Rhetoric and the art of Collaborative Discussion

[minime]

While the “Slam SLAD Stalkers” continue to dance teasingly around the rules in the pursuit of personally punishing the most prolific poster here, many of the more considerate and kind members are appreciating the moderators’ attempts at encouraging more respect, fairness and civility in collectively improving on the forum format and function. Let’s keep that as the focus for our exchanges on it. Not SLAD slamming.

[Snark]It seems the new format is tailor-made for you as well, with your focus, as you say, on the news--seemingly without the burden of discussion, as your post count and content will attest. I would alliterate, but I have too much respect for you, and for myself as well.[/Snark]

So... the drone episode, was that you?

[Elvis]

Hello friends, I haven't caught up since I last posted in this thread, apologies if I anyone is waiting for a reply. An unexpected family situation will occupy my time and I'll be mostly away from my computer for a couple of weeks or so. "I'll be back" and thanks...

[stillrobertpaulsen]

Hello friends, I haven't caught up since I last posted in this thread, apologies if I anyone is waiting for a reply. An unexpected family situation will occupy my time and I'll be mostly away from my computer for a couple of weeks or so. "I'll be back" and thanks...

Hey Elvis, I don't think there were any outstanding questions. But I appreciate the heads-up. Take care and good luck with your family!

[smiths]

i dont understand the Current Events section, what function does it fulfill that the General Discussion fails to fulfill?

[Burnt Hill]

Whats not to understand? Its Current Events?
It is an attempt to de-clutter the Discussion Board. Trump postings were taking up too much space according to a distressed group. Ultimately it would have been a passing thing, but why not have a Current Events section anyway (rhetorical question)?

[Iamwhomiam]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipfVaHoakqc

[stillrobertpaulsen]

If anyone else carried on like that even once, they would be given a stern warning at the very least and more likely a week's suspension without a moment's notice.

I'm sick to death of the blatant double standards around this place. Is (RI member who offended MacCruiskeen) immune to all criticism? Do special rules apply to (this member)? Is (this member) a protected species? Say it loud and clear, if so, and not shamefacedly and surreptitiously by private message. If rigorous intuition general discussion no longer exists, then have the minimal decency to inform all of us openly at long last so that honest people posting in good faith can stop wasting their fucking time.

I am reposting these questions to this thread, as I feel it is appropriate to address in a general sense. My hope is that these are genuine questions and not just blanket accusations. If the former is true, then my answers should suffice.


Before I get to your questions, I'd like to address your first paragraph. "If anyone else carried on like that even once," they would NOT be given a stern warning and they certainly wouldn't get a suspension. If an argument is conducted in good faith, the moderators allow it as long as there are no personal attacks.


That's it in a nutshell, and I think it answers all your questions, though I will belabor the point and address your questions more specifically: the moderators try to treat every member equally. There are no special rules, no member is a protected species. As to the question of being immune to criticism, I'm not really sure what you mean by that. Any moderating decision is done according to Jeff's rules, that's the only criticizing we try to do, and I wouldn't even call it criticizing - we're just trying to apply the rules in a just and fair manner. That aspect of moderation - warnings and suspensions - are generally carried out on the public board. I can only think of one instance where I gave a member a warning privately, and it wasn't given to any of the members you think have special rules, it was given to you. My apologies to you if you interpreted that gesture as a double standard; it won't happen again. But there certainly wasn't anything surreptitious or shamefaced on my part when I did it.


As to the specific critique that you made, we analyzed it and decided no rules were broken. Another member asked the member who offended you a question and that member answered, even though they both agreed it was off-topic, but wanted to explore the matter further. The length of the answer is irrelevant to your alert that the post was in violation of the rules. I've said this before, but generally when we respond to an alert, if a rule was broken we respond to it publicly. If it isn't, we don't respond at all unless the alerting member insists, then we do so privately. I hope you can respect that in the future. I know you don't like our ruling, but you asked us to make a judgement call, and we made it. You may not like our moderation, but we insist that you respect it. If you wish to discuss this specific matter further publicly, please do so without calling out another RI member; otherwise if you feel you can't, PM us.

[smiths]

Perhaps that's where moderation fails, it works to the letter of the rules, rather than the spirit,

You, SRP, say that no-one is special or exempt from the rules.
I would argue from my reading of this board in the last week or so (after a year of absence) that it sure does FEEL like someone is special

[Burnt Hill]

it sure does FEEL like someone is special

Oh! Well thank you!!

[Burnt Hill]

It is me, isn't it?
My family has been telling me I'm special since I was a kid!!

[Burnt Hill]

[stillrobertpaulsen]

Perhaps that's where moderation fails, it works to the letter of the rules, rather than the spirit,

You, SRP, say that no-one is special or exempt from the rules.
I would argue from my reading of this board in the last week or so (after a year of absence) that it sure does FEEL like someone is special

Not cool, smith. Pretty slick, though, I'll give you credit for that. Saying (a poster) without actually naming the poster is a great way to bait a member without resorting to personal attacks. Doesn't break any rules that way!

Yet that kind of undercuts your argument about violating the spirit of the rules. Especially after I just wrote "If you wish to discuss this specific matter further publicly, please do so without calling out another RI member; otherwise if you feel you can't, PM us."

Normally at this point I would ask you to edit your post to remove the inflammatory material, but I'll save you the time. If you really care about the spirit of the board, (after a year of absence) start practicing what you preach.

[stillrobertpaulsen]

Whats not to understand? Its Current Events?
It is an attempt to de-clutter the Discussion Board. Trump postings were taking up too much space according to a distressed group. Ultimately it would have been a passing thing, but why not have a Current Events section anyway (rhetorical question)?

I've got a confession to make: my desire for a Current Events forum goes way back, long before Trump ever had his own thread on GD. (I think 8bitagent actually did the first OP back in 2011.) When I first joined RI, I thought there should be a Current Events forum, as most other political discussion forums I had participated on had something equivalent to that. As I became accustomed to the style and culture of the board, I saw that generally it was best to place a breaking news item in GD, but sometimes I would refrain from doing so because I felt the subject matter of the story just didn't jibe with the style and culture of GD; either because the story had no parapolitical angle, or sometimes because the story had no politics, no woo, nothing that really fit.

When I became moderator, all the issues you discuss above - Trump, de-cluttering - brought that idea back to me. Because I do think the need goes beyond the big orange elephant in the living room. I hope this move will prove to be successful and will stand the test of time. We shall see.

[Iamwhomiam]

While I am of those who've felt GD pretty much covers current events topics, I had hoped you would have kept it in the General Discussion forum, but as a sticky, remaining above all other topics being discussed.

I would ask to please incorporate the now isolated Current Events forum into the General Discussion forum as a sticky atop all other topics being discussed therein.

It will serve the exact same purpose as intended and would keep all topics for discussion in the same thread.*

The many subject fora listed on the lower part of the Index page are not all that often used, nor has their use ever been encouraged, to my knowledge.

I understand our two new mods have volunteered for their positions. A responsibility of moderation should include moving misplaced topics to their correct forum, while reminding posters to review the entire Index page to assure their posting is in the correct forum.

The more often we do use the proper subject forum, the slower General Discussion pages will proceed.

Edited to add, * (the separate subjects fora, of course, includes discussion of those topics.)

[mentalgongfu2]

I second the above.

While I am also not one who desired the current events forum, I accept that it's here. But I think it would work better as a subsection of GD.