In this case, I think its now a non-issue.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1835965&postcount=2
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1835965&postcount=2
why can moderators say what they like, but everyone else can't?
- Thread starter lucifers angel
- Start date
- Status
Gedanken was tested in the crucible of Godhood
and found wanting.
She must now return to the world of men,
from whence she came,
ever cursing her foolish mortality
always remembering the cold pure air of Olympus.
and found wanting.
She must now return to the world of men,
from whence she came,
ever cursing her foolish mortality
always remembering the cold pure air of Olympus.
Last edited:
Proving only the foolishness of the so-called "Gods".
It's as though the Norse bunch had put Loki in charge, and then had a grand snit when they found everything had been turned topsy-turvy.
As "gimmicky" a move as the "Shamnesty" for the banned.
A sort of last gasp by a collective so wanting themselves that they cannot even find it within themselves to carry out the mandate they still hold on high as the remedy for their inherited creation's ills - instead diddling and dawdling and dancing about patting one another's pointed pates, leveling their shaky fingers of Damnation here and there willy-nilly as though the grey gloom resulting from their haphazard and ham-handed husbandry is akin to the Glory of Old they whisper about with such seeming reverence, all the while declaring that all is well and good and fine under the pale light of the New Sun...
hee.
Musta made that mornin' coffee damn good and strong, to-day.
I'm all "twitchy and babbly" already...
*ouch*
Without a connection to high places I'm hanging on a ledge.
How long before the 'complicated positions' decide to cast me back into the void?
'Complex position of moderator'?
What's so complex about censoring a forum into mediocrity?
Let's talk about shorty_37 again. Now that requires some complex mediating.
The philosophical side-issues abound.
Challenger78
Valued Senior Member
huh. figures. Good decision there. Although I wonder if gendaken would have been removed if this hadn't cropped up.
I don't understand - why are you linking to this thread?
You only found ONE thread to link to?
On mediocrity
The irony of that, under the circumstances, is wonderful. Thank you for that.
In the meantime, I will only remind that this forum is what its members make it. We don't have to "censor" the forum "into" mediocrity.
Seriously, if you want to see us engage in proper censorship, I'll try to make the case to my fellows. I'm of the opinion that the vapid ought to be nearly outlawed, but that's a fairly huge task, especially given the diversity of people's measures of propriety, which range from stick-in-the-mud to mildly dysfunctional to outright shameless.
If we're censoring this board into mediocrity, are you prepared to face the possibility that it's a step up?
Malakas said:
The irony of that, under the circumstances, is wonderful. Thank you for that.
In the meantime, I will only remind that this forum is what its members make it. We don't have to "censor" the forum "into" mediocrity.
Seriously, if you want to see us engage in proper censorship, I'll try to make the case to my fellows. I'm of the opinion that the vapid ought to be nearly outlawed, but that's a fairly huge task, especially given the diversity of people's measures of propriety, which range from stick-in-the-mud to mildly dysfunctional to outright shameless.
If we're censoring this board into mediocrity, are you prepared to face the possibility that it's a step up?
please
Complications
The only problem, Kenworth, is that it would be the moderators' assessment of vapidity.
I'll use the occasion to quote Bill Murray by way of explanation: "There's always room for Jell-o."
In truth, we appreciate a certain diversity about the expression here. And there is always room for the wise crack, the aside, a certain amount of sarcasm or histrionics. In other words, there's always room to stray from a topic. But there are, of course, limits to how far and how often. Perhaps you and I might agree that a certain set of comments are off-topic in any one debate, but the poster might feel poorly treated as such, and there will always be a chorus of willing fools to jump on anything that remotely resembles a bandwagon. Why this, they might ask, and not that? Well, there are a lot of reasons, and for some, even the notion of a serial offender is an unfair consideration.
We like smart people. We like smart people with decent communication skills. We appreciate timing and rhythm. Ice-breakers, deal-breakers, and even the occasional spirit-breaker. And there is a difference between a riposte or rejoinder and a blunt-force retort. And experience suggests that there is, in our midst, a large population that does not understand this difference. More often than not, if the moderators seem overzealous in their efforts, they are trying to accommodate this portion.
These are the ones who feel insulted because someone uses facts and logic to burn them, so they shoot back with blunt insults. And when they are moderated, even outright censored, they complain: Why mine, and not his?
We cannot help it if many of these disputes occur along familiar fault lines. Certain philosophical sectors feel alienated here at Sciforums, and part of the reason this board is such a mess is that we've bent over backwards to accommodate them. Hell, we could suck them off and they'd still complain. And there is always a chorus of willing fools to jump onto anything remotely resembling a bandwagon.
If you've followed me this far, I propose a change of valence. Let's orbit higher, increase our circumference, change the scope of our examination.
You can follow, then, the notion of vapidity within a topic; a specific thread can only be taken so far off topic before it falters. Moderators respond, trying to steer or force the discussion back toward its original theme. (And, of course, controversy often follows.)
But what about looking at the board as a whole? What are the general themes of Sciforums? In theory, they're supposed to be about rational discussion of issues and opinions, the bases thereof, and how such ideas affect us. In practice, Sciforums has become a fairly juvenile exercise in rhetoric. Hell, we're happy if native English speakers can write a proper sentence.
Addressing the chronic vapidity at Sciforums is a massive task. One of the reasons we haven't set about that task is that we're not ready to. In part, this is because of the increased labor. But this isn't the major concern. In fact, tyranny is, to a certain degree, easier than the alternative. Much of our time spent moderating this site is invested in deciding whether to do anything and what that something should be. Do I bury these posts or split them out? Save the topic or lock it down? Ban a member, send a private message as a warning, or put on my mod hat and crack wise?
Tyranny? Hell. Cesspool. Lock. Lock. Delete. Lock. Cesspool. Ban. There might be more work, but that work will be easier to do.
In fact, what actually makes us hesitant is that words like "culling" and "bloodletting" are known to enter the discussion. It's not that any of us look forward to a culling. Far from it. Rather, there is always a debate taking place about the flashpoint. At what point will the membership rebel against such a massive crackdown on the vapid and vacuous and otherwise ridiculous? At what point will the members look at our move against the spurious, scurrilous, libelous, and outright bullshit, and say, "No! We reserve the right to waste the board like this!"
And then, at that point, what do we do?
The final tally could be shocking. The cycle of activist re-registration unpredictable.
So we don't go there. We argue, hem and haw, and bitch about how sick of this or that we're getting, but we never undertake the process because if there is one thing we can have faith in around here, it's that some people just won't understand.
There are plenty of prominent members who would disappear more or less overnight. I'm not sure we're ready, as a community, for that kind of crackdown. And I know the staff here at Sciforums is not in agreement about necessity, scope and scale, and any number of definitions yet to be established (or even proposed) about such a change of policy and enforcement.
In the end, outlawing the vapid could end up killing this board. Sciforums is, after all, what its members make it.
The only problem, Kenworth, is that it would be the moderators' assessment of vapidity.
I'll use the occasion to quote Bill Murray by way of explanation: "There's always room for Jell-o."
In truth, we appreciate a certain diversity about the expression here. And there is always room for the wise crack, the aside, a certain amount of sarcasm or histrionics. In other words, there's always room to stray from a topic. But there are, of course, limits to how far and how often. Perhaps you and I might agree that a certain set of comments are off-topic in any one debate, but the poster might feel poorly treated as such, and there will always be a chorus of willing fools to jump on anything that remotely resembles a bandwagon. Why this, they might ask, and not that? Well, there are a lot of reasons, and for some, even the notion of a serial offender is an unfair consideration.
We like smart people. We like smart people with decent communication skills. We appreciate timing and rhythm. Ice-breakers, deal-breakers, and even the occasional spirit-breaker. And there is a difference between a riposte or rejoinder and a blunt-force retort. And experience suggests that there is, in our midst, a large population that does not understand this difference. More often than not, if the moderators seem overzealous in their efforts, they are trying to accommodate this portion.
These are the ones who feel insulted because someone uses facts and logic to burn them, so they shoot back with blunt insults. And when they are moderated, even outright censored, they complain: Why mine, and not his?
We cannot help it if many of these disputes occur along familiar fault lines. Certain philosophical sectors feel alienated here at Sciforums, and part of the reason this board is such a mess is that we've bent over backwards to accommodate them. Hell, we could suck them off and they'd still complain. And there is always a chorus of willing fools to jump onto anything remotely resembling a bandwagon.
If you've followed me this far, I propose a change of valence. Let's orbit higher, increase our circumference, change the scope of our examination.
You can follow, then, the notion of vapidity within a topic; a specific thread can only be taken so far off topic before it falters. Moderators respond, trying to steer or force the discussion back toward its original theme. (And, of course, controversy often follows.)
But what about looking at the board as a whole? What are the general themes of Sciforums? In theory, they're supposed to be about rational discussion of issues and opinions, the bases thereof, and how such ideas affect us. In practice, Sciforums has become a fairly juvenile exercise in rhetoric. Hell, we're happy if native English speakers can write a proper sentence.
Addressing the chronic vapidity at Sciforums is a massive task. One of the reasons we haven't set about that task is that we're not ready to. In part, this is because of the increased labor. But this isn't the major concern. In fact, tyranny is, to a certain degree, easier than the alternative. Much of our time spent moderating this site is invested in deciding whether to do anything and what that something should be. Do I bury these posts or split them out? Save the topic or lock it down? Ban a member, send a private message as a warning, or put on my mod hat and crack wise?
Tyranny? Hell. Cesspool. Lock. Lock. Delete. Lock. Cesspool. Ban. There might be more work, but that work will be easier to do.
In fact, what actually makes us hesitant is that words like "culling" and "bloodletting" are known to enter the discussion. It's not that any of us look forward to a culling. Far from it. Rather, there is always a debate taking place about the flashpoint. At what point will the membership rebel against such a massive crackdown on the vapid and vacuous and otherwise ridiculous? At what point will the members look at our move against the spurious, scurrilous, libelous, and outright bullshit, and say, "No! We reserve the right to waste the board like this!"
And then, at that point, what do we do?
The final tally could be shocking. The cycle of activist re-registration unpredictable.
So we don't go there. We argue, hem and haw, and bitch about how sick of this or that we're getting, but we never undertake the process because if there is one thing we can have faith in around here, it's that some people just won't understand.
There are plenty of prominent members who would disappear more or less overnight. I'm not sure we're ready, as a community, for that kind of crackdown. And I know the staff here at Sciforums is not in agreement about necessity, scope and scale, and any number of definitions yet to be established (or even proposed) about such a change of policy and enforcement.
In the end, outlawing the vapid could end up killing this board. Sciforums is, after all, what its members make it.
Trying to escape responsibility only makes you more guilty.
The auhtorities create the ambience wherein the members function.
Censoring only results in attracting the mediocre, who now feel free to say whatever stupidity they want and know they will be respected and it drives away those that may have controversial views but these views are thought out and argued using reason.
It attracts those who all they have to say is what is accepted socially.
Why have you convinced yourself that this is a serious threat?
Have you really taken quantity for quality and you now function under the delusion that this forum's popularity makes it the 'best' forum on-line?
It is the vapid you attract. Reciting popular sentiments, remaining comfortably in the middle and engaging in adolescent enchanges, is what this forum is all about.
I've adapted pretty well, haven't I?
God forbid anyone is hurt by someone's posting or an opinion that goes against the current zeitgeist finds its way on this board.
You don't understand that it is with your mederating activities that you've created this childishness. Then you desperately try to self-correct but fail repeatedly.
Under your modern sensibilities you label opinions as dysfunctional or ill and call them racist, sexist or whatever.
Define these terms.
Is any opinion that mentiones anything negative about another automatically in error?
The idea that anything that says anything negative about a particular subject matter is rooted in hate or is preaching violence or the mistreatment of others is based on your modern mind that has been taught that certain opinions are evil, even if they might make sense and have supporting arguments.
Socrates was put to death for corrupting the youths of Athens. Let us do the same here.
The vulgarity of claiming that you are aware about another's motives hides the fact that you are merely looking for an excuse to exclude certain opinions for the sake of forum harmony (popularity) and this idealized version of how you want this forum and the world at large to be.
No Greek agora here, with passionate exchanges; just the laughter of children playing and agreeing to disagree and flirting or posting declarations of faith with no accompanying evidence or rational arguments.
If you, or your cohorts, wish to create an environment where you or your 'established truths' are never challenged and you pretend you are thinking while exchanging source material and cutting and pasting then at least have the balls to admit it.
There are no self-evident perspectives, except in the minds of the weak. Perspectives must be challenged, continuously.
I was being kind.
When little girls, or trolls, are allowed to post inanities but any rational position that does not adhere to modern western social dogma is banished then, that sir, is mediocrity.
And like all mediocrity, the more you add to it the more the average level drops...and drops...until you are left with an on-line chat room.
Last edited:
It is demonstrated continually in these forums. It was demonstrated in this thread when gendaken was removed from the position of moderator.
- Status