36 replies to this topic

[Athanasios]

I am creating this topic to provide a neutral area for suggesting policy for the forum and suggesting changes to be implemented.

The first issue brought up is that the forum is a subforum and should be its own forum per the constitution.

A second issue brought forward is that posts in the Free Speech Forum do not show up in the Active Topics area.

The third, that I am bringing up, is that moving posts to or moderating of posts in the Free Speech Area has been a very sensitive area in the past. I suggest that we limit the moderation powers, if possible, in this particular forum to the Chief Navigator only, possible exceptions being the Executive Director and/or one other navigator to be assigned the responsibility. Also if possible, I suggest that the report button should be disabled in this forum.

Any other issues or suggestions should be brought up in this thread.


Note: This is not the place to bring up past incidences or to engage in personal attacks. Past incidences should be brought forward to leadership via PM and straightened out in a procedural fashion. This thread will be strictly moderated.

[Athanasios]

I agree on the first and third suggestions above but do not think that Free Speech topics should be viewable in the Active Topics section, as they are allowed to be of questionable material. Since there is no disclaimer as there is in the Free Speech Forum, I think topics viewed in the Active Topics section should not be able to contain such possible material.

Other's thoughts?

[Athanasios]

One last suggestion I have is that the posting of Private Messages (PMs) should be universally banned, including the Free Speech Forum, unless there is consent by the author.

[zoolander]

I agree with everything that you said. The above are also my views.

I also agree with the not being allowed to post PM's unless there is consent. However, what if someone is treated unfairly via PM?

[Athanasios]

However, what if someone is treated unfairly via PM?

There is the ability to block PMs by a particular person which should cut down on any repeated harassment. I cant quite imagine an example of one particular message of being so horrendous but if there was one it should be reported to leadership if any action is desired.

[caston]

Probably what we need is software upgrade to the board so that members and registered users can select which forums will be shown in their active topics. For instance one person may want to see free speech but not want to see religion or something like that. That way individual users can opt in or out of specific forums (via their control panel preferences) and it's no longer done globally.

Edited by caston, 30 June 2008 - 02:57 PM.

[Prometheus]

In reference to the recent debacle on free speech, forums and moderation it would be prudent to remember that the consequences of overzealous pruning result in, at best, a featureless, uninteresting and barren stump whether it is a plant or a forum.

[Shepard]

I agree with everything that you said.

As do I.

Edited by shepard, 30 June 2008 - 03:58 PM.

[Shannon Vyff]

I agree with everything that you said.

As do I.

Ditto.

I do however contend that to member be banned or their posting blocked by any one navigator, unless there is a vote by all of leadership, navigators and directors included-- to do so.

[Athanasios]

Probably what we need is software upgrade to the board so that members and registered users can select which forums will be shown in their active topics. For instance one person may want to see free speech but not want to see religion or something like that. That way individual users can opt in or out of specific forums (via their control panel preferences) and it's no longer done globally.

Do you mean besides the "Selective" option? Does that not include free speech on your list in the drop down in the top right corner? I am seriously asking since my account is in a weird moderator/member limbo.

[thefirstimmortal]

I agree on the first and third suggestions above but do not think that Free Speech topics should be viewable in the Active Topics section, as they are allowed to be of questionable material. Since there is no disclaimer as there is in the Free Speech Forum, I think topics viewed in the Active Topics section should not be able to contain such possible material.

Other's thoughts?

POSTED UNDER THREAT OF CENSORSHIP.
I disagree,
The Free Speech Topics should absolutely be in the active topics area. Setting aside the argument that during the constitutional debates it was well settled that a separate forum would be established that would be equal to all other forums minus being subject to censorship, there are other valid reasons to restore that Forum as fully functional.
First of all, any topic that makes it into the active topics list has already demonstrated that it’s content is worthy of time and attention. Those discussions deserve to compete in the market place of ideas.
Whether the material is questionable or not should be decided by each individual, not subject to a handful of people who would decide what is deserving of there time and attention.
Now cnorwood, I’m not saying that all threads are of equal value, I’m just saying I don’t trust you or any other Navigator to sort out the good from the bad.
Here’s a novel idea, let people use there own discriminating minds and let them decide for themselves.

[Shannon Vyff]

No one needs to worry about censorship when they are following ImmInst posting guidelines. It looks like we will be 'freeing' the Free Speech Forum--I'm sure this will be resolved by the end of the week. More of Leadership will need to read what is going on, and weigh in.

I do think that our marketplace of active topics naturally weans interesting or relevant, from boring. I do trust our Navigators to sort good from bad when it pertains to posts that delve into personal attacking however, I appreciate the time they put in as volunteers for helping ImmInst be a more organized and safe/friendly place to post. Our system has been working very well with our ImmInst members choosing what they like to read, respond to or follow --but there are ways we can improve our breadth and educational value, this issue of opening Free Speech, being one of them. In this thread we should be focusing on why to change the Free Speech Forum policy, according to our constitution --and more importantly how.

[Athanasios]

I disagree,
The Free Speech Topics should absolutely be in the active topics area. Setting aside the argument that during the constitutional debates it was well settled that a separate forum would be established that would be equal to all other forums minus being subject to censorship, there are other valid reasons to restore that Forum as fully functional.
First of all, any topic that makes it into the active topics list has already demonstrated that it’s content is worthy of time and attention. Those discussions deserve to compete in the market place of ideas.

Not only can the material and titles be offending but it is a huge loophole for spammers, trolls, and the like to utilize. Trolls have and will try to disrupt the site by filling up the Active Topics with offensive and disruptive content with the only purpose of disrupting the forums. If the forum is available to see via google, it would be an invaluable source for many spammers and will alienate our sponsors. ImmInst gets top google spots regularly, which is what attracts spam, and those spots will define what we are to the public. I think by having the Free Speech Forum in active topics and googlable we will lose some focus on our mission, reduce ad value, invite foul play, hurt ImmInst's image, make the forums questionable for families and children, and ensure that public figures and scientists stay away from the site. Overall, I think it would harm the mission.

[Shannon Vyff]

Can't the title of the Free Speech forum, include a caveat that the opinions espoused are not moderated by ImmInst and are not necessarily the view of the organization?

Also, can't we still remove offending content of a sexual, spamming or trolling manner-if it is public to all ImmInst members including our under age ones?

[Shepard]

Also, can't we still remove offending content of a sexual, spamming or trolling manner-if it is public to all ImmInst members including our under age ones?

We can still moderate in Free Speech if the material is against U.S. law. But, all one has to do is to head over to the Accelerating Future forums to see what happens without moderation. Even if one forum were allowed to be attacked in such a way, it would require a ton of work to keep clean.

[thefirstimmortal]

Not only can the material and titles be offending but it is a huge loophole for spammers, trolls, and the like to utilize.

We libertarians here, (and maybe there all gone now) just don’t want you or anyone deciding what is or is not offensive for us to look at. What is offensive to you does not follow that it is offensive to others. As for spammers, bogus argument that Bruce brought up during the constitutional debates. The forum was set up in 2002 and as of 2005 there were no spam issues. Oh, actually there was one, involving Au Chu, but that spam as I recall was not in the Freedom forum.

Trolls have and will try to disrupt the site by filling up the Active Topics with offensive and disruptive content with the only purpose of disrupting the forums. If the forum is available to see via google, it would be an invaluable source for many spammers and will alienate our sponsors. ImmInst gets top google spots regularly, which is what attracts spam, and those spots will define what we are to the public. I think by having the Free Speech Forum in active topics and googlable we will lose some focus on our mission, reduce ad value, invite foul play, hurt ImmInst's image, make the forums questionable for families and children, and ensure that public figures and scientists stay away from the site. Overall, I think it would harm the mission.

Well, for the majority of the sites existence, the forum was googlable and in the active topics list and not one shred of evidence that any of this happened.

[Shepard]

This is not the same site that it was in 2002 or 2005. There is a reason that the Navigation team has expanded so much.

[thefirstimmortal]

Spamming can be removed. Offensive material, absolutely not, as long as the material is not unlawful. And none of these issues have been problematic in the past.

Can't the title of the Free Speech forum, include a caveat that the opinions espoused are not moderated by ImmInst and are not necessarily the view of the organization?

Also, can't we still remove offending content of a sexual, spamming or trolling manner-if it is public to all ImmInst members including our under age ones?

[thefirstimmortal]

OK, so was there an amazing flood of spam on the Freedom of Speech site after 2005?

This is not the same site that it was in 2002 or 2005. There is a reason that the Navigation team has expanded so much.

[Shannon Vyff]

We do have to remove some offensive comments such as spam, trolling or aggressive personal attack. I trust the decisions made by our navigators, and feel we still have a very free and open site. I agree with cnorwood's concerns about the Free Speech Forum, but am willing to support a trial of it being open and less moderated--such as the constitution stipulates, perhaps the first immortal would like to be a moderator there?

[Athanasios]

We libertarians here, (and maybe there all gone now) just don’t want you or anyone deciding what is or is not offensive for us to look at. What is offensive to you does not follow that it is offensive to others. As for spammers, bogus argument that Bruce brought up during the constitutional debates. The forum was set up in 2002 and as of 2005 there were no spam issues. Oh, actually there was one, involving Au Chu, but that spam as I recall was not in the Freedom forum.

Well, for the majority of the sites existence, the forum was googlable and in the active topics list and not one shred of evidence that any of this happened.

Maybe the problems started in 2006 because they definitely do exist and have taken the majority of my work as a navigator. Trolls, spam, and merging of double posted topics are probably 90% of the work as a navigator. We do not moderate what is offensive to us but rather what is against constitutional guidelines and mainly it involves personal attacks. The posting in the Free Speech Forum is more of a judgement call on the posters part (in other words they feel it could be offensive). In a non-free speech forum, if it is bad enough that we feel it could threaten the mission, yet it does not clearly violate the guidelines (read borderline), it is brought up amongst leadership and has a discussion and informal vote.

Sure, not everyone will agree on what is offensive but we do need to operate within some sort of PCness or we kiss sponsors, families and children, scientists and public figures, and decent public perception goodbye. I would say we need to make an environment that will bring in the above not push them away. Is it worth jeopardizing ImmInsts mission? I, personally, do not think so.

Edited by cnorwood, 30 June 2008 - 09:45 PM.

[thefirstimmortal]

The posting in the Free Speech Forum is more of a judgement call on the posters part (in other words they feel it could be offensive). If it is bad enough that we feel it could threaten the mission, yet it does not clearly violate the guidelines (read borderline), it is brought up amongst leadership and has a discussion and informal vote.

OK, your going to have to help me out a little here, to understand this, as you know I'm a little slow. You mean, even though our constitution say that the only posts that can be removed in the Freedom Forum are unlawful one's, you censors still remove posts for other reasons?

· Free Speech Forum: ImmInst will reserve a forum for the expression of free speech. This forum will be named the “Free Speech Forum”. ImmInst will not restrict speech in this forum in so far as speech remains lawful as enforced by the United States government. Members who visit the Free Speech Forum should be prepared to tolerate objectionable material.

[Athanasios]

OK, your going to have to help me out a little here, to understand this, as you know I'm a little slow. You mean, even though our constitution say that the only posts that can be removed in the Freedom Forum are unlawful one's, you censors still remove posts for other reasons?

Nope, I am talking about the other forums.

[Shepard]

OK, so was there an amazing flood of spam on the Freedom of Speech site after 2005?

You mean the Free Speech forum?

There has been a general increase in the amount of spam on the site overall. Is it uncontrollable? No. Is there potential for a particular area to get overrun with spam if it's not actively moderated? Yes.

The Free Speech forum is not actively moderated, it's not active much at all. But, it's also currently set up in a way that limits the exposure it gets to potential spammers.

Edited by shepard, 30 June 2008 - 10:05 PM.

[Athanasios]

Members who visit the Free Speech Forum should be prepared to tolerate objectionable material.

This is exactly the warning that people viewing the Active Topics or Google results do not get.

[zoolander]

thefirstimmortal, please keep this constructive.

OK, your going to have to help me out a little here, to understand this, as you know I'm a little slow. You mean, even though our constitution say that the only posts that can be removed in the Freedom Forum are unlawful one's, you censors still remove posts for other reasons?

Rather than being condescending with your approach be proactive. For example the above 2 sentences would have been a lot more productive in maintaining a friendly climate if you didn't include the first the sentence.

[eternaltraveler]

Spamming can be removed. Offensive material, absolutely not, as long as the material is not unlawful

I agree with most of what thefirstimmortal said. It doesn't really matter what our opinions are on the matter, imminst's constitution is pretty clear in my opinion as well.

With the caveat that when a member is banned from imminst, that also includes the free speech forum (they cannot however be banned for being offensive in the free speech forum). But we have had several cases where a member was extremely disruptive (and even unlawful), and had to be banned, and then had them return posting in the free speech forum under a new name. As he says above, there is no problem in removing spam from the free speech forum any more than any other part of the forum.

OK, so was there an amazing flood of spam on the Freedom of Speech site after 2005?

Yes. Not continuously, but in pulses where the forum was almost completely overwhelmed. This is not only from advertisers. Imminst does have a few enemies whose goal is to disrupt the mission.

Good to see you back again.

Edited by elrond, 01 July 2008 - 12:20 AM.

[eternaltraveler]

This is exactly the warning that people viewing the Active Topics or Google results do not get.

this is a valid concern.

There should be a software solution for this...

[Shannon Vyff]

So do we have a proposed course of action here?

[Mind]

I have witnessed the increase in spam and the Navigators have done a good job keeping it under control. Also, Imminst has some enemies that would love to disrupt the flow of things around here. Navigators have done a super job keeping the forums from becoming "wild and hairy". Keeping the Free Speech Forum (FSF) off the active topics list and non-googleable is not against the constitution in my view - and it has been a successful method for keeping the forums more focused on the mission.

The FSF being turned into a sub-forum was most likely and oversight when Bruce/Kamil upgraded the software or when Caliban re-organized the sections. I seriously doubt there was any direct intention to make it a sub-forum in order to subvert the constitution. It was an error. Changing it back into its full forum status is required by the constitution and does not require a vote.

Onto the "libertarian" aspect of this discussion. It is a question of tackling both free speech and freedom of assembly. Freedom of assembly means people are free to form a group to do whatever lawful activity they desire (and set their own rules). The people who have freely "assembled" here at Imminst decided to have a Free Speech FORUM, how to display that forum, and how to moderate other forums. These things were all discussed among the members and mostly implemented through votes - therefore I do not see any ergregious violation of any freedoms. The decision to keep the FSF off the the active topics list and non-googleable were not implemented by fiat. It was a group discussion. The policy has worked well in my view. It does not violate the constitution and it keeps the focus on productive immortalist discussions (as mentioned above, I am fairly sure the sub-forum status was an error).

If we were going to change these policies, it would take another discussion and a vote. I would have to see some pretty good detailed arguments in order to change my mind.