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

Photo
- - - - -

Censorship in moderation.


  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#1 lightowl

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

Posted 18 July 2005 - 02:53 AM


I have been following some of the threads in which Chip has been pointing out censorship based on personal reasoning and I tend to agree with him on some points. I don't wish to point any fingers so this is a general suggestion and a question.

First the question
Does all members with a position in the so called "leadership" have the power and the right to censor any post or thread they personally disagree with or otherwise think of as repulsive, disruptive, irrelevant or just plain silly? If this is the case I think it would be a big mistake to let one person rule on such an important area as censorship. Especially if there is no effective guidelines that must be followed.

I think rampant censorship is harmful to the forum. I personally am beginning to feel pressured to restrict what ideas and what language I use. I certainly will think twice before I publish a controversial idea and I will probably hold back unless I am certain I will not be quieted without discussion.

Then my suggestion
I have been looking around in the Catcher, which is the effective censorship log, and I find lots of threads that I would personally not have removed. But as I have said I could be wrong on some, but I could most certainly also be right on some. So my suggestion is that full members should have the option to place a post or a thread from the Catcher up for a vote for retrieval. If the full members vote in favor of retrieval the leadership should be required to follow the will of the members.

That way censorship will become non-permanent and all members will have a say in what should be removed. The directors ( or all leadership ) should of course have the option of overruling such a poll with their own poll on the retrieval. But no leader should single handedly be able to ignore and act against such a poll. This system will in effect retain the current freedom of the navigators and other maintenance people while ensuring that unfair and unreasonable censorship of the members is addressed in a democratic manner.

There is one problem that revolves around complete deletion of posts or threads. I would suggest creating a "full members catcher" which could be used to store posts that is judged unworthy of public exposure. That way censor's will not just end up irretrievably delete anything they want removed. Actually I think it would be best to limit the power to totally delete posts to the directors to avoid any misuse of powers. I could be wrong though, and the risk of loosing leadership membership is probably enough to prevent such activity.

Is it censorship?
You may argue that the Catcher is not censorship, but I disagree. It is effectively pushing back information to an "irrelevance" section that is labeled to invalidate its content. That will in effect discourage people from ever reading its content.

Finally
I hope you guys deem this issue worth some deliberation. Free speech is a valuable tool under any subject and not just under the subject of free speech.

#2 Bruce Klein

  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 18 July 2005 - 03:22 AM

Thanks for your valued questions, lightowl.

Does all members with a position in the so called "leadership" have the power and the right to censor any post or thread they personally disagree with or otherwise think of as repulsive, disruptive, irrelevant or just plain silly?


All ImmInst Leaders have the administration capability to edit posts. However, mainly ImmInst Navigators are tasked with this duty and do so by following guidelines and recording all actions to ImmInst Leadership.

I think rampant censorship is harmful to the forum. I personally am beginning to feel pressured to restrict what ideas and what language I use. I certainly will think twice before I publish a controversial idea and I will probably hold back unless I am certain I will not be quieted without discussion.


I agree with your sentiment, lightowl. I'm in favor of allowing members to post without draconian threats of censorship or editing. To ensure this, ImmInst has maintained the Free Speech Forum.

I have been looking around in the Catcher, which is the effective censorship log,


Actually, this is hard to tell, as some members have started threads in the Catcher.... but regardless, your idea for moving threads out of the Catcher by full membership vote is interesting... and certainly not out of the question.

#3 John Schloendorn

  • Guest, Advisor, Guardian
  • 2,542 posts
  • 157
  • Location:Mountain View, CA

Posted 18 July 2005 - 03:28 AM

I have been looking around in the Catcher, which is the effective censorship log, and I find lots of threads that I would personally not have removed.

Also be aware that some like to delete/edit their particular posts that were that were the reason for a passage being moved.
I like your proposal, too.

#4 DJS

  • Guest
  • 5,798 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Taipei
  • NO

Posted 18 July 2005 - 04:17 AM

Hi Lightowl,

I have been following some of the threads in which Chip has been pointing out censorship based on personal reasoning and I tend to agree with him on some points. I don't wish to point any fingers so this is a general suggestion and a question.


I noticed you said you agreed with Chip on some points. What about this one:

Chip

Be careful and, if at all possible, get what you want here without giving any support to this institution that harbors malevolent spirit.


Granted, there may be particular points embedded within Chip's vitriol that have a grain of truth to them, but wouldn't you admit that the manner in which he has gone about criticizing ImmInst is unfair? There is a vindicativeness in Chip's posts which make it difficult to listen to his message. I personally do not agree with Chip on virtually any of his point, but I do agree with you on some.

I think rampant censorship is harmful to the forum. I personally am beginning to feel pressured to restrict what ideas and what language I use. I certainly will think twice before I publish a controversial idea and I will probably hold back unless I am certain I will not be quieted without discussion.


To a certain extent I agree with you. *Ideas* and the ability to express oneself should never be shut down, but outside of free speech the institute is justified in performing routine maitenance of its various forums. How may I ask are you feeling restricted? Have you ever once been censored by this organization?

Then my suggestion
I have been looking around in the Catcher, which is the effective censorship log, and I find lots of threads that I would personally not have removed. But as I have said I could be wrong on some, but I could most certainly also be right on some. So my suggestion is that full members should have the option to place a post or a thread from the Catcher up for a vote for retrieval. If the full members vote in favor of retrieval the leadership should be required to follow the will of the members.


I like your idea, I really do. You see, we have been looking for some time for a way to have an institute wide over sight of moderation. Perhaps it could work so that petitions could be created where, if a certain number of signatures was acquired, the thread could be brought before leadership for a reinstatement to its previous forum. I don't know, just tossing ideas around, but I do like the idea of getting Full Memers more involved in the process.

There is one problem that revolves around complete deletion of posts or threads. I would suggest creating a "full members catcher" which could be used to store posts that is judged unworthy of public exposure. That way censor's will not just end up irretrievably delete anything they want removed. Actually I think it would be best to limit the power to totally delete posts to the directors to avoid any misuse of powers. I could be wrong though, and the risk of loosing leadership membership is probably enough to prevent such activity.


I am the head Navigator for the these forums and I have never, not once, deleted a post unless it was in duplicate. I'm confident that the rest of Navigation follows the same motto.

Is it censorship?
You may argue that the Catcher is not censorship, but I disagree. It is effectively pushing back information to an "irrelevance" section that is labeled to invalidate its content. That will in effect discourage people from ever reading its content.


I think this is semantics to a certain extent. The Catcher is still displayed on the Active Topics list (something that will hopefully change very soon), so right now transfering a post to the catcher will often have the opposite effect of drawing attention to it.

Finally
I hope you guys deem this issue worth some deliberation. Free speech is a valuable tool under any subject and not just under the subject of free speech.


While I value freedom of expression, I am also of the opinion that this is an online forum that has a right to moderate and protect itself as it sees fit.

The title to your thread is a clever play on words, however, if I were required to come up with a catchy slogan for how the fora should operate it would be: "Moderation In Moderation."

Sincerely
DonS

#5 DJS

  • Guest
  • 5,798 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Taipei
  • NO

Posted 18 July 2005 - 07:16 AM

Chip

AND your suggested solution, lightowl, still though almost suggests it, does not touch upon the big problem, the incorporation of people into Imminst leadership who ax posts continuously on the basis of opinion and malice.


Tell me Chip, if ImmInst is so quick to axe posts, then why is the filth you defecate all over our site still lying spewed through out the fora?

#6 caliban

  • Admin, Advisor, Director
  • 9,150 posts
  • 581
  • Location:UK

Posted 18 July 2005 - 12:46 PM

This issue comes up time and again.

Ligthowl:

Regarding your question: Read the constitution, including the specification of Navigators responsibilities, Bylaw A, and the posting uidelines.

Regarding your suggestion: Read the consatitution. Every Full Member has the right to suggest a referendum on any issue.

As you have such strong views on the matter, I have missed your suggestions on the current discussion about the draft flamewar policy in the FullMembers forum.

As a good American (I presume), this might strike you as very odd, but ImmInst mission is NOT to further Free Speech. If an unmoderated unregulated free-for-all forum is what you seek most of all, you might want to look elsewhere. We respect free speech only as a means to an end: because if we were to restrict speech we might loose some valuable insight or contribution relevant to why we are here.
In certain instances, the "speech" being made is not only not helpful however you look at it, but actually detracts from the quality of the debate or is hostile to a point where valuable contributors are chased away (or just don't bother to post anymore).

A post that is in keeping with the user agreement regarding high quality and good manners will not be censored. If that ever happens, please start a referendum or some other measure to address the error.

#7 eternaltraveler

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

Posted 18 July 2005 - 09:25 PM

I like the idea of a full membership vote on retrieving posts from the catcher.

#8 lightowl

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

Posted 18 July 2005 - 10:00 PM

[quote]Lightowl: I think rampant censorship is harmful to the forum. I personally am beginning to feel pressured to restrict what ideas and what language I use. I certainly will think twice before I publish a controversial idea and I will probably hold back unless I am certain I will not be quieted without discussion.[/quote]
[quote]Bruce: I agree with your sentiment, lightowl. I'm in favor of allowing members to post without draconian threats of censorship or editing. To ensure this, ImmInst has maintained the Free Speech Forum.[/quote]
The problem with having a free speech forum is that this suggests that free speech is limited to this forum. In my opinion free speech should be generally acceptable. If I wish to speak freely about politics it should be allowed in that designated section, IMO. After all, that is where people who wish to read about politics go.

[quote]Lightowl: I have been looking around in the Catcher, which is the effective censorship log, and I find lots of threads that I would personally not have removed.[/quote]
[quote]John: Also be aware that some like to delete/edit their particular posts that were the reason for a passage being moved.[/quote]
Yes, the Catcher is not static at all. This could be a problem if it where to be used as a history indicator. Perhaps if implementing my suggestion is approved ( or some variation ), basic and full members should not be allowed to make changes in posts moved to the catcher. Additionally originals of changed posts should be added to the catcher so anyone can look them up and see what the fuzz was all about. ( This would be hiding the truth, not destroying it ).

[quote]Don: Granted, there may be particular points embedded within Chip's vitriol that have a grain of truth to them, but wouldn't you admit that the manner in which he has gone about criticizing ImmInst is unfair?[/quote]
To clarify, I specifically agree with his observation of the problem that leaders single-handedly can relocate posts and threads without seeking input from either members nor other leaders. I don't know the basis for his other criticisms to deem them unfair but I think discussion is always to prefer. All this talk about banning is in my opinion defeatist. I would hope a decent solution could be found.

[quote]Lightowl: I think rampant censorship is harmful to the forum. I personally am beginning to feel pressured to restrict what ideas and what language I use. I certainly will think twice before I publish a controversial idea and I will probably hold back unless I am certain I will not be quieted without discussion. [/quote]
[quote]Don: How may I ask are you feeling restricted?[/quote]
The fact that I have some very different opinions that some in the leadership makes me feel a subject to censorship. Since those leaders can alter my posts without me being notified makes me extremely weary. My posts could in principle be altered to reflect an opinion that is not mine. I know this is far fetched, but it is a problem in a censored environment. Especially when there is no peer review of those alterations.

I would like to protect the time I invest in this forum. I believe this community has the potential to make a difference in the fight against ageing. I am not about to give up because of democratic difficulties. Problems needs to be solved, not hidden away. This is what free speech is all about.

[quote]Don: Have you ever once been censored by this organization?[/quote]
This is the thing about censorship. You never really know when you have been censored unless you meticulously keep track of everything you say and how that is reproduced. In the case of this forum I have been trying to produce a list of posts of mine that have been changed or moved, but I found there was no tool to retrieve that information.

In the end it doesn't really matter if I have or have not been censored. The fact is that people are being censored and any member of this forum, full member or not, is potentially subject to censorship.

[quote]Don: I like your idea, I really do. You see, we have been looking for some time for a way to have an institute wide over sight of moderation. Perhaps it could work so that petitions could be created where, if a certain number of signatures was acquired, the thread could be brought before leadership for a reinstatement to its previous forum. I don't know, just tossing ideas around, but I do like the idea of getting Full Members more involved in the process.[/quote]
I am glad you agree with my intentions. I think a wider democracy is inevitably required to retain the integrity of this community. I also agree that there should be a minimum of signatures ( or votes ) required to change a moderators action.

[quote]Lightowl: You may argue that the Catcher is not censorship, but I disagree. It is effectively pushing back information to an "irrelevance" section that is labeled to invalidate its content. That will in effect discourage people from ever reading its content.[/quote]
[quote]Don: I think this is semantics to a certain extent. The Catcher is still displayed on the Active Topics list (something that will hopefully change very soon), so right now transferring a post to the catcher will often have the opposite effect of drawing attention to it.[/quote]
I think removing the catcher from the Active Topics list would only be a good idea if some other tool to monitor activity in that section is added. Otherwise it would further obscure the changes made to the posts of the members. I do not agree that it is semantics to a certain extent. Posts that are moved to the catcher is being pulled out of a content where it would have been read, and moved to a place that has no interest to the reader.

[quote]Don: While I value freedom of expression, I am also of the opinion that this is an online forum that has a right to moderate and protect itself as it sees fit.[/quote]
I agree. But I think the full members are very much a part of this forum and should have a saying in how the information THEY provide is handled. Also, it is debatable how much protection it gives the forum to let individuals rule in cases they are not equipped to rule in. It is after all the members of the forum who keeps it growing. It is very important not to forget this, IMO.

[quote]Chip: Try to get a majority vote on retrieval, that would be an uphill climb.[/quote]
I don't think that would be a problem. I think the current system of referendum and internal debate is effectively blocking any criticism members might have on the moderation of the forms. A simple poll will give people an option to say YES or NO without having to explain their opinion. This makes it easier for people to participate.

[quote]Chip: AND your suggested solution, lightowl, still though almost suggests it, does not touch upon the big problem, the incorporation of people into Imminst leadership who ax posts continuously on the basis of opinion and malice. As long as that is allowed and endorsed, one has to look deeper for any solution.[/quote]
My proposal would go a long way in identifying leaders that continually make decisions against the will of the full members. I think that process will give the directors a tool to make decisions on who not to elect into the leadership.

[quote]Caliban: This issue comes up time and again. [/quote]
Perhaps this is because there is an issue which is not being addressed.

[quote]Caliban: Regarding your suggestion: Read the constitution. Every Full Member has the right to suggest a referendum on any issue. [/quote]
The problem with this right is that it gives no power to the members. It places the decision back into the hands of the leadership which in turn places its faith in the hands of the censoring leader. This makes the issue not about the censored information but about the ability of the censoring leader to judge what should and should not be censored. In the long run that is the root cause, but when a specific situation is at hand it should be addressed promptly.

Also, a vote gives a certain freedom to the participants to express their opinion in a Boolean fashion. This makes it much easier for members to express any complaints. In addition, if members knew the vote has merit and can potentially change things, it is a much better incentive.

[quote]Caliban: As you have such strong views on the matter, I have missed your suggestions on the current discussion about the draft flamewar policy in the FullMembers forum. [/quote]
I seems to have missed that thread. Sorry. Now that I have read it I can comment. As I see it, it is some clarification of the guidelines that gives moderators a line to follow. But the problem remains that censorship is done on a case to case basis. In such a dynamic situation as an online forum is, no rules can be written that can address any situation that could arise. Furthermore, an attempt to write such a rule-set would make it virtually impossible to freely manage the forums. If every time a decision is made to moderate, the moderator should look up the correct action, it would be too heavy a workload.

Rules are good, but peer review is needed in my opinion.

[quote]Caliban: As a good American (I presume),[/quote]
Danish actually, and some would disagree on me being good at that :)

[quote]Caliban: this might strike you as very odd, but ImmInst mission is NOT to further Free Speech. If an unmoderated unregulated free-for-all forum is what you seek most of all, you might want to look elsewhere.[/quote]
I sincerely hope you can see the irony in this statement. You are proposing that if I don't want to be censored I should go express my ideas another place. The fact is that if I go somewhere else and express my ideas for example about the politics of immortality the discussion would very quickly be turned to the age old arguments about why we should not seek longer lives and about the possibility of extreme life extension. Also, this forum is where people passionate about life extension is expressing them selves and seek to find new ideas. To go somewhere else would defeat the purpose of expressing ideas about immortality.

[quote]Caliban: We respect free speech only as a means to an end: because if we were to restrict speech we might loose some valuable insight or contribution relevant to why we are here.[/quote]
This is exactly why free speech is so important and that censorship should not be the sole responsibility of individuals.

[quote]Caliban: In certain instances, the "speech" being made is not only not helpful however you look at it, but actually detracts from the quality of the debate or is hostile to a point where valuable contributors are chased away (or just don't bother to post anymore).[/quote]
I agree that some moderation is necessary. That is why I propose keeping overall moderation and add the option for the membership to collectively decide if a failure of moderation have been made. This is not that unreasonable is it?

[quote]Caliban: A post that is in keeping with the user agreement regarding high quality and good manners will not be censored. If that ever happens, please start a referendum or some other measure to address the error. [/quote]
High quality and good manners are highly subjective terms. It is my opinion that the judgment of one individual is not good enough to make the distinction between worthy and unworthy posts. I am frankly a bit surprised by your dismissive comments on this very important issue. This was a suggestion, not a question of what to do if I was censored.

Forward in peace :)

#9 susmariosep

  • Guest
  • 1,137 posts
  • -1

Posted 18 July 2005 - 10:18 PM

Physicians, heal thyselves.


(Caliban's message here reproduced at the bottom.)

I would imagine that leaders here have been chosen on the basis of superior calm and rationality in the midst of perceived hostility, of course in addition to their greater learning, or at least capacity for insights into an issue.

Then likewise I would imagine that they are set up as paragons of courtesy, for how can they be judges of who is being discourteous when they themselves don't behave courteously either. Teachers are expected to be models -- unless they want to arrogate to themselves the attitude of despots who insist that their subjects obey their dictates but not follow them when they the despots themselves break their own rules.

I have occasions to exchange views with Don and Caliban and Lazarus Long. The best of these three is Lazarus Long, but even Lazarus acts despotic and unreasonable at times, the worst in terms of language and attitude is Don.

Read the messages of Don in this controversy of Chip's grievances against Prometheus and see if you can accept his language and diplomacy, I mean the lack of.

Caliban, now that I know him better, is the typical leader like leaders are generally in this forum: they are partial and partisan to each other -- like doctors who cover for each other. I don't have much dealings with him, except on one occasion when he calls me "stupid or ignorant", when if he were a pure bred gentleman he could have said instead that he found me to be simplistic and uninformed.


This is a small forum dedicated to the advocacy of pharmaceutical answers to the imperfections and the time limitation of human life, with a commercial slant certainly. Religion and philosophy are boards included here as de rigueur in any self-respecting message board, but not important to the advocacy of the founding leaders; and if you are not careful in posting messages in boards not into the advocacy of long and better biological life, DonSpanton might slap you with the stigma of doing nothing important here.


All in all, just the same, I think I have a good deal here; for on the one hand we don't have a perfect world anywhere, and on the other there is a Free Speech forum here where I usually take residence when I want to start and host a topic.


Susma

This issue comes up time and again.

Ligthowl:

Regarding your question: Read the constitution, including the specification of Navigators responsibilities, Bylaw A, and the posting uidelines.

Regarding your suggestion: Read the consatitution. Every Full Member has the right to suggest a referendum on any issue.

As you have such strong views on the matter, I have missed your suggestions on the current discussion about the draft flamewar policy in the FullMembers forum.

As a good American (I presume), this might strike you as very odd, but ImmInst mission is NOT to further Free Speech. If an unmoderated unregulated free-for-all forum is what you seek most of all, you might want to look elsewhere. We respect free speech only as a means to an end: because if we were to restrict speech we might loose some valuable insight or contribution relevant to why we are here.
In certain instances, the "speech" being made is not only not helpful however you look at it, but actually detracts from the quality of the debate or is hostile to a point where valuable contributors are chased away (or just don't bother to post anymore). 

A post that is in keeping with the user agreement regarding high quality and good manners will not be censored. If that ever happens, please start a referendum or some other measure to address the error.



#10

  • Lurker
  • 1

Posted 20 July 2005 - 05:12 AM

I agree that some moderation is necessary.


It's encouraging to see that you perceive the need for "some" moderation, Lightowl. I had formed the impression from a previous thread that you were against it (Why blondes are dumb.).

I do like the idea of getting Full Members more involved in the process.


I would hope that this would not mean that members (full or otherwise) should attempt to self-moderate which is effectively another word for no moderation. Unless some wrist slapping occurs from time to time this place may require donning fire retardant suits prior to entering which would be quite sad because most intelligent people prefer not having to interact through flames.

#11 eternaltraveler

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

Posted 20 July 2005 - 05:25 PM

The problem is not how to moderate members. The problem I believe is entailed in the subject of this thread is how to moderate moderators.


do you have any suggestions that would work other than a full member vote on the matter.

And yes it would have to be limited to full members. Basic members are certainly a valuable part of this community, but in terms of voting allowing basic membership in on it allows way too much corruption. Someone could create 50 screen names for the sole purpose of voting.

#12 jaydfox

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

Posted 20 July 2005 - 05:49 PM

First of all, the "meds" comment was mine, not Prometheus's, so please be clear not to implicitly attribute to him things said by others. If any of the other comments were not made by him, please correct yourself.

Second, I made that comment in the Free Speech Forum, where more latitude is granted to everyone, even you. Making claims such as insinuating that Prometheus made death threats against Federal judges, and using his real name as part of such insinuations, is crossing the line, even in the Free Speech Forum. As a point of order, I have been much more civil in addressing your conspiracy theories in the real forums.

#13 lightowl

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

Posted 20 July 2005 - 06:24 PM

susmariosep: All in all, just the same, I think I have a good deal here; for on the one hand we don't have a perfect world anywhere, and on the other there is a Free Speech forum here where I usually take residence when I want to start and host a topic.

I would like to think that we can at least improve on this imperfect world. I think it is now pretty obvious what my opinion of a free speech section is, but let me just state it again. The free speech section is a misguided attempt of free speech. It is in effect limiting free speech by confining it to that section. If I where to seek new ideas about nanotechnology and life-extension I would go to the nanotech section of this forum. I would not go to the free speech forum and search for nanotech related topics. This should be pretty obvious to anyone.

Chip: It would serve as an incentive not to delete or move (censor) posts if such were subject to immediate review

I suppose it would add to incentive not to censor but I think most of all it would make the moderation procedure transparent and give the members an opportunity to object in a convenient way. Members would have an effective power and not just the varying power of persuasion however effective that may be in the right hands. It would effectively equalize the memberships voices.

Chip: BTW, Lightowl, I am impressed by your effort and intelligence demonstrated here in responding to the discussion

Thank you. It is in part your relentlessness that inspired me to make my opinions known. The greatest enemy to a democracy ( which the ImmInst is ) is when the leadership can silence its critics without the voters knowing about it. In a truly open democracy it is the job of the voters to consider the validity of any critique of the leadership, and in case they find the critique convincing they have the option to change their vote. Unmonitored censorship by the leadership is an enemy of this institution as long is it wishes to be a true democracy.

Lightowl: I agree that some moderation is necessary.

prometheus: It's encouraging to see that you perceive the need for "some" moderation, Lightowl. I had formed the impression from a previous thread that you were against it (Why blondes are dumb.).

What I was actually trying to express in that other thread, and I think I did a pretty good job, was to state my opinion that it should not be required of the individual members that they censor them selves. Just as I think it should not be the job of individuals to censor the members without it being transparent to the members. But to be honest I can see why you could confuse moderation with censorship. There is a fine distinction to be made. Let me try to clarify how I understand the difference.

Moderation is in my opinion necessary to keep the forum in a useful state. By useful I mean that it should be easy to find the information of interest. The best way to do this is by organizing threads into categories. When ever a thread moves off-topic some moderation is required to make that new topic available in its designated section. This requires that the moderator evaluates what the off topic discussion is about and seek out the best place for it to be stored. It goes almost without saying that this can be an overwhelming task with new information being added on a daily basis with no way to halt that flow to catch up. This is where the catcher comes in. When ever a moderator finds information that is out of place, the easy thing is to dump it in the catcher. This effectively removes the information from the sections of interest to the readers. If members where able to see when ever such a move is done, they could help the moderators by suggesting a place for the discussion.

Another good reason to moderate is to remove discussion that has no relevance anywhere. That could be things like commercial content or conversation that have no section of interest. This is where we are getting close to the border of censorship and where a judgment has to be made. If members had the option to vote for the relevance of any content that have been removed, it would be easier to establish an interest by the members. It the members do not know what information is removed they don't know what they are missing. Additionally, if they don't have the power to decide what they want, they have no incentive to seek out that information.

The worst kind of censorship is when leadership removes information that potentially expose actions that they would not like voters to know about. This should obviously not be allowed. It limits the value of having a democracy when voters don't know the details of what they are deciding. Another kind of censorship is when information is removed because it could damage the cause of the institution. This is the toughest judgment to be made. Where is the limit between when something could damage the institution more than censorship could? That judgment have to be made on a case by case basis. The beauty of a democracy is that the moderators can ask for the opinion of many people. All those people, just like the moderator, have an opinion of where the limit is to what can be accepted. The theory is that the majority knows best, but in any case the collective limit of acceptance can be established. That is far better than any one can judge on their own.

Some may argue that putting focus on something that should be removed heightens the potential damage it could cause. This would be true if it where permanently highlighted. I would argue that, the worst the offender, the faster a conclusion of what to do can be established. If some information is obviously damaging to the institution it will be voted away, and in those cases the information could actually be deleted in stead of putting it on the site. Fortunately we have an ongoing activism going. We are not relying on the effect of a single outreach. If a temporary highlight of an issue is picked up by casual visitors, those visitors could also observe that a discussion of the issue is ongoing. That would in my opinion in itself neutralize the damage that any damaging information could cause.

#14 jaydfox

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

Posted 20 July 2005 - 06:35 PM

Chip, I still don't get the relevance of (R/T)/T. By definition, a forum that has twice as many topics must have twice as many replies per topic, or four times as many replies overall, in order to stay on par. The logic of this implies that people would spend as much time commenting on topics from over a year ago as they would on current topics. Unfortunately, I don't usually drill down to the 10th or 15th page of old topics to see if there are any discussions I'd like to rehash. In effect, there is a "window" of recently active topics that will get viewed and ultimately receive potential replies. So the (R/T)/T statistic is grossly biased against heavily trafficked forums. Why the bias?

#15

  • Lurker
  • 1

Posted 21 July 2005 - 12:11 AM

The greatest enemy to a democracy ( which the ImmInst is ) is when the leadership can silence its critics without the voters knowing about it.


The implication here is that leadership has silenced its critics without the voters knowing about it. To my knowledge, and to my astonishment this has never occured. In my case when I have used the moderation features permitted by an Advisor it has been to:
1) move a thread to a more suitable topic area,
2) lock a thread to prevent any editing from occuring
3) edit a full name to a username

In each case, the content of the thread has been preserved and continues to remain visible to all level of membership including guests. One may argue that (3) constitutes a loss of information, but this is indirect since in the posts that it was applied involved the name of an Advisor (me) whose full name and username are available in the Leadership description anyway.

In the case of (1) I moved to the Catcher what constituted an extraordinarily inflammatory post by Karomesis in the London bombngs thread where he made his feelings known that he would like to see Muslim churches burned down. I have also moved various threads of Chip's to the Catcher when it became clearly evident that his comments had transcended the boundaries of criticism and were blatantly insulting. When I locked a particular thread it was with the intention to preserve rather than suppress the data it contained. Finally, there is a particular thread that I moved out of SENS which, in a remarkable waste of intellectual energy, has resulted in many pages of complaint to be written by one individual. It is sad that the reasoning was never accepted, particularly since it was offered prior to this squandering of effort.

In a truly open democracy it is the job of the voters to consider the validity of any critique of the leadership, and in case they find the critique convincing they have the option to change their vote.


Indeed. But there must be limits. Not every decision should have to be reviewed by an oversight committee composed of every member. I do agree, however with your idea of allowing threads to become relocated from the Catcher if members agree that the material is not innapropriate.

Unmonitored censorship by the leadership is an enemy of this institution as long is it wishes to be a true democracy.


There is no censorship ( = suppression of unacceptable information) that has transpired here to my knowledge Lightowl. If you believe there is please post an example. On the contrary, this board is remarkably tolerant, so much so that it compromises its own existence by permitting the manifestation of disuptive influences that could threaten the quality of membership. However, as in Tolkien's LOTR fable, who knows when even a Gollum may have to play a role. ;)

#16 lightowl

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

Posted 21 August 2005 - 08:44 AM

Sorry for the delay in responding in this thread. I realized I may have made a mistake in posting this suggestion while a specific case of moderation was in dispute. ( Also, I have been too crazy busy to post much of anything here these couple of weeks ). I can see that the member in question has now been banned and his posts removed from this thread ( probably by the member himself ). This may prompt other contributors to this thread to edit or delete posts that are no longer relevant.

Well, where were we?... Oh yes...

Lightowl: The greatest enemy to a democracy ( which the ImmInst is ) is when the leadership can silence its critics without the voters knowing about it.

Prometheus: The implication here is that leadership has silenced its critics without the voters knowing about it.

No, I am not implying that this has happened. I am saying that we don't know if this has happened because voters have not indicated that it has. Giving them the power to decide might bring into light any such cases.

Prometheus: To my knowledge, and to my astonishment this has never occurred.

You may have gone through the hundreds of threads in the catcher and not deemed any of them a case of mistaken moderation, but this is your opinion of those moderations. I went though perhaps 10 threads and found a few I would dispute.

Prometheus: In my case when I have used the moderation features permitted by an Advisor it has been to:

Your specific actions are irrelevant to this suggestion. They should preferably be public knowledge and members should decide if what you did was wrong.

Lightowl: In a truly open democracy it is the job of the voters to consider the validity of any critique of the leadership, and in case they find the critique convincing they have the option to change their vote.

Prometheus: Indeed. But there must be limits. Not every decision should have to be reviewed by an oversight committee composed of every member. I do agree, however with your idea of allowing threads to become relocated from the Catcher if members agree that the material is not inappropriate.

I am not suggesting that *every* member is *required* to participate. Clearly that would be impractical. I agree that moderation should be possible without review and approval. This is why I propose that moderators should continue to work, and members should be made aware of those changes as they are made. The members can then choose to ignore them, or they can act and have the power to invalidate those changes.

LightOwl: Unmonitored censorship by the leadership is an enemy of this institution as long is it wishes to be a true democracy.

Prometheus: There is no censorship ( = suppression of unacceptable information) that has transpired here to my knowledge Lightowl. If you believe there is please post an example.

I thought of doing this from the beginning, but I decided against it. I think posting specific cases in this thread would remove focus from the suggestion. I can tell you honestly that there are several posts in the catcher that I think should not be there. I could list them and explain why I think they where removed by mistake, but I have little assurance of that making any difference. Leadership would have to decide if my arguments where valid, and even if they where, the feelings of leadership members would be enough to invalidate my request. I may even have feelings about a post that I cant explain in unambiguous terms, and thus would not be able to make a good argument. This makes my opinion worthless. A meaningful vote would remedy these concerns.

Prometheus: There is no censorship ( = suppression of unacceptable information) that has transpired here to my knowledge Lightowl. If you believe there is please post an example. On the contrary, this board is remarkably tolerant, so much so that it compromises its own existence by permitting the manifestation of disruptive influences that could threaten the quality of membership.

You are stating your opinion as a fact here. As an Advisor of the board you should be aware of the distinction.

Prometheus: However, as in Tolkien's LOTR fable, who knows when even a Gollum may have to play a role.

I agree. I am assuming moderators wont censor valid criticism from people who do not think aging is bad. However, what is valid criticism is in some cases hard to determine. It is hard to tell the crap from the chocolate when you cant smell it. Others opinion on consistency and color is required :)


Some of you moderators and leadership in general might feel that all this gets a bit personal. Please don't take this suggestion the wrong way. I am well aware that you are having a demanding job and that you have to make tough decisions time and time again. I am grateful, as are other members I believe, that you are willing to spend your personal time doing this for the gain of all of us. As intelligent people you are also aware that your own personal opinions can influence how you go around your business. I am suggesting that the membership help you out. This may require though, that they get some tangible powers of opinion.

EDIT: Corrected spelling.

Edited by lightowl, 21 August 2005 - 10:38 AM.


#17

  • Lurker
  • 1

Posted 21 August 2005 - 09:44 AM

There is no censorship ( = suppression of unacceptable information) that has transpired here to my knowledge Lightowl. If you believe there is please post an example. On the contrary, this board is remarkably tolerant, so much so that it compromises its own existence by permitting the manifestation of disruptive influences that could threaten the quality of membership.

You are stating your opinion as a fact here. As an Advisor of the board you should be aware of the distinction.


Uncharacteristically below the belt, Lightowl - you've set the tone. I think you know that I'm fully aware of the distinction. So how am I stating my opinion as a fact?

#18 lightowl

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

Posted 21 August 2005 - 10:29 AM

Prometheus: Uncharacteristically below the belt, Lightowl - you've set the tone. I think you know that I'm fully aware of the distinction.

Sorry Prometheus. It was not meant as an attack on you. I was just reminding you that as an advisor of the board your statements might be taken literally by some.

Prometheus: So how am I stating my opinion as a fact?


Prometheus: On the contrary, this board is remarkably tolerant,

It is your opinion that the board is remarkably tolerant. That is subject to debate. I am betting that people who have been banned are not of the same opinion.

Prometheus: so much so that it compromises its own existence

This is also your opinion, not mine. It is in my opinion very hard to make this determination, so it is not a fact that it is not compromising its own existence. :)


Please don't take this so hard. I probably make such mistakes myself often without noticing. I just think that Advisors should be particularly careful about it.

Anyway, lets let it slide or moderate it to a new subject, please. :)

#19 Lazarus Long

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

Posted 21 August 2005 - 12:29 PM

All right I think it is time for me to enter this discussion and ask Prometheus and Lightowl to back off for a breather and contemplate their more *personalized* exchange.

I make this request to both highlight and disprove Susma's very offensive and erroneous accusation toward me "personally* of being a despot. :))

Despotic
1. A ruler with absolute power.
2. A person who wields power oppressively; a tyrant.

3. A Byzantine emperor or prince.
4. An Eastern Orthodox bishop or patriarch.


I am neither Byzantine nor even a member of the Easter Orthodox Church let alone being Christian.

I certainly hold no absolute power here as I, along with the other Directors are ALL subject to peer review.

And I take strong exception to the suggestion that I wield power oppressively, or am a tyrant. Those who don't like how I wield power and are full members are going to have a chance to vote on my reelection, until then I will use the power of my office as I think best and in accord with our less than specific guidelines for conduct. Please don't confuse the exercise of power with tyranny as this belittles the meaning of what it means to be a tyrant.

This (frivolous) accusation is nothing if not ironic in that I am one of the people that has consistently supported and defended the exercise of Free Speech here at Imminist.

(Susma)
I have occasions to exchange views with Don and Caliban and Lazarus Long. The best of these three is Lazarus Long, but even Lazarus acts despotic and unreasonable at times, the worst in terms of language and attitude is Don.


First off we can see how you have a tendency to create your own problems through your own insecurities Susma by perceiving hostility or even oppression where there is none.

I am guilty of exercising power but I suggest you substantiate how it was abusive before making accusations. To have power and NOT to ever use it is irresponsible, albeit that I tend to be Jeffersonian and try to use my *power* as little as possible.

Don is a Full Member of this organization and a Navigator seeking to protect the quality and character of conduct and contribution to this forum environment. That he or others might be over zealous at times is possible but it is not his *fault* that there is also a competition at work to constantly test our limits of tolerance and this conduct is not, and will not be constructive to our cause.

I am saddened however that Chips' contributions to this thread are not still available and I had nothing to do with their removal. I think it is an example of where we are "cutting off our noses to spite our face" to use the old adage.

I don't think we simply endure sincere criticism, I think to a certain extent we benefit from and need it. The more important question is: When is such criticism constructive and when does it get abused by those seeking to sabotage our efforts by tying us up in trivial disputes?

Prometheus and Lightowl, while disagreeing on specifics with respect to Chip's conduct are more in accord with interpreting Susma's for example. They are also able to demonstrate an ability to debate forcibly without necessarily *personalizing* the debate and in this case the subject between them is the personalization of the debate. They each stand by their convictions based on substantive facts and resort to as little personal invective as possible.

Susma you have ironically precipitated a Straw Poll (with real consequences) of the Full Members to decide whether to ask you take a leave of absence. This is a separate debate on censorship as it creates a kind of Private Club atmosphere here, one that sets a precedent for segregating our community.

But we are a Private Club in a sense and the problem is that we also want to be Public. Many of the Directors and founders of this organization have been conducting this sidebar debate since before this organization existed and in a sense it reflects our personal visions and goals for how the *mission* can best be accomplished but while the result is evolving the conduct of those in charge has been to date remarkably professional and not directed generally at anyone personally, albeit with some exceptions.

Chip incurred the wrath of many here by personalizing the criticisms of the organization, not by being incorrect in all his concerns about how we function. The point is that the value of his criticisms are lost if the debate itself renders the organization dysfunctional. It was not what he said that many found unacceptable but the way he said it. This is a very serious distinction that applies across the board but we are also still very human even though we want to be *better humans* and we make mistakes of misunderstanding, so a little patience is also always called for, particularly in a purely textual exchange.

I think that we must come to a common and agreed definition of what Free Speech means to our organization and also how it might be abused. This will help us establish the guidelines for constructing standards of enforcement that the organization can then proceed to apply fairly and consistently.

I think we need a balance and have generally been able to do so but I also observe that our vulnerabilities as an organization have been exposed and while personally thankful to the gadflies that helped focus our attention on them I think we would be remiss in not addressing them.

We are in the process of reorganizing to better address these concerns and while I ask all members (basic and full) to contribute to the formative debate I also remind everyone that only Full Members will be able to vote on the matters once the proposals are put forward.

#20

  • Lurker
  • 1

Posted 21 August 2005 - 03:36 PM

I am saddened however that Chips' contributions to this thread are not still available and I had nothing to do with their removal.

Chip deleted his own posts. This was probably motivated either by vindictiveness - depriving us of his compelling prose, or cunning - to cover incriminating tracks that demonstrate his stupidity.

It is your opinion that the board is remarkably tolerant. That is subject to debate. I am betting that people who have been banned are not of the same opinion.

Both Chip and Susma admitted they had been banned from other boards. Susma is still here and Chip had to insult the organization and numerous members repeatedly before leadership was moved to suspend his membership. How much more tolerant can you get?

edit: as per LL's request

Edited by prometheus, 22 August 2005 - 02:42 AM.


#21 Lazarus Long

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

Posted 21 August 2005 - 04:19 PM

(Prometheus)
QUOTE 

I am saddened however that Chips' contributions to this thread are not still available and I had nothing to do with their removal.

(Prometheus)
Chip deleted his own posts. This was probably motivated either by vindictiveness - depriving us of his compelling prose, or cunning - to cover incriminating tracks that demonstrate his stupidity.

QUOTE 

It is your opinion that the board is remarkably tolerant. That is subject to debate. I am betting that people who have been banned are not of the same opinion.


Would you mind noting the author of the citations you use in so volatile a subject as the one we are discussing please Prometheus?

The first was mine but the second was Lightowl's and when many people read these later they might accidentally conflate one's opinion with another's.

(Prometheus)
Both Chip and Susma admitted they had been banned from other boards. Susma is still here and Chip had to insult the organization and numerous members repeatedly before leadership was moved to suspend his membership. How much more tolerant can you get?


Both these individuals in their own way have intentionally been disruptive although clearly one did so with far more rancor than the other. Being disruptive is grounds for censorship unless it can be justified by fact and a connection with gaining attention for a valid reason.

Their personal reasons for wanting attention are not an inherent justification as we are not here to pamper their psychological insecurities. Outlining flaws in our procedures, goals, methods manner of enforcement and other numerous causes to debate are reason to ask for attention but personalizing the debate is not a legitimate manner of keeping it IMHO.

#22 scottl

  • Guest
  • 2,177 posts
  • 2

Posted 22 August 2005 - 01:19 AM

It is your opinion that the board is remarkably tolerant. That is subject to debate.


Not by anyone who read "dear" Nootropi's large number of posts on heavy metal contamination.

OR who have to skip over Susma's LONG posts off topic in the middle of many threads.

Chip is another issue, and I missed most of what went on. I do wish he would calm down and perhaps be allowed back.

#23 Lazarus Long

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

Posted 22 August 2005 - 01:27 AM

OR who have to skip over Susma's LONG posts...


I resemble that remark [ang] :))

Obviously I will never find this a grounds for automatic censure.

however I sympathize on this part:

off topic in the middle of many threads.


If verbosity is a crime I am guilty as charged. The trick is trying to make even a message intended to offend sugar coated. I however do not expect mercy but I do try and make my long posts readable and on target to the topic.

#24 scottl

  • Guest
  • 2,177 posts
  • 2

Posted 22 August 2005 - 01:41 AM

Lazarus,

Truly none of that was directed at you.

#25 Lazarus Long

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

Posted 22 August 2005 - 01:58 AM

I know scottl I was teasing but also trying to imply that the punishment should better fit the crime than our somewhat limited and hence heavy handed response currently allows for IMHO.

#26 scottl

  • Guest
  • 2,177 posts
  • 2

Posted 22 August 2005 - 02:02 AM

OK then

Let's apply who'sever suggestion--Susma can't reply to any threads (well except free speech) he can only start his own.

The problem is that by beeing too sensitive to Susma's rights you are allowing the trampling of the rights of many others (OK a bit dramatic but basically true).

#27 scottl

  • Guest
  • 2,177 posts
  • 2

Posted 22 August 2005 - 02:03 AM

And as was the case with Nootropi, not doing the cause of the institute any favors--Don's point is well taken.

#28 Lazarus Long

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

Posted 22 August 2005 - 02:17 AM

I was finally forced to act in Nootropi's case but he was a full member and in many respects had many more rights than Susma in this matter.

His behavior was also much more hostile and destructive and he went over the edge farther and faster.

I was almost censured among leadership for acting as precipitously as I did in suspending his account. Especially as we had no policy in place at the time for doing so to full members.

The issues of conflicting and competing rights is a valid one but it also deserves a more nuanced response, and certainly one that better fits the offense IMHO.

I do not think banning him is the same as asking him to take a leave of absence and post with more discretion.

Especially as the response is the result of open discussion among a larger body than leadership alone.

I am also unsure that we have the complexity of software to limit his posting without someone acting as his personal moderator.

An interesting option in itself but a self inflicted injury to the appointed moderator because they will be responsible for reading all of Susma's posts. [lol]

Before (and even if) they clear them from the cue. :))

#29 scottl

  • Guest
  • 2,177 posts
  • 2

Posted 22 August 2005 - 02:26 AM

Lazarus,

You make all good reasonable points, and I really can't disagree.

I was almost censured among leadership for acting as precipitously as I did in suspending his account


Precipitously? That is beyond belief. Not from our end.

I am also unsure that we have the complexity of software to limit his posting without someone acting as his personal moderator.

An interesting option in itself but a self inflicted injury to the appointed moderator because they will be responsible for reading all of Susma's posts. biggrin.gif


We can all chip in for lots of alcohol for the mod [lol]

#30

  • Lurker
  • 1

Posted 22 August 2005 - 03:09 AM

Both Chip and Susma admitted they had been banned from other boards. Susma is still here and Chip had to insult the organization and numerous members repeatedly before leadership was moved to suspend his membership. How much more tolerant can you get?

Both these individuals in their own way have intentionally been disruptive although clearly one did so with far more rancor than the other. Being disruptive is grounds for censorship unless it can be justified by fact and a connection with gaining attention for a valid reason.

Their personal reasons for wanting attention are not an inherent justification as we are not here to pamper their psychological insecurities.

A comparison of Chip's (or what is left of them after his mass deletions) and Susma's posts makes it rather obvious that one is being deliberately offensive whilst the other offends some sensibilities by the unusual way he composes his communications. It may be that English is not Susma's primary language and it is apparent that the combination of his cultural and ideological background as well as the one dimensional format of communication by text predisposes his messages to misinterpretation.

I recall a member here that communicated by some numerical symbolism that was meant to prove his theorems. I perceived it as nonsensical crap - but perhaps I was wrong. On the other side of what appeared to me as cryptic pseudo-equations could have been a very intelligent person with great difficulty articulating novel thoughts.

At the end of the day, unless there is a moderation policy in place that directs the flow of content then the yardstick must be malicious intent. In Chip's case he was being malicious intentionally - this was very clear. In Susma's posts I see no malice, but stupidity.

I have only had one off-topic post in the Biosciences fora which following my warning Susma immediately desisted. So in a recapitulation of what was advised to me in relation to Chip, perhaps another Leader should be tasked with moderating Susma.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users