athanasios

  • Guest
  • 2,616 posts
  • 163
  • Location:Texas

Posted 17 February 2007 - 12:08 AM

I would advise anyone who wants to be good at dealing with groups of people to read Seth Godin's Blog: http://sethgodin.typ...com/seths_blog/ . It is about marketing, but has the right approach for dealing with groups in general.

As for leadership being broken, I do not think that it is the case. I do think that from a non-leadership viewpoint that there looks to be a lack of focus. I think a lot of this will be ameliorated by some of the initiatives that are being done and looked at. It is obvious to me that it is not a lack of focus, but a lack of consistent predictable output that provides a framework, a stability and direction, for the rest of the members.

Something as small as a weekly welcome message, a small paragraph as a sticky or on the front page, can provide that. And I know that there are things being done, or being looked at, that will address this.

#7 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 17 February 2007 - 12:47 AM

Something as small as a weekly welcome message, a small paragraph as a sticky or on the front page, can provide that. And I know that there are things being done, or being looked at, that will address this.


great idea!

Would you be interested in working on this with a team of a few others?

#8 Athanasios

  • Guest
  • 2,616 posts
  • 163
  • Location:Texas

Posted 17 February 2007 - 12:51 AM

Yes, it is something I can help out with.

#9 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 17 February 2007 - 01:26 AM

excellent, lets do it. I'll send a pm to bruce and Jay about it (who are heading up webpage design/site administration) to alert them to this topic, and we can figure the best way to do this.

#10 Athanasios

  • Guest
  • 2,616 posts
  • 163
  • Location:Texas

Posted 17 February 2007 - 01:31 AM

excellent, lets do it.  I'll send a pm to bruce and Jay about it (who are heading up webpage design/site administration) to alert them to this topic, and we can figure the best way to do this.


Cool, sounds good. I am not sure of the status of the idea of renewing the newsletter, was Aegist still interested in this? What we are talking about now can be seperate from that initiative, i think overlap would be fine, or be a part of it.

#11 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 17 February 2007 - 01:35 AM

overlap is good, but I like your idea of a short update weekly (or biweekly if weekly is too much). The newsletter wouldn't be more than monthly as far as I'm aware.

#12 jaydfox

  • Guest
  • 6,214 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 17 February 2007 - 01:41 AM

Will weigh in later tonight

#13 lightowl

  • Guest, F@H
  • 767 posts
  • 5
  • Location:Copenhagen, Denmark

Posted 17 February 2007 - 01:42 AM

I am very interested in feedback in regards to how exactly you think the leadership structure is broken. We're certainly open to suggestions on how to improve things. What ideas do you have lightowl?

The most important changes I think should be implemented.

1. Make leadership communication public for reading by members.
1a. Leaders should still have the *option* to post privately in leadership discussions, but members should be made aware of those posts.
1b. Membership discussions should be created on the side for all leadership issues.

2. Make moderation logs available to members.
2a. Censorship in moderation
2b. Make it possible for members to remove moderating powers from a leader.

3. Implement alternatives to non-anonymous voting.
3a. One solution could be to mail new members a voting code to a physical address.

4. Implement alternatives to global moderation.
4a. One solution could be to implement a post/topic filter on an individual basis.
4b. RSS feed of recent individual posts.

I have expressed my concerns with these issues before, so I wont go into details now. I know there are issues that must be addressed in detail to these suggestions, so please ask questions and make further suggestions.

#14 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 17 February 2007 - 02:04 AM

1. Make leadership communication public for reading by members.
1a. Leaders should still have the *option* to post privately in leadership discussions, but members should be made aware of those posts.
1b. Membership discussions should be created on the side for all leadership issues.


Heh, I brought forward a motion so that all leadership discussion would default to the full member level after two weeks except content vetoed for a specific reason a half hour ago. I trust this essentially would achomplish the above?

#15 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 17 February 2007 - 02:12 AM

2. Make moderation logs available to members.
2a. Censorship in moderation
2b. Make it possible for members to remove moderating powers from a leader.


As far as censorship goes imminst is extremely lienient. There are some things we need to tighten up so that we can better achomplish our core purpose (conquoring the blight of involuntary death).

I can see pluses and minuses to bringing our moderation logs down to full membership. On one hand I don't think all full members need to know that such and such person was admonished for some action, but on the other hand I can see the need as well for members to be aware of the moderation that ocurrs. I could go either way.

I agree with your 3rd point (for full members). There exists a mechanism to remove a director, why not a moderator as well. I do think that if you brought up a referendum removing the moderation privliges from a navigator and it passed the directorship would probably follow through on it now, but I have no problem with codifying something to this effect. Perhaps you could think of some specific language to be inserted into bylaw A as a start?

#16 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 17 February 2007 - 02:15 AM

3. Implement alternatives to non-anonymous voting.
3a. One solution could be to mail new members a voting code to a physical address.


I personally prefer non anonymous voting. I kind of think you should stand up for what you believe in or don't. In the last director election I voted against individuals who I think would have made great directors and I am quite friendly with on a personal level.

Of course I can see the other side of the coin as well. But I'm not your go to man for this issue ;))

#17 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 17 February 2007 - 02:19 AM

4. Implement alternatives to global moderation.
4a. One solution could be to implement a post/topic filter on an individual basis.
4b. RSS feed of recent individual posts.


something along these lines has been planned for some time, but due to technical issues haven't implemented. After the forum upgrade it should be. And the forum upgrade actually should be happening very soon. We've just voted on the funding needed to make the forum upgrade happen finally.

#18 jaydfox

  • Guest
  • 6,214 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 17 February 2007 - 02:50 AM

I personally prefer non anonymous voting. I kind of think you should stand up for what you believe in or don't.

In some ways I can see what you're going after, but I can pretty much tell you're going to get shot down there. Human nature being what it is, the system won't truly reflect the will of the constituency if there isn't an option for anonymous voting. Some members might agree with you, but I think the majority will be with me on this one.

At any rate, the person bringing the poll or referendum can specify whether anonymous votes are acceptable, so the only place where it's really an issue is on official referenda specified in the constitution or bylaws, e.g., votes to amend the constitution, and directors elections. I would prefer those allow anonymous votes. But we don't really have it codified either way...

something along these lines has been planned for some time, but due to technical issues haven't implemented. After the forum upgrade it should be. And the forum upgrade actually should be happening very soon. We've just voted on the funding needed to make the forum upgrade happen finally.

After the upgrade, RSS feeds will be an option we can enable.

As for post/topic filters on an individual basis, I'm afraid I need more context here. Being able to filter the Active Topics list or the forum homepage so it excludes the religion or cryonics forum is a reasonable idea. Setting up a filter that screens posts in a topic by certain members and/or groups is another.

But when moderation is used as a form of censorship, I'm not quite sure how non-"global moderation" is to be implemented.

#19 lightowl

  • Guest, F@H
  • 767 posts
  • 5
  • Location:Copenhagen, Denmark

Posted 17 February 2007 - 02:59 AM

1. Make leadership communication public for reading by members.
1a. Leaders should still have the *option* to post privately in leadership discussions, but members should be made aware of those posts.
1b. Membership discussions should be created on the side for all leadership issues.

Heh, I brought forward a motion so that all leadership discussion would default to the full member level after two weeks except content vetoed for a specific reason a half hour ago. I trust this essentially would achomplish the above?

Not entirely, but its a great first step. The main idea is to bring leadership closer to the membership and make leadership more transparent. One valuable benefit of brining the discussions to membership immediately, is that members can essentially discuss issues with leaders as they arise. That is also a great way for leaders to get to know the opinions of the members.

2. Make moderation logs available to members.
2a. Censorship in moderation
2b. Make it possible for members to remove moderating powers from a leader.

As far as censorship goes imminst is extremely lienient. There are some things we need to tighten up so that we can better achomplish our core purpose (conquoring the blight of involuntary death).

As explained in length in the link I provided: members need information to make choices. Its fine that you say censorship is lenient, but that's still your opinion. Let us see the facts and make our choice.

On one hand I don't think all full members need to know that such and such person was admonished for some action

Everything posted by members is by default public, so the choice of making something public has already been made by such a person, right?

I agree with your 3rd point (for full members). There exists a mechanism to remove a director, why not a moderator as well. I do think that if you brought up a referendum removing the moderation privliges from a navigator and it passed the directorship would probably follow through on it now, but I have no problem with codifying something to this effect. Perhaps you could think of some specific language to be inserted into bylaw A as a start?

Just to clarify: I am not talking about removing moderators from their position. I am talking about remove the right for ANY leader to moderate the community. They could still remain in leadership if needed. But members need to know what the moderator has done to make a decision. Right now we have no way of knowing.

3. Implement alternatives to non-anonymous voting.
3a. One solution could be to mail new members a voting code to a physical address.

I personally prefer non anonymous voting.

That's a great idea. People could choose to vote anonymously or not. The current mandatory non-anonymous voting is a consequence of a security issue. It effectively makes it a requirement for Directors to validate any vote. How that validation happens is probably fuzzy and potentially a conduit for abuse of power. Also, anonymous voting often brings people to make seemingly unpopular choices if they are right.

4. Implement alternatives to global moderation.
4a. One solution could be to implement a post/topic filter on an individual basis.
4b. RSS feed of recent individual posts.

something along these lines has been planned for some time, but due to technical issues haven't implemented. After the forum upgrade it should be. And the forum upgrade actually should be happening very soon. We've just voted on the funding needed to make the forum upgrade happen finally.

Excellent. ;)

#20 jaydfox

  • Guest
  • 6,214 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 17 February 2007 - 03:08 AM

As explained in length in the link I provided: members need information to make choices. Its fine that you say censorship is lenient, but that's still your opinion. Let us see the facts and make our choice.

That's all fine and well, and I actually approve the idea of opening up moderation logs except in cases such where privacy/security issues arise. But the tone of your remark implies that there's an existing problem with censorship, but outside of drama queens like xanadu, I'm not sure I've seen any complaints that would indicate otherwise.

The only serious complaint I've heard of late was how the recall of Harold Brenner was handled, with respect to threads being moved, reports being delayed, etc., and that's not so much an issue with moderation as with privacy/security concerns, etc. That, and of course the general openness or lack thereof in leadership discussions. But I really haven't seen any genuine complaints that the censorship system here isn't extremely lenient. The fact that xanadu still posts here is a testament to our leniency.

#21 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 17 February 2007 - 03:15 AM

In some ways I can see what you're going after, but I can pretty much tell you're going to get shot down there. Human nature being what it is, the system won't truly reflect the will of the constituency if there isn't an option for anonymous voting. Some members might agree with you, but I think the majority will be with me on this one.


looks like you found your go-to man on the voting system lightowl, and you're lucky, he happens to be the admin ;))

You won't get any argument from me on making it anonymous, but I'm just not the guy that's going to work it out as I slightly prefer the way it is :))

#22 jaydfox

  • Guest
  • 6,214 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 17 February 2007 - 03:16 AM

But the tone of your remark implies

By the way, I don't say that to be upset with you. I suppose that's what my tone implied. [tung]

I just mean that the way you phrased implied there was an existing problem that is visible, where I don't see that to be the case. That isn't to say that there isn't excessive moderation, and that opening up the logs would therefore reveal that. But I don't see complaints, so I'm wondering if this was just a hypothetical concern we're trying to take care of, or an existing concern that I'm unaware of.

#23 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 17 February 2007 - 03:19 AM

Just to clarify: I am not talking about removing moderators from their position. I am talking about remove the right for ANY leader to moderate the community. They could still remain in leadership if needed. But members need to know what the moderator has done to make a decision. Right now we have no way of knowing.


well navigators essentially are moderators, so taking their moderation privleges away essentially removes much of their purpose in leadership, but other leadership positions don't explicitly need moderation abilities (aside from the admin that would have them by default). So this is possible.

#24 lightowl

  • Guest, F@H
  • 767 posts
  • 5
  • Location:Copenhagen, Denmark

Posted 17 February 2007 - 03:30 AM

That's all fine and well, and I actually approve the idea of opening up moderation logs except in cases such where privacy/security issues arise. But the tone of your remark implies that there's an existing problem with censorship, but outside of drama queens like xanadu, I'm not sure I've seen any complaints that would indicate otherwise.

I am not implying that there is a problem with censorship. I am saying I have no way of knowing if there is a problem. It is my opinion that censorship should only be enacted for security reasons, others here think people should not be allowed to talk about guns or whatever. It seems to me a good solution is if either the majority or the individuals them selves decide what they will read.

As for post/topic filters on an individual basis, I'm afraid I need more context here. Being able to filter the Active Topics list or the forum homepage so it excludes the religion or cryonics forum is a reasonable idea. Setting up a filter that screens posts in a topic by certain members and/or groups is another.

But when moderation is used as a form of censorship, I'm not quite sure how non-"global moderation" is to be implemented.

This begs the question. Why do we need censorship? Is it all about the image of the institute? If so, is there a way to insulate the institute from the opinions of the community?

#25 jaydfox

  • Guest
  • 6,214 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 17 February 2007 - 03:36 AM

2b. Make it possible for members to remove moderating powers from a leader.

I agree with your 3rd point (for full members). There exists a mechanism to remove a director, why not a moderator as well. I do think that if you brought up a referendum removing the moderation privliges from a navigator and it passed the directorship would probably follow through on it now, but I have no problem with codifying something to this effect. Perhaps you could think of some specific language to be inserted into bylaw A as a start?

Just to clarify: I am not talking about removing moderators from their position. I am talking about remove the right for ANY leader to moderate the community. They could still remain in leadership if needed. But members need to know what the moderator has done to make a decision. Right now we have no way of knowing.

well navigators essentially are moderators, so taking their moderation privleges away essentially removes much of their purpose in leadership, but other leadership positions don't explicitly need moderation abilities (aside from the admin that would have them by default). So this is possible.

lightowl, if I understand you correctly, are you asking for a way for full members to vote to remove moderation powers from a specific leader, perhaps because he or she seems to moderate with "an agenda", as was seen with...a former director?

#26 jaydfox

  • Guest
  • 6,214 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 17 February 2007 - 03:41 AM

others here think people should not be allowed to talk about guns or whatever.

Aye, I forgot about that. That's an issue being discussed in leadership that we should bring down to the full membership level. Well, it's being discussed at the full membership level as well, but separate issues are being discussed to some degree.

This begs the question. Why do we need censorship?

I was mainly thinking about censorship in terms of:
-privacy issues
-security issues
-legal issues (pornography, libel, etc.)
-excessive disruption of discussions for the sole purpose of being a disruption.

This last point is the decidedly subjective one, and the one that we need member feedback on. The first three issues are fairly cut and dry, in terms of why they're acceptable forms of censorship. (Implementation is a separate issue, which again could use member feedback where possible.)

As for jonano and his guns and drugs, that's a separate issue that we need to deal with at the membership level rather than the leadership level.

#27 lightowl

  • Guest, F@H
  • 767 posts
  • 5
  • Location:Copenhagen, Denmark

Posted 17 February 2007 - 03:42 AM

I just mean that the way you phrased implied there was an existing problem that is visible, where I don't see that to be the case. That isn't to say that there isn't excessive moderation, and that opening up the logs would therefore reveal that. But I don't see complaints, so I'm wondering if this was just a hypothetical concern we're trying to take care of, or an existing concern that I'm unaware of.

The problem is that we cant see the moderation log to see if there is a problem. It is not enough to be told there isn't a problem because that evaluation is ambiguous.

#28 lightowl

  • Guest, F@H
  • 767 posts
  • 5
  • Location:Copenhagen, Denmark

Posted 17 February 2007 - 03:47 AM

lightowl, if I understand you correctly, are you asking for a way for full members to vote to remove moderation powers from a specific leader, perhaps because he or she seems to moderate with "an agenda", as was seen with...a former director?

Yes, but not only because of "an agenda", but for whatever reason the membership does not feel comfortable with that moderator. And the only way members can decide if the moderator is out of line, is by seeing the moderator logs.

#29 jaydfox

  • Guest
  • 6,214 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 17 February 2007 - 04:04 AM

And the only way members can decide if the moderator is out of line, is by seeing the moderator logs.


lightowl, to give you an idea of where things may be headed, I'm going to repost something I posted recently in discussion with the directors:

In the past, I brought up my desire to see a new class of moderators whose task was to help moderate their respective fora, without necessarily being part of the "inner circle" of leadership. This way we could scale up the number of moderators without having too many cooks in the leadership kitchen. They would essentially be full members given moderation powers over one or more top-level categories in the forum.

If we're to get more aggressive on moderating, one thing I think we need is redundancy in moderators and a more uniform policy on when/how to moderate. This should be a lot easier once we get the new forum software in place, as we should even be able to set up a system where users can self-moderate the fora, by flagging/voting on posts and topics (assuming this is desireable).

To elaborate, my idea here would be a new "moderation" forum in the full member area, where these new moderators can discuss with each other and the other full members, where full members' concerns and opinions can be voiced, etc. Combined with a system for flagging and/or voting on posts and topics, I think the full members could self-manage the forum and it would be a lot more open, and it would fascilitate the accountability the users are asking for.

More serious issues, or those requiring "secrecy" due to privacy or security concerns, would be handled by the Navigators, in their forum, etc.

I'm not saying this is definitely where things are headed, but it may give you an idea of what I foresee. More participation by the full members in the moderation process, with open discussion on moderation. If we open up moderation logs to a certain extent, this should only help things out more.

By opening up moderation logs "to a certain extent", I'm referring to the fact that some moderation actions will have to be redacted for various reasons. I haven't figured out all the details in my head yet, but I'm working on it. Essentially, once the moderation logs are opened up, they would default to being visible by full membership, with the option to redact so that only leadership can see the logs. If logs are redacted, this would be clearly marked for leaders, so we in leadership would be able to keep tabs on who is "hiding" their logs and why, to make sure they aren't abusing their power. You could say that this still gives leadership the option of secrecy and whatnot, but bear in mind that we have a lot of leaders, so short of trying to assume a full-fledged conspiracy by every member of leadership, there's still something to be said for checks and balances from within.

Anyway, I have a lot of ideas to be implemented, but first things first: I need to get the forum upgraded. Then hypothetical discussions can more easily translate into demo systems for testing ideas.

#30 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 17 February 2007 - 04:13 AM

 
As for post/topic filters on an individual basis, I'm afraid I need more context here. Being able to filter the Active Topics list or the forum homepage so it excludes the religion or cryonics forum is a reasonable idea. Setting up a filter that screens posts in a topic by certain members and/or groups is another.

But when moderation is used as a form of censorship, I'm not quite sure how non-"global moderation" is to be implemented.


This begs the question. Why do we need censorship? Is it all about the image of the institute? If so, is there a way to insulate the institute from the opinions of the community?


Yes it is about image but more importantly it is about function. I have been one of the most outspoken defenders of Free Expression so please listen when I also insist that without adequate moderation free expression is harmed more than helped and all too often differences of opinion decay into destructive verbal brawls.

We have specific rules of discourse but I agree that no subject should really be taboo, only the manner in which we discuss it should be subject to censorship but the reality is that if we do not want to run afoul of various governmental policing organizations around the world then some discretion on topics is also required.

We have had paedophiles try to strike up interest groups here for example; should their freedom of expression be protected?

Even at the cost of all credibility for our purpose?

Even if it fractures the institute into oblivion?

Even if it makes all levels of meaningful cooperation impossible and many more contributing members leave rather than stay?

The issue of guns was a sensitive one that highlights some of the cross cultural problems we need to manage but really is not a subject in itself that is taboo. What triggered the censorship was the manner of Jonano's presentation and his insensitivity to how it was received in another culture.

As for moderation logs, I simply do not agree. I have asked that the offending material be kept there as evidence whenever possible for a number of reasons, as well as a lot of personal data that should not be public even to the Full Membership. I think that one reason an organization like this has as many leaders as it does is to help ensure that we police one another.

I would prefer that if you continue to feel as yo do Lightowl that yo consider a role in leadership and volunteer for it (like being a navigator or a run for director) and then you could examine the material and issues for yourself along with having to shoulder the responsibility that comes with such a role.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users