55 replies to this topic

[simple]

What is actually required for moderatorship position ?

[DJS]

I'm not sure if I'm repeating myself here, but I just want to make clear that, regardless of whether the nootropics community stays on site or not, individuals are going to be needed as moderators who have an interest in nootropics. So that's the requirement -- having an interest in nootropics (and not being a serial killer).

[Live Forever]

(and not being a serial killer).

That's kind of strict don't you think?

[kevink]

I believe the best thing for ImmInst as a business entity is to keep the Health forums, including nootropics.

Scratch that - I should say that the benefits should be kept if possible. If ImmInst could keep the benefits and not have the associated headaches or increased workload, I'm sure most leadership would jump at the chance.

Keeping the "Health" forums on ImmInst is fine, but people shouldn't kid themselves - it would require a SERIOUS time and materials effort from ImmInst to keep it under control. An expenditure that may not be the most prudent course of action given its limited resources at this time.

And let's not forget, it's a growing organization. Whatever "big problems" have been experienced so far, will greatly multiply in number and severity as they grow 2x and 10x their current size and status.

If ImmInst had a significant financial war chest right now, I'm sure there would already be a lawsuit presented.

Even in it's current state, if ImmInst simply caught the wrath of an emotionally unstable person, they would have to spend the legal fees just to have the case go its course.

Suppose someone's underage son or daughter bought a substance based on instructions presented here and shortly thereafter committed suicide? They would be out for blood and it would be up to ImmInst to prove they were not criminally negligent or financially liable. God forbid the parents are lawyers. Maybe the little text disclaimer will hold up, but after seeing the "prom video" and the kid's bright smile...maybe the lawsuit won't go away so fast?

The list of possible "complications" is quite long.

I'm not sure some of the people posting realize the TIME and mental drain a pending lawsuit places on management. It could literally kill any momentum and stop an organization in its tracks. At a minimum it sucks all the joy out of your "creation". Is your business shut down pending an "investigation'? For how long? What's the damage to your brand and credibility in the meantime?

Perhaps ImmInst can have its cake and eat it too?

Instead of trying to be the "Walmart of Life", perhaps a "loose relationship" of separate sites could be put in place. I'm not sure what benefits ImmInst receives by hosting a "Health" forum, so I'll take one imagined result such as increased traffic.

In exchange for the historical "Health" related posts on ImmInst, the new "Health" only website would have a non-compete agreement AND a 10 year advertising deal with Imminst. ImmInst would be a completely separate entity that had banner ads on the "Health" site and perhaps a 'product placement" type approach with things like feature article(s) on the topic of Life Extension with quotes from ImmInst leadership. Etc, etc. Just use your imagination.

Anyway - I voted for moving the "Health" forums. I don't feel ImmInst can extract 100% return on the "Health" forum without sacrificing resources needed to focus on projects deemed "top priority". And I don't feel "Health" consumers will get the best product to serve their needs. I think there's a big risk of "lose/lose" with the "keep it in-house" approach. If, at a later date, it becomes viable to bring the "Health" closer to home, the relationship can be made tighter and perhaps "two way" or a merger can take place.

Anyway - that's off the top of my head…correct me if I missed something.

[Live Forever]

nice post, kevin. Some good ideas!

[Lazarus Long]

I want to thank everyone that has contributed here to this discussion.

The issue of instituting more regulation and restriction is not going to work if the job of moderating that are is not essentially done by those that maintain the interest. To date the record of such self enforcement hasn't been bad it has been terrible. Not because eventually the deceptions and problems get exposed but because it is a constant test of the Institutes resources and a never ending struggle to keep up. Calling for enforcement is great except that who is going to do it?

The other problem is that just putting more rules in place won't really protect the institute from the extended liability as some have already pointed out. It might limit exposure in some specific cases for example but open us up to an entire new category of claims in another; enforcement of access to minors for example.

The idea of providing an area for self help users of a variety of substances is one that in principle I would support so long as it was kept impersonal and not used as an advice forum where people get to practice medicine with OR without a license and FOR profit through the promotion of the products they sell. We are simply not the proper venue for such activity.

There is a significant difference between saying that: "I use substance *X* and I am a male age *Y*, with no significant health problems (or with this list) in addition to this other list of substances and these are the benefits and conraindications I have observed" versus suggesting that another person use anything to address the problems they experience or seek specific results. In other words trading notes not practicing medicine.

Many from the group that have come here for that more benign purpose have contributed to the overall growth and strength of the Institute and in that respect the relationship of the members interested in nootropes and supplements to the larger goals of this organization are not inconsistent nor usually bad. However when things have gone bad they have often deteriorated to the worst case scenario long before solutions become evident or satisfactory and frankly no other forum topic has ever brought the headaches that this topic has in the entire history of our organization.

I think there are many good reasons to establish a separate organization run by those that maintain this interest and they can be responsible for the self policing of the subject as well as their members and other aspects associated with the topic. They would not lose their rights to be members here and they could link subjects back and forth as they were appropriate to the topic. This is certainly done now for most discussions that refer to aspects of other sites.

There are many programs and goals this Institutes maintains and it seems selfish and unfair to put them all at risk for one select group whose interests are far more narrowly focused and whose behavior has routinely been the greatest source of concern. I would not like to see us lose any of the database that currently exists here and other than copying it whole to the new forum I would like to see ALL the topics closed here to prevent continued discussion and editing but the topics would remain available for viewing and archival purposes.

It is good to read some of hte ideas and suggestions presented here and I want to thank everyone again that is contributing them.

[Live Forever]

Lazarus, that was a great post! While I do not totally agree with each and every point you make, overall you make a very good case. A few rebuttals to what you offered, however:

Calling for enforcement is great except that who is going to do it?

You could post a topic in the nootropics forum asking for volunteers to moderate (I see posts saying they want people to step up, but I do not think it has been asked directly over in the forum that they frequent most "Who wants to be a moderator?"). Then, check credentials or have some way of verifying people and give them a "trial period" in which they have an opportunity not to screw up.

The other problem is that just putting more rules in place won't really protect the institute from the extended liability as some have already pointed out.  It might limit exposure in some specific cases for example but open us up to an entire new category of claims in another; enforcement of access to minors for example.

The way that a lot of websites deal with this is having a "click through" in which you have to agree to a certain amount of stuff, check the box saying you are legally of age, won't do anything against policy, etc. etc. I have not heard of any cases being brought against websites that do this, it is the same as signing a legally binding contract.

The idea of providing an area for self help users of a variety of substances is one that in principle I would support so long as it was kept impersonal and not used as an advice forum where people get to practice medicine with OR without a license and FOR profit through the promotion of the products they sell.  We are simply not the proper venue for such activity.

There is a significant difference between saying that: "I use substance *X* and I am a male age *Y*, with no significant health problems (or with this list) in addition to this other list of substances and these are the benefits and conraindications I have observed" versus suggesting that another person use anything to address the problems they experience or seek specific results.  In other words trading notes not practicing medicine.

Totally agree, and I think the above suggestions would take care of this.

Many from the group that have come here for that more benign purpose have contributed to the overall growth and strength of the Institute and in that respect the relationship of the members interested in nootropes and supplements to the larger goals of this organization are not inconsistent nor usually bad.  However when things have gone bad they have often deteriorated to the worst case scenario long before solutions become evident or satisfactory and frankly no other forum topic has ever brought the headaches that this topic has in the entire history of our organization.

I think there are many good reasons to establish a separate organization run by those that maintain this interest and they can be responsible for the self policing of the subject as well as their members and other aspects associated with the topic.  They would not lose their rights to be members here and they could link subjects back and forth as they were appropriate to the topic.  This is certainly done now for most discussions that refer to aspects of other sites.

There are many programs and goals this Institutes maintains and it seems selfish and unfair to put them all at risk for one select group whose interests are far more narrowly focused and whose behavior has routinely been the greatest source of concern.  I would not like to see us lose any of the database that currently exists here and other than copying it whole to the new forum I would like to see ALL the topics closed here to prevent continued discussion and editing but the topics would remain available for viewing and archival purposes.

I do not specifically have a problem with any of this, but it just seems as if getting rid of an area that causes problems instead of trying to fix the problems and make both sides stronger as a result is the easy way out. I know that this is being overly dramatic, but in the future are we just going to "lop off" any section that poses trouble instead of trying to fix it?

We spend so much time trying to "spread the word" (see Action & Outreach section), just to get rid of an entire group seems somewhat harsh (to me anyway). I am totally not arguing for the Nootropics section in and of itself, I really have no interest in nootropics, but the concept of getting rid of people just doesn't sit well with me.



All that being said, if this really will make the Institute stronger, more focused, etc. etc. then whatever they choose to do is fine.

[Lazarus Long]

QUOTE (Lazarus Long)

Calling for enforcement is great except that who is going to do it?

***

You could post a topic in the nootropics forum asking for volunteers to moderate (I see posts saying they want people to step up, but I do not think it has been asked directly over in the forum that they frequent most "Who wants to be a moderator?"). Then, check credentials or have some way of verifying people and give them a "trial period" in which they have an opportunity not to screw up.

We have at times asked for volunteers. That is a separate but obviously related issue at the moment elsewhere. Verification in the global virtual community is not impossible but neither is it one of solid certainty. We are a community founded on trust and that trust can be abused, it can also be lost.

Today I went to a marina bar where everyone drank and ate what they desired and then paid into the cash register under an honor system. It seems to be working, it is public and frequented by honest, mature and responsible patrons. There is no *enforcement*, there was not even a cashier. To be precise it was a self-service cash register. However I suspect that if the regulars began to notice someone in particular abusing their privilege they would address the matter and ban their access to this resource.

By the way, Elrond, was the moderator for supplements and nootropes until he was recently elected a Director. At the moment he had been trying to do both until we had the chance to follow up with exactly the process you suggest. Too bad that circumstances didn't grant us even that normal amount of time.

QUOTE (Lazarus Long)

The other problem is that just putting more rules in place won't really protect the institute from the extended liability as some have already pointed out. It might limit exposure in some specific cases for example but open us up to an entire new category of claims in another; enforcement of access to minors for example.

****

The way that a lot of websites deal with this is having a "click through" in which you have to agree to a certain amount of stuff, check the box saying you are legally of age, won't do anything against policy, etc. etc. I have not heard of any cases being brought against websites that do this, it is the same as signing a legally binding contract.

I suspect this is not as simple and reliable a solution as you suspect. That protection involving minors is being amended to allow a significant amount of liability AND record keeping and while the Federal law involved targets internet porn as *motive* its *justification* is child protection under federal law.

It certainly would be an open issue after the fact should the implication that any minor was harmed following advice from our fora. A self help conference implies a certain level of knowledge and maturity that we are simply not well equipped to apply. Those disclaimers do not always apply if the child is found to not understand them. Protecting children from themselves is being made the responsibility of more than just their parents.

it just seems as if getting rid of an area that causes problems instead of trying to fix the problems and make both sides stronger as a result is the easy way out.

If that were true we would not be having this dialog.

I know that this is being overly dramatic, but in the future are we just going to "lop off" any section that poses trouble instead of trying to fix it?

Recently someone very dear to me had a lumpectomy; sometimes lopping something off is a way "to fix it."

I am open to more suggestions but I caution that this is not the first time I have had to have this kind of discussion involving this particular forum area and I do not think it is a coincidence.

We spend so much time trying to "spread the word" (see Action & Outreach section), just to get rid of an entire group seems somewhat harsh (to me anyway). I am totally not arguing for the Nootropics section in and of itself, I really have no interest in nootropics, but the concept of getting rid of people just doesn't sit well with me.

While I commend your spirit and intent I just want to ask; Who is "we"?

To ask the age old question: "Do you have a worm in your pocket?"

This is the real crux of the matter. Who?

Who cares enough about this matter to make it their responsibility to maintain order and conduct an unbiased dialog among the apparently hostile protagonists with somehow clear and enforceable restrictions on conduct and claims. Restrictions themselves that must first become drafted, ratified chartered AND then enforced.

[Live Forever]

Laz,

Thank you for addressing all of the points I brought up. All of the answers you gave satisfy me completely, mainly because I have no real intrest in nootropics (I suspect if I used that particular forum more I might feel differently). In any event, thank you for taking the time to address everything.

(oh, and the "we" I was referring to was anyone trying spread information on life extension, and more specifically Imminst)

[simple]

I am still asking, what is actually required for the position, I am interested.

[REGIMEN]

Lazsh, I already said all that shtuff... go back to shleep.
Jeeps, yurr talky!

[Lazarus Long]

Lazsh, I already said all that shtuff... go back to shleep.
Jeeps, yurr talky!

And you're slurring liplex. [tung]

simple you have taken the first step by becoming a full member because to be eligible for the job you must be a full member but another would be to assess who you are through your contributions, interactions and interviews with all concerned current leadership. You are a very recent member so leadership would have to learn more about you to consider you for a navigator.

A navigator is more about addressing the conduct of contributions than the content.

First off it appears to me that the topic requires a referee. Disputes in this subject seem to relatively routinely lead to the worst conflicts we experience. It is also a subject that is corrupted by over competitive marketers at times.

Another part of being a navigator demands being unaffiliated in any manner with the industry so that decisions are not subject to a conflict of interest.

In fact we are still in discussion over many aspects defining the role I describe but included in the penumbra of responsibility would be ID checking to deter underage participation requiring their subsequent bouncing. And also the person must refrain from giving advice. Not only should the person never represent the Institute as promoting any regimen, stack, or whatever you care to call it but they should be guarding against others practicing medicne here with or without license. We are very simply just not the correct venue for such conduct.

No member of leadership should ever be considered as practicing medicine through the fora. It is the wrong venue. This institute is to teach about subjects including medicine but it is not a DIY care clinic nor is it set up to be.

Talk about what you do and experience but please refrain from trying to diagnose and prescribe for others. In fact I personally think that we should intercede to deter all such conduct. These are only some examples of the options currently under discussion for establishing rules to more precisely answer your question simple but I hope that answers your question for a start.

Edited by Lazarus Long, 06 March 2006 - 03:14 PM.

[DJS]

uh, yeah. I guess there were some requirements that I hadn't thought about.

Being a full member, not giving medical advice (I thought that was understood), being unaffiliated with any nootropics/supplements business...and just generally being ethical in regards to the application of one's moderation powers.

An ID check might also be a good idea, though if we go down this path then all of leadership should be made to comply (a good thing IMO, as we need to start having better security controls for our organization).

[DJS]

Nope, there aren't even any plans for this to be done amongst leadership. There is currently no reason to ask such a thing of the general membership, but if ImmInst got large enough, I could invision identification becoming necessary to legitimate elections (ie, to prevent against voter fraud) Certainly in advisorship positions, where expertise is being claimed, credential must be provided and verified. We learned a hard but valuable lesson with Life Mirage.

[rillastate]

I vote seperate entity.

I may be way off base here considering I am basing my vote on the names of the categories in the "health" forum and not on the content within because I've never actually visited the "nootropics/brain" or the "supplements" section; I may have only skimmed one or two topics in the food, nutrition, exercies forum and made one post in it. Therefore I haven't a clue about the current controversy you're speaking of, but i'll leave my reason for voting the way I did based on first impressions of the titles of that forum section.



Firstly, Health and technological immortality are two entirely different entities in themselves. Further, food, nutrition, and exercise are also 3 entirely different subjects of there own. And each is complex and deserves subcategories of their own. Calorie Restriction may be the diet of choice for those here who are experimenting on their bodies with a desire to prolong their life, but "health" is relative and Calorie Restriction is not the only concept of "healthy" eating; and it doesn't take into account individual lifestyles and people's idea of what "healthy" is.

Nootropics and brain enhancing drugs are not vital to ones health, in my opinion of course. Those who dabble with these drugs aren't necessarily improving there health in any tangable aspect, again my opinion.

Supplements section, is also, in my opinion, debatable and controversial.


I think the title "health" forum, wherever it ends up, should be changed to "EXPERIMENTAL health" forum as I do not personally see how beneficial that area of imminst has been.

I feel that integrating with an already established and CREDABLE Health/Nutrition website/forum/community would be the best move for imminst if they want to continue or begin targeting a real/serious "health" audience. Generating interest, credibility, traffic, loyalty yada yada yada takes SO MUCH time, effort, and funds that it's an entire project on it's own. But, if it's your desire to create a forum on your own for "health," I would humbly suggest trying to organize it as efficiently as possible so people can quickly and easily find what it is they are looking for.

Good luck guys...

[REGIMEN]

Just so you know... the "diagnosing" that Imminst leadership seems to be so wary of taking place in the Nootropics forum is also happening right now (and of course always *has* been) in the other Health fora. I pointed out some contentions concerning liability in a recently active thread started by someone who's "friends is dying of cancer"(I don't doubt it) to which a number of Imminst regulars graciously and quickly responded with advice with such qualifiers as "chemo didn't work for so-&-so" and other flimsy and dangerous ideas upon which could arise false-hopes that could be a bit more trouble for Imminst if this "cancer-stricken friend" were to ever, and quite possibly, not survive their condition despite the self-treatment techniques seeded by casual forum advisory. You see...cancer isn't anything to F-around with and as all the latest talk about the vaporously materializing chains of liability has increased my awareness I thought it best to call attention to such irresponsible activity(I was shortly reprimanded by two members who felt it best to be sensitive to the advice-seeker and their friend's dire health; am I really wrong here? [Not asking about tactless]). So...
Please make notifications outlining the extent of admissions to bolt shut the door through which the Threat Of Litigation has had a jolly time lingering about now for so long yet so *fortunately* at a distance... until now... that filthy, opportunistic, "victimized" Commie bastard that 'e is...we've got you clamped in a vice, and you're not getting in...cuz we've got an...eye...on...you!

Shlurrin', m'Lazzy? Shlurrin'it is, then. (I have a very intimate relationship with your lithe, solid, and super-legitimate writing style. It gets me frontal lobes all in a tizzy as I'm sure it does most everyone lucky enough to be graced by your coursing, virile diction. [huh] )

[REGIMEN]

Props are given where props
are due.

[Brainbox]

I did send a PM to some members of leadership regarding this about a week ago.

It's a not very worked out proposal for tighter moderation and structure of the entire supplements forum. I would like to discuss this with a few interested people. But probably the best thing to do is to wait awhile with it.

Edit: Btw. the insight in the last developments causes me to think that shutdown of the nootropics forum in it's current standalone form is a good way of action.

Edited by brainbox, 11 March 2006 - 01:13 PM.

[Live Forever]

I am leaning more towards the seperation with the noo area now as well. It seems to just keep getting to be more and more of a headache.

[Brainbox]

Maybe a more functional appraoch could be used. Like health / illness, physical performance, mental performance, etc oriented effects of supplements in general.
Stricktly ruling out illegal substances thereby preventing "black-market" issues from burping.

[drmz]

I voted for making the nootropics forum a separate entity.

I am really quite fed up with this situation. It is obvious to me that most of ImmInst's nootropics enthusiasts either *don't get* or *don't care about* liability issues.

If ImmInst were to get shut down I suppose they would shrug their shoulders before heading off to a different site.  As I have made clear in the past, my position is that the nootropics community needs to move on and start its own *separate and distinct* web presence.  Now, certainly I am not advocating jetisoning it haphazardly - I am sure ImmInst will be generous in its assistance during the transition -- but the separation must take place.

I fully agree with this.

I voted seperate entity.

[syr_]

I voted "Make the entire Health forum a seperate entity" because:

1) Is the only section of this forum that I use, most of the remaining fora are just theory, fascinating, but theroretical.

2) I think that the nootropics subforum is part of the health forum as are food/diet and supplementation

I would not disagree if the structure would remain the same, but I'm against ANY type of censorship.

[rjws]

I assume the Web provider gives you more than one SQL database. My site has two that come with my package one this size should have unlimited. Why not seperate it, but host it on the same webpackage so it doesn't inncur any extra cost and the members who only come here for this info would still have it. Let it have a new name usually about 10 bucks to register. crosslink from each other. anyway just my hurriedly typed 2 cents.

[Live Forever]

Have there been any final decisions made on this topic?