Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 14174
Location: Omnipresent
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2011 11:02 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| MCalavera wrote: | I don't agree with AG's aggressiveness towards 91 in particular, but some of them are indeed out of context (as AG has pointed out).
Best to examine the quotes within context first before making any judgement. |
Also, many of these comments were corrected. I think some were actually corrected before moderator action happened. (At least one was)
Even further, the central issue often is that 91 himself appears obnoxious, and I do not put up with it. A few times, what it is, is that the nature of PPR includes some notion of intellectual honesty(which is hard to rigidly enforce) and when a poster appears to violate that, it appears offensive. When a poster is offended by this, naturally they'll want to push back..... which.... makes this really complicated.
_________________
Plus Alpha-Atheistic anti-theist
Member of the WP Strident Atheists
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt128417.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 14174
Location: Omnipresent
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2011 11:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dox47 wrote: | | AG seems content to ignore 91 in the future if someone can show him how to block his posts, that seems like a gimme from where I'm sitting. Anyone know how to block a user in Chrome? |
I dunno. For the moment, and in the future, I will browse in Firefox. I did find a way to block from Firefox.
_________________
Plus Alpha-Atheistic anti-theist
Member of the WP Strident Atheists
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt128417.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
MCalavera
Phoenix
Joined: Dec 16, 2010
Age: 30
Posts: 3970
Location: Melbourne
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2011 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ok, my thoughts:
Both AG and 91 are extremely intelligent posters for this forum. They both have contributed very interesting (and intellectually entertaining) posts and arguments to this forum, and each (in his own way) has shown passion in his writings.
But we have to understand something when it comes to places like PPR. PPR is admittedly a battlefield and a place where verbal wars and battles are raged. In wars, some rules have to be violated for the sake of causes bigger than individual causes.
One reason is because lots of extraordinary claims are made there almost every single day, claims that defy the expert consensus or one's imagination/intuition, and a lot of them are just said without any effort to back them up. Thus, you have this conflict between two sides: one side stubbornly making the same claims over and over again without evidence and the other side fervently asking the first side to provide evidence, and it goes on and on and on almost forever, it gets really frustrating that eventually, one has to get nasty and point out the fact that someone's spouting some big bullsh*t.
Then there's the conflict that arises due to one side refusing to have his own childhood beliefs falsified even when evidence and/or strong solid arguments have been provided that contradict his beliefs. And this refusal often manifests in him stubbornly clinging to invalid ideas to the end and trying to make them sound like they're on the same level of truth as other ideas that have yet to be falsified. This can get really frustrating that I can see why some members like AG can get really annoyed and offended. Because for some of us, intellectual integrity is of utmost importance.
As you can see, it all boils down to honesty (and lack of it). This goes for both sides of course.
I say implement what Vigilans suggested above. A PPR-exclusive mod who's all for intellectual integrity and for good civil discussions and who's impartial (regardless of his own personal beliefs or lack of them) and who's very familiar with the PPR environment. Actually, Vigilans himself comes to mind.
And this mod's job would be to both make sure the discussions are civil as much as they can be within the PPR environment and that every person who's been challenged to provide needed evidence for whatever extraordinary claim he/she makes does so for the sake of further education and intellectual integrity. People who refuse to be civil in their discussions even after this condition has been made will only show they're being a burden.
I say yes for intellectual integrity and backing your claims up with the needed evidence and/or strong solid "no-bullshit" arguments. Who agrees with me? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Tadzio
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 03, 2009
Age: 60
Posts: 877
Location: Banned-4-Epilepsy, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2011 7:54 pm Post subject: We Need Nathaniel Hawthorne Again??? |
|
|
| hyperlexian wrote: | | Awesomelyglorious wrote: | | hyperlexian wrote: |
i know exactly how you feel about moderation. IIRC, when i warned you, your response was that i should "f**k myself", which is an interesting response. you weren't the first, and you probably won't be the last.  |
Frankly, you know it is quite obvious that there is a high level of personal animosity between myself and 91. |
??? not sure what you are saying here. you have personal animosity towards another member, so i should not warn you or you will attack me?
| Awesomelyglorious wrote: | | Quote: | | i have an easy fix to avoid getting warned by a moderator: don't break the rules. you admit in your post above that you are sometimes in violation of the rules, so i imagine that you are quite aware when it happens. therefore it should not be hard to avoid. |
Your reasoning doesn't follow at all. I mean, here's how my posts work. I type something. I post it. People comment later. Sometimes this includes a mod. If someone is playing a victim, being obnoxious, or anything else, I will probably take the natural negative response, which may or may not cross any rule. |
well, stop breaking the rules. it's rather easy.
| Awesomelyglorious wrote: | | Quote: | | if you feel like other people's infractions are getting missed and therefore you are receiving warnings when others are getting away with things, feel free to contact a moderator yourself. |
Honestly, if you're going to be regulating interpersonal behavior, you're probably going to want to handle this as relationships. I actually just don't want moderators getting involved as a general rule. Unless someone is outright trolling, I really don't care. I really don't want much moderation except if someone is literally and obviously trolling. So, contacting a moderator is really not how I'd want to handle things. Not only that, but if someone is just being obnoxious, and being "Bismarck's cigar", it'd be very hard to prove anything from a moderator standpoint, which is partly the basis of the comment in the first place. Not all things wrong can be against the rules. Not all things against the rules are wrong. |
we are here to do a job. it's up to you if you want to avail yourself of our services but we will continue to take action as necessary. |
And, from: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postxf183148-0-150.html
| cw10 wrote: | | 91 wrote: |
| blauSamstag wrote: | | So a menorah is ok. What if the freedom from religion guys come up with a symbol? Can they display that? |
Maybe, they do have that 'A' pin. That however, would be up to the relevant city to work out.
|
An "A" Pin eh? Not sure the atheists would go for that. To the Muslims Allah is gods name. To the Jews, Aleph (א) is the first letter in gods name. Not sure the Atheists would walk around with the symbol for God pinned to their shirts as recognized by many biblical religions. But I do think I don't want this post read by too many atheists because of their lack of general knowledge, it would amuse me greatly to see an Atheist walking around with God's name pinned next to their heart. |
The "Rules" were exemplified in the work of literature "The Scarlet Letter" by Nathaniel Hawthorne (1850). The "symbol" of "A" was also required to be displayed by "those people" in the middle of 17-th century New England . Here at WrongPlanet, many of the devout desire such inclusive/exclusive policy again with "those members" arbitrarily dis-respective to the devout, by the devout's "righteous standards" with everyone's belief being so subjected.
Tadzio |
|
| Back to top |
|
91
Forgot the Candlesticks
Joined: Oct 31, 2010
Posts: 2502
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2011 8:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The 'A' symbol under discussion was developed by the atheists themselves. Interesting interpretation Tadzio just put forward. I cited it as an inoffensive symbol.
http://store.richarddawkins.net/products/1-a-lapel-pin
_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Tadzio
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 03, 2009
Age: 60
Posts: 877
Location: Banned-4-Epilepsy, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2011 8:26 pm Post subject: We Need Nathaniel Hawthorne Again??? |
|
|
Hi 91,
As public conduct of crowds exemplifies in Athens, Texas, Catastrophe Theory works as a Model of volatile Social Situations. For example, the "Star of David" is one of many symbols prohibited, but "required", in the era before, and during, World War II, and much of history exemplifies the voluntary/involuntary aspects of "display" as a matter of rights and of oppression.
Tadzio |
|
| Back to top |
|
hyperlexian
loves the man who typed too much and ran outta spa
Joined: Jul 22, 2010
Age: 41
Posts: 21969
Location: with bucephalus
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2011 9:12 pm Post subject: Re: We Need Nathaniel Hawthorne Again??? |
|
|
| Tadzio wrote: | And, from: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postxf183148-0-150.html
...
The "Rules" were exemplified in the work of literature "The Scarlet Letter" by Nathaniel Hawthorne (1850). The "symbol" of "A" was also required to be displayed by "those people" in the middle of 17-th century New England . Here at WrongPlanet, many of the devout desire such inclusive/exclusive policy again with "those members" arbitrarily dis-respective to the devout, by the devout's "righteous standards" with everyone's belief being so subjected.
Tadzio |
can you be specific as to what you are pointing out and what it means in the context of the present thread? i'm afraid i am not getting it here
_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp5043493.html#5043493 |
|
| Back to top |
|
Jacoby
Phoenix
Joined: Dec 11, 2007
Posts: 4013
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2011 9:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I think people need to moderate themselves for the most part. Being trolled/provoked doesn't give you free rein to be awful to someone, you should still be responsible for what you post. A PPR-specific mod might not be a terrible idea but it really depends on who it is and what their moderating style is. I imagine whoever would be picked it would make some people unhappy. I don't know how many complaints come out of PPR but if it's just 1 or 2 people that cause trouble then it probably be can just be handled by the mods at-large on a case by case basis. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Tadzio
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 03, 2009
Age: 60
Posts: 877
Location: Banned-4-Epilepsy, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 26, 2011 12:21 am Post subject: Re: We Need Nathaniel Hawthorne Again??? |
|
|
| hyperlexian wrote: |
can you be specific as to what you are pointing out and what it means in the context of the present thread? i'm afraid i am not getting it here |
| Tadzio wrote: | | hyperlexian wrote: | | Awesomelyglorious wrote: | | hyperlexian wrote: |
i know exactly how you feel about moderation. IIRC, when i warned you, your response was that i should "f**k myself", which is an interesting response. you weren't the first, and you probably won't be the last. |
Frankly, you know it is quite obvious that there is a high level of personal animosity between myself and 91. |
??? not sure what you are saying here. you have personal animosity towards another member, so i should not warn you or you will attack me?
| Awesomelyglorious wrote: | | Quote: | | i have an easy fix to avoid getting warned by a moderator: don't break the rules. you admit in your post above that you are sometimes in violation of the rules, so i imagine that you are quite aware when it happens. therefore it should not be hard to avoid. |
Your reasoning doesn't follow at all. I mean, here's how my posts work. I type something. I post it. People comment later. Sometimes this includes a mod. If someone is playing a victim, being obnoxious, or anything else, I will probably take the natural negative response, which may or may not cross any rule. |
well, stop breaking the rules. it's rather easy.
| Awesomelyglorious wrote: | | Quote: | | if you feel like other people's infractions are getting missed and therefore you are receiving warnings when others are getting away with things, feel free to contact a moderator yourself. |
Honestly, if you're going to be regulating interpersonal behavior, you're probably going to want to handle this as relationships. I actually just don't want moderators getting involved as a general rule. Unless someone is outright trolling, I really don't care. I really don't want much moderation except if someone is literally and obviously trolling. So, contacting a moderator is really not how I'd want to handle things. Not only that, but if someone is just being obnoxious, and being "Bismarck's cigar", it'd be very hard to prove anything from a moderator standpoint, which is partly the basis of the comment in the first place. Not all things wrong can be against the rules. Not all things against the rules are wrong. |
we are here to do a job. it's up to you if you want to avail yourself of our services but we will continue to take action as necessary. |
And, from: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postxf183148-0-150.html
| cw10 wrote: | | 91 wrote: |
| blauSamstag wrote: | | So a menorah is ok. What if the freedom from religion guys come up with a symbol? Can they display that? |
Maybe, they do have that 'A' pin. That however, would be up to the relevant city to work out.
|
An "A" Pin eh? Not sure the atheists would go for that. To the Muslims Allah is gods name. To the Jews, Aleph (א) is the first letter in gods name. Not sure the Atheists would walk around with the symbol for God pinned to their shirts as recognized by many biblical religions. But I do think I don't want this post read by too many atheists because of their lack of general knowledge, it would amuse me greatly to see an Atheist walking around with God's name pinned next to their heart. |
The "Rules" were exemplified in the work of literature "The Scarlet Letter" by Nathaniel Hawthorne (1850). The "symbol" of "A" was also required to be displayed by "those people" in the middle of 17-th century New England . Here at WrongPlanet, many of the devout desire such inclusive/exclusive policy again with "those members" arbitrarily dis-respective to the devout, by the devout's "righteous standards" with everyone's belief being so subjected.
Tadzio |
| Tadzio wrote: |
Hi 91,
As public conduct of crowds exemplifies in Athens, Texas, Catastrophe Theory works as a Model of volatile Social Situations. For example, the "Star of David" is one of many symbols prohibited, but "required", in the era before, and during, World War II, and much of history exemplifies the voluntary/involuntary aspects of "display" as a matter of rights and of oppression.
Tadzio |
Post Subject: "I got you riled up, and that's a good thing"--my :
| Frieslander wrote: | | Is that a good way to discuss religion, especially trying to convince someone of Christianity? That's what my sister said to me once on the phone. |
Puritan Legalism, with different subject matter, but otherwise, much as:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scarlet_Letter
In the context of the present thread, "Moderation In PPR" (Politics, Philosophy, and Religion)
( http://www.wrongplanet.net/postxf184536-0-30.html ), I'm pointing out the conflict and conditional use of "rules of formality" versus what is often referred to as "Puritan Legalism" (with the similarities to the social structure in "The Scarlet Letter" as a delivered deja vu response to me, but otherwise the "morals of rules" from "Catch-22", with a similarity of "rules of formality" being a satirical reading of "Remembrance of Things Past" by Marcel Proust, for the flip-flop of distinguished social interactions). In relation to this thread and being on the Spectrum of Autism including Temporal Lobe Epilepsy, the context includes, but is not limited to, deictics (with the intersection of autism and A.C.T. (as promulgated by Steven C. Hayes for example)), Pragmatic Inferences (much as in "Pragmatic Inferences in High-Functioning Adults with Autism and Asperger Syndrome" by Pijnacker, Hagoort, Buitelaar, et al.(J Autism Dev Disord (2009) 39:607–618)), & Geschwind Syndrome, which very likely illustrates disparate impact per Spectrum distributions, epilepsy, religion, and prohibited actions per including that listed as "This also includes discussion of locked topics, discussion of banned members and why they were banned and anything else that purposely causes conflict with other members," re sevices, CRA, & ADAAA in the U.S.A. and the State of California, and possibly prohibited retaliatory actions.
Tadzio |
|
| Back to top |
|
MCalavera
Phoenix
Joined: Dec 16, 2010
Age: 30
Posts: 3970
Location: Melbourne
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 26, 2011 12:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tadzio, why not make things simple and brief. You don't currently have what it takes to make long posts that are clear for us all to understand. If you want us to understand, keep it short or improve your writing skills. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Nexus
Seems legit...
Joined: Aug 15, 2006
Posts: 1111
Location: On I2
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 26, 2011 12:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think he's highlighting the arbitrary nature of how rules are enforced based on two schools of philosophy? Not exactly sure.
_________________
"Have a nice apocalypse" - Southland Tales |
|
| Back to top |
|
Tadzio
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 03, 2009
Age: 60
Posts: 877
Location: Banned-4-Epilepsy, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 26, 2011 6:05 am Post subject: We Need Nathaniel Hawthorne Again??? |
|
|
| MCalavera wrote: | | Tadzio, why not make things simple and brief. You don't currently have what it takes to make long posts that are clear for us all to understand. If you want us to understand, keep it short or improve your writing skills. |
Hi MCalavera,
A very simple example would be a debate between Elmer Gantry and Robert G. Ingersoll:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elmer_Gantry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_G._Ingersoll
Then, weight that debate with both being Television-Evangelist/Scientific-Humanist with Asperger's Syndrome, and apply a set of formalized rules that have a disparate impact for different combinations of criteria of Asperger's Syndrome.
To keep it very simple, have one character follow the rules to absurd levels of exactitude, such as the ship crew member who refuses to throw a life-preserver to a drowning passenger because it has the warning "Do Not Remove" on it. Have the other character painting "graffiti" below the warning, adding the phrase "except in cases of emergency". Now, have a moderator selected from a larger group also with Asperger's Syndrome, "moderate" between the first two characters, so that the "rules" are followed, with "enforcement" if necessary. (Before they break their neck in a horse accident, NTs call this type of scenario "OSHA Rules For A Safe Horse").
An easier to understand scenario would be to assume one of the hypothetical characters has Asperger's AND random or severe Tourette's Syndrome.
http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2010/02/tourettes_sufferer_sues_starbu_1.php
http://hrc.vermont.gov/sites/hrc/files/McGarry.pdf
Tadzio
p. 373
http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/tpr/vol61/iss3/5/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
Vigilans
Orgasm Donor
Joined: Jun 20, 2008
Age: 24
Posts: 12091
Location: La belle province
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 26, 2011 11:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MCalavera wrote: | I say implement what Vigilans suggested above. A PPR-exclusive mod who's all for intellectual integrity and for good civil discussions and who's impartial (regardless of his own personal beliefs or lack of them) and who's very familiar with the PPR environment. Actually, Vigilans himself comes to mind.
And this mod's job would be to both make sure the discussions are civil as much as they can be within the PPR environment and that every person who's been challenged to provide needed evidence for whatever extraordinary claim he/she makes does so for the sake of further education and intellectual integrity. People who refuse to be civil in their discussions even after this condition has been made will only show they're being a burden.
I say yes for intellectual integrity and backing your claims up with the needed evidence and/or strong solid "no-bullshit" arguments. Who agrees with me? |
Wow I appreciate your endorsement. That sounds like a lot of work I don't know if I would do it, or if many people would nominate me for such a job in any case. I'm not sure I really have time for moderating anything right now but if enough people wanted it I would consider it
_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do |
|
| Back to top |
|
Dox47
Consigliere
Joined: Jan 29, 2008
Posts: 5177
Location: Seattle Area
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 26, 2011 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You'd get my endorsement too Vigilans, especially if it was the PPR mini-mod thing we've been kicking around as opposed to a site-wide modship. I get the distinct impression that that job sucks and I wouldn't want to inflict it on you, and I'm sure being the PPR fixer wouldn't be a walk in the park, but compared to say L&D I think it wouldn't be so bad. I don't always agree with your opinions, but I think you're very capable of making fair judgments, and most importantly I think you have flexible enough social instincts to know the difference between say a small blowup in a contentious topic vs continuous bullying/harassment or a long simmering feud boiling over, and that you have a feel for the norms in there vs a rigid view of the site rules. Think about it if they ask you, there's only a handful of people I'd consider capable of doing the job and most of them either wouldn't want it or wouldn't pass the background check...
_________________
Unconditional allegiance is the surest way to render one’s beliefs and agenda irrelevant
Any power that government has to do something you like will invariably be used for something you abhor
Murum aries attigit |
|
| Back to top |
|
Oodain
big chief wulla bamboom alakaway
Joined: Jan 31, 2011
Age: 23
Posts: 5022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2011 6:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
all offense is a two person activity,
shifting blame to any one of them would be wrong.
_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//
the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
