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

Photo
- - - - -

Moderation by full membership [CIRA]


  • Please log in to reply
79 replies to this topic

#31 xanadu

  • Guest
  • 1,917 posts
  • 8

Posted 17 February 2007 - 06:35 PM

Why not just split the forums off from the institute if that's the problem? I know that's been suggested before and it may be an idea whose time has come. Lightowl, you aren't going to get anywhere, IMO. Reformers come along and after a while they get tired of tilting at windmills. Clearly zoo is not on the side of any reform, no one in leadership is. I don't expect any of the new directors to rock the boat. They were selected from those already on the team.

I saw it said that if people had a problem they could go to the moderator about it. How do they do that when few people know who the mod is of a particular forum? This is just part of the secrecy I've railed against to no avail. There is indeed strong resistance to freedom of expression here. Not that it's totally banned but gets attacked and moved if not censored. Lightowl will find his lance becomes blunted and broken from going against stone walls.

#32 Live Forever

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

Posted 17 February 2007 - 06:47 PM

Why not just split the forums off from the institute if that's the problem?

Because it isn't a problem.

Lightowl, you aren't going to get anywhere, IMO.

As has already been stated, he has already gotten somewhere. Of course no one gets everything they want on either side of a debate, but he has started discussion on an issue he feels is important.

Reformers come along and after a while they get tired of tilting at windmills. Clearly zoo is not on the side of any reform, no one in leadership is. I don't expect any of the new directors to rock the boat. They were selected from those already on the team.

On what team? The team of trying to defeat aging? I realize you aren't on that team, but I think the vast majority of people here actually do want to defeat aging. (in fact, that is the entire purpose)

I saw it said that if people had a problem they could go to the moderator about it. How do they do that when few people know who the mod is of a particular forum?

Well, since it is clearly listed for anyone to know: http://www.imminst.o.../leadership.php
I think everyone should know who is who. How would you propose making it more clear? (since they are listed by name with their picture and the information on what their role is, I don't think it could be much clearer, but maybe you can think of something else to list?)

#33 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 17 February 2007 - 08:44 PM

Xanadu, what is thread if it is not a free and open discussion of how to change certain things here at Imminst?

Are not people letting their opinions be known?

Are not members hashing out the best way to change?

Are not people discussing some of the drawbacks?

Xanadu, if you want things to change everytime you snap your fingers, then start your own website and rule it like a dictator. If you want to present ideas here, the ideas are going to be discussed first and then voted-on.

#34 xanadu

  • Guest
  • 1,917 posts
  • 8

Posted 17 February 2007 - 09:01 PM

Because it isn't a problem.


Really? seems like we've been having a lot of discussion, including parts of this thread about free speech vs publicity for the institute. If it isn't a "problem" it's certainly a concern.

On what team? The team of trying to defeat aging? I realize you aren't on that team,...


That is a pompous remark. You realize nothing of the sort.

Well, since it is clearly listed for anyone to know... (moderators and their forums) I think everyone should know who is who. How would you propose making it more clear? (since they are listed by name with their picture and the information on what their role is, I don't think it could be much clearer, but maybe you can think of something else to list?)


Another pompous and untrue comment. If you bothered to look at that page you see that only a few moderators are matched with their forums. Some do not have their screen names listed making it very hard to find them if you don't already have that info. Also one does not even have her name listed. Being a knee jerk contrarian to anything I have to say may endear you to management but at the risk of coming off as clueless. I see jay is using homo slurs to attack me with now. If you can't deal with the message, attack the messenger. Lightowl is running into the same stone wall I hit but each new voice calling for reform causes a little progress. Already we've seem some. My effectiveness is probably spent since everyone is now in the habit of opposing whatever I say. Lightowl, they are now offering to coopt you by including you in the "team". Perhaps you can keep working from the inside but by accepting a position you are expected to see things more from their point of view.

There seems to be a dichotomy or schism about wanting more publicity vs privacy for members and avoiding any sort of negative publicity. Some seem to say the more publicity the better. Some say we need to make sure only positive spin is put out and free speech, well that just has to go. Can't have loose cannons like xanadu running around saying whatever he wants even if it's relevant. A bunker or war mentality seems to be creeping in. If we are at war, then anyone with a different point of view could be seen as a traitor. I already see an "us vs them" type of thinking that has emerged. It was said that mods can't be elected by members because.... just because. The real reason being that it's a major perk of directors and they make sure their own people get in.

If anyone is proud that over 40 voted in the election, stop and consider that there are over 230 paid members that could have voted but the overwhelming majority did not bother. Why? that's the $64 question but being left in the dark and having little to no power or say so may have something to do with it. See how management fights tooth and nail in this thread to stop any sort of reform. I hear "maybe some day we'll open up a little" and "we can't do that because..." Out of the 40 some odd who voted, over 20 were on the leadership team. Does that sound like a small powerful clique to you? It does to me. The rest are out there in limbo with little incentive to get more involved. Those who do get involved are told to "get with the program" or they will be harassed and marginalized.

Why must directors make all decisions behind closed doors and then present a united front to everyone else afterwards? Why must they make all decisions? Major issues should be put to a vote. Then maybe you will see more involvement. But then the clique's power would be diluted and we can't have that it seems.

#35 eternaltraveler

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

Posted 17 February 2007 - 09:27 PM

Another pompous and untrue comment. If you bothered to look at that page you see that only a few moderators are matched with their forums. Some do not have their screen names listed making it very hard to find them if you don't already have that info. Also one does not even have her name listed. Being a knee jerk contrarian to anything I have to say may endear you to management but at the risk of coming off as clueless


you may not have noticed but if you click on their name it links to their profile.

#36 eternaltraveler

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

Posted 17 February 2007 - 09:31 PM

A bunker or war mentality seems to be creeping in.


We are at war Xandu, and the enemy is more heinous than any other enemy fought in the history of mankind.

#37 eternaltraveler

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

Posted 17 February 2007 - 09:45 PM

Out of the 40 some odd who voted, over 20 were on the leadership team. Does that sound like a small powerful clique to you? It does to me.


There is another explanation to this which also happens to be the correct one. I don't expect you to believe it because you naturally set yourself in opposition to whoever you view as having authority, but I'll clarify for everyone else present.

We have about 50 regularly active full members and many others who joined us in support to whom we are greatly thankful. Just about every active full member that has shown interest in the in volunteering was brought into leadership.

#38 eternaltraveler

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

Posted 17 February 2007 - 09:48 PM

Why must directors make all decisions behind closed doors and then present a united front to everyone else afterwards? Why must they make all decisions? Major issues should be put to a vote. Then maybe you will see more involvement. But then the clique's power would be diluted and we can't have that it seems.


we don't make all the decisions. All Full members are free to call referenda.

All but 3 or 4 leadership votes in the past are available for review by all full members (those 3 or 4 deal with privacy issues). In those votes you'll see that we don't put forth a united front. Motions brought up by one of us have been routinely defeated.

#39 mitkat

  • Guest
  • 1,948 posts
  • 13
  • Location:Toronto, Canada

Posted 17 February 2007 - 09:53 PM

Jay I understand the need for having another class of moderators, but in the past most anyone who's been willing to be a part of leadership has been brought in.  Where do you expect to find all these new moderators? ;))


I mentioned it somewhere earlier I'd be willing to do some moderating, and it still stands. As long as the time commitments aren't excessive, I would be more than happy to.

#40 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 17 February 2007 - 10:52 PM

Your moderating presence would be welcome Mitkat. You only have to put in as much time as you wish, there are no time requirements. If you are busy with life, work, and such things, then no one expects you to be in the forums monitoring trolls.

#41 Live Forever

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

Posted 17 February 2007 - 11:00 PM

Because it isn't a problem.


Really? seems like we've been having a lot of discussion, including parts of this thread about free speech vs publicity for the institute. If it isn't a "problem" it's certainly a concern.

A concern that is (apparently) being addressed.

On what team? The team of trying to defeat aging? I realize you aren't on that team,...


That is a pompous remark. You realize nothing of the sort.

It was kind of pompous, wasn't it? I think I might have misunderstood a few of your earlier remarks. (I can point to the ones I mean if you would like to know, but they seemed pretty anti-research to me at the time I read them initially) If you truly do want to defeat aging, then all the rest of this stuff is a bit on the meaningless side of things. The real fight is against aging, not amongst ourselves.

Another pompous and untrue comment. If you bothered to look at that page you see that only a few moderators are matched with their forums. Some do not have their screen names listed making it very hard to find them if you don't already have that info. Also one does not even have her name listed.

If you click on them it takes you to their profile. If any information that you can see is out of date, if you mention it I am sure it will be corrected immediately. I don't believe anyone is trying to give out false information about who they are or anything.

Being a knee jerk contrarian to anything I have to say may endear you to management but at the risk of coming off as clueless. I see jay is using homo slurs to attack me with now. If you can't deal with the message, attack the messenger. Lightowl is running into the same stone wall I hit but each new voice calling for reform causes a little progress. Already we've seem some. My effectiveness is probably spent since everyone is now in the habit of opposing whatever I say. Lightowl, they are now offering to coopt you by including you in the "team". Perhaps you can keep working from the inside but by accepting a position you are expected to see things more from their point of view.

xanadu, it is this type of language that makes it hard to listen to the other things you say.



Overall, I don't think fighting amongst ourselves is a good way to go when we should be fighting against aging. That being said, I can see a grain of truth to everything that everyone says. Perhaps there should be more transparency, and that would be a better thing, and perhaps everything is ok right now. It is a good conversation to be having, anyway, and see what the consensus is among the membership on these types of issues.

#42 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 17 February 2007 - 11:09 PM

Can't have loose cannons like xanadu running around saying whatever he wants even if it's relevant.


Hello?

Am I missing something?

You do run around saying anything you like. No one is stopping you.

Hmmm? I wonder why? Could it be that Imminst is very tolerant and has a strong free speech ethic? No way! That's impossible!


OK, now seriously Xanadu. If you want everyone to say "how high?" when you say jump, then you really should start your own website. On the other hand, if you want to try to get your ideas through a democratic process like what exists here at Imminst, you are going to have to deal with criticism. Some ideas will fly and others will fail. That's life. Most people understand that.

#43 zoolander

  • Guest
  • 4,724 posts
  • 55
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia

Posted 17 February 2007 - 11:11 PM

Thanks Tim.

#44 eternaltraveler

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

Posted 17 February 2007 - 11:24 PM

I mentioned it somewhere earlier I'd be willing to do some moderating, and it still stands. As long as the time commitments aren't excessive, I would be more than happy to.


any area you have in mind?

#45 jaydfox

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

Posted 17 February 2007 - 11:30 PM

I see jay is using homo slurs to attack me with now.

WTF?

#46 jaydfox

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

Posted 17 February 2007 - 11:35 PM

My effectiveness is probably spent since everyone is now in the habit of opposing whatever I say.

Your effectiveness is spent because you routinely make idiotic statements that show you have a high opinion of your knowledge in areas that you demonstrate a severe lack of knowledge in. For some people, your effectiveness was spent based on your racial hatred. In other areas it was your incessant desire to derail constructive discussions. For others it was your naive political views. For some like myself, it was your unpolished understanding of science and the scientific method, and, well, basic critical thinking skills.

Others get more traction not because they raise the same concerns as you and somehow "validate" your opinions. They get traction because they've earned respect by displaying critical thinking skills and a willingness to contribute to, rather than derail, discussions.

#47 jaydfox

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

Posted 17 February 2007 - 11:35 PM

Moderators, feel free to moderate if I get off track here.

#48 xanadu

  • Guest
  • 1,917 posts
  • 8

Posted 17 February 2007 - 11:40 PM

Now that was a more reasonable post, Live. Instead of attacking me like you were doing you could have simply discussed issues. It seems people would rather attack me than actually discuss things but I will admit the discussions are taking place. What was at first just dismissed out of hand is being looked at and work arounds proposed. This is progress and I'm glad to see it. There is hope.

I'm not saying my approach is always correct. it has been pointed out that I've been a little over the top on occasion. It's just conversation. If comparisons to the soviet union are not exact then that invites criticism of the comparison. In soviet union I would be shot already. Instead, all parties are learning and actively improving things. You don't see that going on right now in Russia so this is better.

Live and others: I have clicked on the name but it doesn't tell me where they moderate. If I'm a newbie just here and need an answer to a question or need help deleting something, etc that might require a mod, I would have to search high and low to find the mod for that forum unless I just happen to hit on it. I'm trying to see things as an outsider would who first came here and signed up . Putting the mod's name by the forum name plus at the top of the topic listings for the forum would make it easy to find to whom you need to speak.

#49 jaydfox

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

Posted 17 February 2007 - 11:41 PM

In soviet union I would be shot already.

No, you would have been shipped to Siberia for 20 years. Mind already covered this.

#50 Live Forever

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

Posted 17 February 2007 - 11:48 PM

Live and others: I have clicked on the name but it doesn't tell me where they moderate. If I'm a newbie just here and need an answer to a question or need help deleting something, etc that might require a mod, I would have to search high and low to find the mod for that forum unless I just happen to hit on it. I'm trying to see things as an outsider would who first came here and signed up . Putting the mod's name by the forum name plus at the top of the topic listings for the forum would make it easy to find to whom you need to speak.

Perhaps this is something that can be easily addressed by putting who moderates what areas. I was under the impression that most of the people moderate all areas, but that may or may not be correct, I am not sure.

One thing I have seen in other forums is a "Report to Moderator" or a "Contact Moderator" button in threads and/or at the tops of forums so that someone can easily contact them. Not sure if this would be feasible with the upcoming upgrade or not, but it would be an easy way for newbies to contact someone, I would think.

#51 mitkat

  • Guest
  • 1,948 posts
  • 13
  • Location:Toronto, Canada

Posted 17 February 2007 - 11:50 PM

any area you have in mind?


I was thinking in any of the health related fora, maybe supplements, for a couple of reasons. It's an area that gets the most spam and the one I've got the most experience in.

#52 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 17 February 2007 - 11:53 PM

Xanadu: It's just conversation.


No it is not. It is rude. Hundreds and hundreds of members have made thousands and thousands of suggestions during the course of Imminst's development and for the most part the suggestions and the discussions have been constructive, intelligent, and respectful. Many of your recent postings have not been respectful or rational.

Everyone flies off the handle once in awhile. We are all human. It takes effort to maintain focus and friendliness

Please try harder.

#53 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 17 February 2007 - 11:54 PM

One thing I have seen in other forums is a "Report to Moderator" or a "Contact Moderator" button in threads and/or at the tops of forums so that someone can easily contact them. Not sure if this would be feasible with the upcoming upgrade or not, but it would be an easy way for newbies to contact someone, I would think.


Nice idea Live. That would help more of the membership be involved in keeping the forums focused on the mission.

#54 jaydfox

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

Posted 18 February 2007 - 12:05 AM

Live and others: I have clicked on the name but it doesn't tell me where they moderate. If I'm a newbie just here and need an answer to a question or need help deleting something, etc that might require a mod, I would have to search high and low to find the mod for that forum unless I just happen to hit on it. I'm trying to see things as an outsider would who first came here and signed up . Putting the mod's name by the forum name plus at the top of the topic listings for the forum would make it easy to find to whom you need to speak.

Not all the moderators are assigned to a specific forum or top-level category. We simply don't have enough moderators for that degree of low-level control. That's the main reason I'm bringing this discussion of another tier of moderators. With 7 top-level categories (excluding full member and leadership areas), and with our desire to see multiple moderators in some of those areas, we could use another dozen or so moderators. "Navigators" in my opinion should be global moderators who perhaps focus on one or two areas if they prefer.

But that's what this discussion is about. I'm one person with one set of ideas, and those ideas don't mesh perfectly with the ideas of all the members. We won't find a system that pleases everyone, but we can work together to find the optimal system from a pragmatic standpoint, and that system may or may not look anything like what I'd prefer to see. 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. You want child porn and insider stock tips in a discussion of allotopic expression in the SENS forum? Sure thing, anything goes!

Most of the membership are more moderate, within a fairly wide spectrum. E.g., some things like porn should be censored everywhere except perhaps the Free Speech Forum, and even then applicable U.S. law limits the content to a certain extent. Commercial advertisements should be restricted from areas where they clearly don't make sense, but may be okay in other areas where the very items of discussion are commercial products (e.g., the supplements and nootropics fora). Even then, there is the question of whether advertizers should be required to pay a fee to set up shop here.

As for content, outside of speech illegal in the U.S., we could basically let anything go, but should we? 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. If the process were a little more democratic (in the sense that such moderation actions were logged publicly and there was a forum for members to discuss the actions and suggest alternative courses of action), this could work for most users, I think.

Then there's the question of who should moderate, and how we provide for accountability. This is my thread, and I declared it under CIRA guidelines, so I could basically delete just about everything xanadu posted in this thread and be okay with it. But there would be two issues. Some members would cheer at the move, others would decry it. I could care less what xanadu would think of it, but I do care what other members would think. And not because of their opinion of what happened to xanadu, but because of their opinion of what happened. So I will not moderate xanadu in this discussion, because he and I have had our disagreements and I'm personally invested in this: I have a conflict of interest, so to speak. A moderator shouldn't be moderate his ideological opponent. That's my opinion and other moderators might disagree. Other members might disagree. It's a standard I try to hold myself to unless the moderation action is so objective justifiable that the supposed "conflict of interest" becomes irrelevant. Even then, a moderator is usually around and I could always ask for their opinion, etc.

This is where opening up logs could become important. We've had accusations in the past of moderators abusing their power to silence their critics. I know of only one legitimate situation where this occurred, and perhaps there were a couple more, but that's not the issue at hand, so I'll leave it at that. The point is, I support the idea of opening the moderation logs in the manner I described, or something similar to it if someone has a better idea. Constructive ideas will be better received than bickering rants. The rants have been excused so far because one of the very topics of this discussion is censorship, but let's see if we can't rein this discussion back on topic, shall we?

#55 lightowl

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

Posted 18 February 2007 - 05:20 AM

I am done wasting my time trying to change things here. My main attraction to this forum is the community. It is my opinion the community is being obstructed by the institute. The institute has the mission of ending involuntary death, but it uses all its time on petty politics. I believe the community at large has a larger impact on this mission than any single institute can ever have.

When I have more time I will start a community site for people interested in life-extension and immortality. It will be focused on the community above all, not some vague mission statement. It will then be up to the community to decide what specific goals it will work to achieve.

#56 zoolander

  • Guest
  • 4,724 posts
  • 55
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia

Posted 18 February 2007 - 06:05 AM

The institute has the mission of ending involuntary death, but it uses all its time on petty politics.



That's an overly generalized comment and you know it.

#57 zoolander

  • Guest
  • 4,724 posts
  • 55
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia

Posted 18 February 2007 - 06:06 AM

I am done wasting my time trying to change things here.


Can I please ask that you sit on this for a few days or even a few weeks before making the decision to leave.

#58 lightowl

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

Posted 18 February 2007 - 07:20 AM

Hi Zoolander,

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.

I have suggested these alternatives to the current top level controlled moderation.

1. Personal level moderation.
2. Shared moderation
3. Community reviewed moderation.
any combination of those three.

These are simple solutions that can be solved technically. The current content control can still be retained for those who want it that way. This is a win-win-win proposal, but it turns into a petty political battle of wills as always and I am sick of it.

I will stick around and see what happens. Perhaps this institute will stop wasting its time trying to control the community and start initiating specific projects some time in the future. But until then, I am convinced another approach is needed. This is not the way to get things done.

Regards,

Thor.

#59 zoolander

  • Guest
  • 4,724 posts
  • 55
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia

Posted 18 February 2007 - 07:35 AM

I am not leaving.


Good.

I have suggested these alternatives to the current top level controlled moderation.

1. Personal level moderation.
2. Shared moderation
3. Community reviewed moderation.
any combination of those three.

These are simple solutions that can be solved technically. The current content control can still be retained for those who want it that way. This is a win-win-win proposal, but it turns into a petty political battle of wills as always and I am sick of it.


I have been in the same seat that you are in now and like you, I lost my patience. It felt like some common sense ideas were falling on deaf ears. 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.

Your suggestions

1. Personal level moderation.
2. Shared moderation
3. Community reviewed moderation.
any combination of those three.


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.

#60 lightowl

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

Posted 18 February 2007 - 07:44 AM

Mind, you have asked me some questions. You obviously have no clue what I am talking about, or you just don't care. This is not the first time I have suggested these changes and answered all those questions in depth.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users