79 replies to this topic

[eternaltraveler]

Actually I like the idea of a full member vote being able to take away *any* leader's moderation ability. It could have saved some problems in the past with our bad apple or two.

there is nothing in the constitution that says an advisor or a director must have moderation ability.

[lightowl]

Petty political mindless in-fighting is also a thing of the past.

Obviously you have not been paying attention.

Your suggestions Have not been disregarded. A lot of what used to be posted in the leadership forum is already being posted directly into the full members forum.

That has nothing to do with those specific suggestions.

[eternaltraveler]

Obviously you have not been paying attention.

I have, and I haven't seen any

[lightowl]

OMG. Have you even read this thread? Obviously its not the issue being discussed here.

[Live Forever]

Lightowl, you seem frustrated that your ideas are not being implemented immediately. I can tell you from experience that I have made a lot of suggestions in the past about things that I thought would be fairly benign and easy to change as well as very helpful to the institute, but nothing ever came of them. Did I get all frustrated and flustered about it? No. You have to realize that you can't simply snap your fingers and make changes. Things have to be discussed.

For one, I can see some truth to some of your suggestions. You seem to be convincing some others in leadership of the wisdom of part of your suggestions. You will probably not get everything you want, but that is what compromise is all about, because the people on the other side won't get everything they want either. Just don't get so flustered and lose your cool, and you will be fine.

[thumb]

[lightowl]

Thanks Live Forever - your right, I am getting frustrated, and oddly so, because I am actually a very patient person. But the thing is, I have made these same proposals almost two years ago. They where discussed, but with the same superficial extreme partisan arguments.

These mindless arguments that "it will be a free for all" and other "scare-tactics" simply reveal a lack of understanding for what is being proposed. Also, the mere suggestion that something might be wrong with the current system seems to get people so fired up that all rational thought is lost. It makes it almost impossible to get a constructive dialog going that could eventually lead to change. Of course for some people *any* change is bad, so that might also be a factor for resistance.

I am glad to see I am finally getting through to some people, though I wish it would have happened sooner. Perhaps you are right. I should regain my patience in this process.

[lightowl]

Should we allow religious discussions to interrupt a scientific discussion in the SENS forum, or vice versa? Some have expressed their opinion that this is okay, provided we can find a system where those who don't want such distractions can opt out of them, or those who don't mind such distractions can opt in to them. Many would rather just accept moderation as a tool to move off-topic content to the forum it belongs in.

Thanks Jay. I think the important thing to consider is that these options are not mutually exclusive. It is technically possible to implement both without them conflicting.

The third option I think it relevant is: there could be special moderation groups that take care of certain types of moderation ( spam or porn for example ). If people could opt-in to these groups individually, it would be possible to opt-out for spam and opt-in for porn, if that is what you want personally. To retain a certain level of usefulness of the forums, some groups could be opt-in per default so guest and new users wont have to make that choice before considering the consequences.

Examples of groups.
- Porn
- Spam
- Obscene language
- Off topic
- Commercial
- Banned people
- CIRA
etc...

It would also be possible to have different groups of moderators managing the different groups if needed or more practical.

[lightowl]

Some members are on one extreme, willing to accept moderation and even outright censorship to see the forum be an effective tool for completing the institute's mission. Other members are at the other extreme and basically say anything goes.

To be fair:
Other members are at the other extreme and basically say anything goes... for the forum to be an effective tool for completing the institute's mission.

My opinion is that people should have an individual choice... for the forum to be an effective tool for completing the institute's mission.

[Lazarus Long]

The third option I think it relevant is: there could be special moderation groups that take care of certain types of moderation ( spam or porn for example ). If people could opt-in to these groups individually, it would be possible to opt-out for spam and opt-in for porn, if that is what you want personally. To retain a certain level of usefulness of the forums, some groups could be opt-in per default so guest and new users wont have to make that choice before considering the consequences.

Examples of groups.
- Porn
- Spam
- Obscene language
- Off topic
- Commercial
- Banned people
- CIRA
etc...

Lightowl we are not here to provide a forum for spam, porn, obscene language, banned people, or even commercial products.

As for the last we are a not for profit organization and tolerate some levels of advertising because it brings in some legitimate revenue that reduces our need to depend solely on dues. It is contradictory to that service for us to provide areas at our expense that cater to spammers or non contributing commercial interests by offering free access.

Anyway since when is commerce deserving of charity?

Most of the members that have spoken to me have asserted that we are not here to do everything that comes to mind and as you suggested these may be options that could and should be pursued independently by those that do have such broad interests. This organization on the other hand has a far more specific and limited mission and it is the responsibility of leadership to stay within those limits to meet it and protect the viability of the organization to do so.

We also must remain within the law to remain a viable organization and some of the issues for example governing internet porn could get us shut down or worse, forced by recent federal law to disclose individual private information with respect to our members.

We also serve a community of young people that are the target of exploitation and we have a responsibility to them and to their families to provide a measure of security against such exploitation. So it boils down to a reality check and the establishment of priorities because when you try to be everything to everyone you end up being nothing to anybody.

There are some very good reasons why we are simply never going to make everybody happy and that is just something that we will go on living with, and quite comfortably if it succeeds in getting us closer to our collective goal; longevity.

There are many internet communities now withteh kinds of agnedas you describe so why should we emulate them when it is not even consistent with our stated purpose?

[xanadu]

I am not leaving. I am just not going to spend my time making and defending suggestions that are just going to be shot down by narrow minded, stubborn people.

Amen, brother, been there done that. After a while you get tired of butting your head against stone walls. I do think though that you have made some difference. Even my comments have had some impact though they will wait for another member to say something similar before they admit it's a good idea. Your idea of a community sounds interesting. There are ways to set it up for free or for $100 or so you can set up your own domain and do what you want. There is free forum software that can be had. I've been on many other sites, been a mod, admin, even ran my own site. I'll help you if I can. Many others will too. Not that Imminst is so bad, it's not but it's set in it's ways. I will stick around here too.

Let me tell this....inertia is a thing of the past for the institute. Petty political mindless in-fighting is also a thing of the past.

I see some signs of change. I see more signs of resistance to change. I get accused of being rude and "flying off the handle" for talking about comparisons to the soviet union. Meanwhile, those who accuse me of that spend much of their time attacking me and saying far worse things. If I followed their example, I would be rude indeed. Attack the idea, not the person.

I saw someone express a desire to be a mod and was not offered any position. So it seems only those who meet some sort of litmus test are taken by the powers that be. With open elections, management would just declare we need x number of mods. Anyone could declare themselves a candidate and the ones with the most votes win. I think there is a rule the person must be a paid member.

No one seems to want to talk about reform of the member dues structure. Are "student" and "employed" exclusive of one another? I've asked before and never got an answer. When I was a full time student, most had some sort of part time job. What about part time students? Level the playing field. Since probably 80% or more of the members are on the student plan, they will not agree to raise the fees so make everyone eligible for the $20 rate or something more fair.

[Neurosail]

No one seems to want to talk about reform of the member dues structure. Are "student" and "employed" exclusive of one another? I've asked before and never got an answer. When I was a full time student, most had some sort of part time job. What about part time students? Level the playing field. Since probably 80% or more of the members are on the student plan, they will not agree to raise the fees so make everyone eligible for the $20 rate or something more fair.

I think that $60.00 per year for Full Members is fair and a good way to build up the bank account of the institute. With more money, the institute could offer a donation once a year to a charity (Mprize, SENS, Cryonics research, Singularity, and other organisations that are reaching our goals) It would be great if we could build up enough members so that the institute could give a "Immortality Prize" of one million dollars to a charity each year at the annual Conference. (I know, wishful thinking!)

$60.00 dollars is only $5.00 per month or $1.25 per week or $0.17 per day. A cheap investment for the goal of immortality!

As far as moderation, I think that they are doing a very good job and should be commended for their efforts! Thanks. [thumb]

[xanadu]

With more money, the institute could offer a donation once a year to a charity (Mprize, SENS, Cryonics research, Singularity, and other organisations that are reaching our goals)

Then I take it you would be in favor of raising the rate for students? I see there is still no clarification on what defines a student. The moderation seems fine.

[Neurosail]

Move to Membership Dues because it was getting off topic.

[lightowl]

Wow, I am getting some pretty angry PM's. I am truly sorry if I have offended anyone. It has never been my intention.

[Live Forever]

Wow, I am getting some pretty angry PM's. I am truly sorry if I have offended anyone. It has never been my intention.

Come on guys, don't be mean to lightowl. His intentions seem to be pure.

[Lazarus Long]

(Live Forever)

(lightowl)
Wow, I am getting some pretty angry PM's. I am truly sorry if I have offended anyone. It has never been my intention.

Come on guys, don't be mean to lightowl. His intentions seem to be pure.

I can only second what Live Forever is saying. If members have something to contribute to this debate please do so in public and not by attacking Lightowl in private for honestly expressing a legitimate perspective.

Calling it a legitimate perspective does not mean that you have to agree with it or that it is correct in all aspects but he is only expressing legitimate concerns that he has and he has done so in a manner that is articulate and certainly within the rules of this organization. I should add that intolerance for his perspective actually lends support to his argument because basically he is saying that legitimate dissent will be stifled if the course being taken by this institute is not changed.

If some of you seek to prove him wrong then the matter deserves a public review not private attacks.

[zoolander]

I third the above.

[xanadu]

Don't attack people in the forums either. Attack the idea, not the person. That's been said so much it's a cliche but it's true. Yet I see so many personal attacks it's not even funny. Lightowl has done nothing to deserve attack. An example of attacking the idea is to say "that's wrong, it can never work and here is why..." a bad example of attacking the person is "you are nuts, you don't know what you are talking about and stop being an idiot"

Since when is suggesting that things are not set up in the best way being disloyal? I see that said or implied all the time. If the person is just being negative and offers no positive solutions, then maybe so. Lightowl has offered positive solutions, so have I. If you want to play a little game that only ideas from those who pay dues will be considered, fine. I don't need the gold star on my forehead, that's for kindergarten. Wait until a paying member says it then take it up. No problem. Just don't attack the messenger, discuss and agree or disagree with the ideas. All I really hope for is to get people thinking about stuff.

[lightowl]

Thanks for the support guys. I really appreciate it. I lost my patience for a while there, and I apologize.

I don't see this particular discussion leading to anything good, so I wont waste everyone's time by dragging it out. I am however still going to be arguing for a more open and inclusive community. I hope people who wish the same of ImmInst will join the debates when ever they may arise.

Thanks,

Thor.

[Lazarus Long]

The link to the CIRA guidelines in the first post is dead. What happened to the thread with the rules?

I want to put them in the politics section and there is no reference.