So Long LoR, and Thanks for All the Fish!

[JustBusiness17]

Just wanted to say that I've come to the conclusion that LoR isn't a community I want to belong to anymore. It's quite clear that you guys are trying to masquerade as something that you're not and that bothers me too much to contribute anymore of my time here. This place was founded with and endures with noble intentions, but I'm afraid there has been a lack of introspection from the organizing staff which has essentially paralyzed the community from evolving beyond the desires of an unelected few. This would be perfectly acceptable if it were explicitly stated, however, LoR continues to pursue a "community first" image which is completely incompatible with the leadership style currently used to govern the organization. This grievance goes far beyond any current disagreements. I'm basing my decision to leave on my aggregate experience here with 'lack of integrity' at the very top of my concerns.

I understand that what you are trying to achieve is rather difficult considering the natural conflict between your idealistic values and the realities of managing an online community, however, the differential there is too much for me to overlook. I don't doubt that you will continue to exist as long as the controversial discussions that you promote are still around. With that being said, LoR is hardly unique in that aspect and doesn't have a monopoly (or even oligopoly) on the services it provides on the internet.

My advice to the people trying to guide LoR is to take some time for self reflection - paying special attention to your role as a leader in this community. While transactional leadership continues to be an essential aspect of any organization, I'm afraid that transformational leadership has been sadly under-utilized here. It should be noted that this is not an uncommon flaw in the world of leadership. In fact, it's rather expected based on social dominance theory. Depending on the social dominance orientation of your target audience, perhaps it's not such a bad thing, but I can assure everyone that it's definitely not my thing. The expressed values of LoR (which I tend to gravitate towards) don't mesh with the reality of the community. That type of service gap is completely unacceptable to me because it's nothing more than a deceptive business practice. My frustrations comes as a direct result of the expectations established by LoR's management which are in heavy conflict with the reality of the situation. In other words the hypocrisy of this bureaucracy is intolerable.

So- Goodbye and thank you for your contribution towards a more rational world. I just wish you could have taken a better approach to the whole thing...

 

[JustBusiness17]

Oh, and based on experience, I expect nothing more than indifference in response to this thread :arrow:

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Good luck on your finding people who will never disagree with you!

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Ummm... bye?

 

[JustBusiness17]

I love how this was moved from the appropriate 'Issues and Suggestions' forum into the less appropriate 'Everything Else' forum where it will be burried much quicker. I guess this is an appropriate response for a community opposed to censorship when they come across something that LoR doesn't want you to read... I'll bet it gets locked too :lol:

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I love how this was moved from the appropriate 'Issues and Suggestions' forum into the 'Everything Else' forum where it will be burried much quicker. I guess this is an appropriate response for a community opposed to censorship when they come across something that LoR doesn't want you to read... I'll bet it gets locked too :lol:

Could you possibly be a bigger crybaby? Dude, seriously!

Feel free to come back when you grow a thicker skin and a better perspective.

 

[JustBusiness17]

I love how this was moved from the appropriate 'Issues and Suggestions' forum into the 'Everything Else' forum where it will be burried much quicker. I guess this is an appropriate response for a community opposed to censorship when they come across something that LoR doesn't want you to read... I'll bet it gets locked too :lol:

Could you possibly be a bigger crybaby? Dude, seriously!

Feel free to come back when you grow a thicker skin and a better perspective.

This is about principle, man. LoR is trying to act like something its not - and that bothers me... Despite >>>this thread<<< being the "straw that broke the camels back", this has been bugging me for a long time. I don't care if they embrace the authoritarian leadership that exists or if they move towards the decentralized leadership that they espouse, but this weird incongruance that's being pushed right now is fucked up! If it takes people leaving LoR for them to change, then let me be the first.

 

[IBSpify]

I love how this was moved from the appropriate 'Issues and Suggestions' forum into the less appropriate 'Everything Else' forum where it will be burried much quicker. I guess this is an appropriate response for a community opposed to censorship when they come across something that LoR doesn't want you to read... I'll bet it gets locked too :lol:

Actually since you didn't actually outline what your particular problem was and just used vague terms and didn't offer any suggestions as to how to fix the issue you have, "everything else" fits this thread better then where you put it

 

[Lallapalalable]

you do know you can block people, right? Ignoring is something you have a right to here, and not everyone agrees with everyone so Im sure if you cleared the weeds you may have found some that you enjoyed debating. Edit: okay the link to the thread didnt come up the first time I saw your post and I interpereted your message incorrectly...dont know what to say on the locking except get over it?

Anyway, I did enjoy some of your posts, and you were a common sight throughout my membership so it will be different, just not sure how atm. Good luck, and enjoy your future endeavors.

 

[JustBusiness17]

I love how this was moved from the appropriate 'Issues and Suggestions' forum into the less appropriate 'Everything Else' forum where it will be burried much quicker. I guess this is an appropriate response for a community opposed to censorship when they come across something that LoR doesn't want you to read... I'll bet it gets locked too :lol:

Actually since you didn't actually outline what your particular problem was and just used vague terms and didn't offer any suggestions as to how to fix the issue you have, "everything else" fits this thread better then where you put it

How do you explain a systemic problem without the use of generalities :?:

 

[Aught3]

When I first read your post I thought "lots of words but very little substance." At least you've now stated what your complaint is.

Your news forum suggestion was ignored which means no one was interested. Still, you persisted and bumped it twice (which goes against our guidelines). This annoyed me. So your thread got locked.

You're correct to point out that I didn't give an explanation for the lock which I probably should have, but I think it was fairly self-explanatory. Fortunately, you made yet another thread about your previous thread in which I pointed our why your first thread had been locked. Having dealt with the complaint I locked your second thread. tbh, the second lock was more of a joke then anything serious, but at least you got your reason.

Now you make a goodbye thread which consisted of an issue/suggestion in only the broadest sense, so I moved it to the more appropriate general discussion section.

Upon reflection perhaps locking the second thread would have come across as too aggressive so I've now unlocked it, but I stand behind every other action I've taken in this matter. If you are truly leaving then I'm sorry to see you go as I enjoy reading your posts on economics especially.

Edit: I'll just add that if the mod team wanted to censor someone their thread would be deleted and their account blocked.

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

How do you explain a systemic problem without the use of generalities :?:

Generalities are fine but all you offered were generalities. Eventually, you gave this one example of what you were talking about but you didn't connect it to your main point. I like your posts and I will miss your business view on things but I still don't really know what's bothering you or why you're leaving...

If you don't mind some writing advice, say what your point will be, which may include generalities, give some examples of your general point and show how they exemplify said point and then conclude with your point. Please take this advice to whatever forum you frequent. I know this looks a little redundant but, trust me, they make for very effective writing!

I learned this in high school. The three parts of an essay: say what you're going to say, say what you intend to say and then say what you said...

 

[Pennies for Thoughts]

"...lots of words and very little substance"

Indeed!

The thread about organic woo-woo at http://forums.leagueofreason.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=61&t=4769 started strong then went south due to JB17 tangents; and there are others.

I'm in another thread about LoR rating posts, and am pulling for indirect rating of posters rather than posts. Direct rating of posters can easily devolve into a popularity contest, but indirect rating, based on the number of mutes a poster accumulates (and confidential to LoR), seems like a reasonable QA tool and one that can help members figure out whether this forum is for them a bit earlier. http://forums.leagueofreason.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5136

 

[DepricatedZero]

I'm confused.

Sucks to see you go, but why?

You seem dissatisfied with TPTB but not really citing anything.

 

[JustBusiness17]

When I first read your post I thought "lots of words but very little substance." At least you've now stated what your complaint is.

Your news forum suggestion was ignored which means no one was interested. Still, you persisted and bumped it twice (which goes against our guidelines). This annoyed me. So your thread got locked.

You're correct to point out that I didn't give an explanation for the lock which I probably should have, but I think it was fairly self-explanatory. Fortunately, you made yet another thread about your previous thread in which I pointed our why your first thread had been locked. Having dealt with the complaint I locked your second thread. tbh, the second lock was more of a joke then anything serious, but at least you got your reason.
Now you make a goodbye thread which consisted of an issue/suggestion in only the broadest sense, so I moved it to the more appropriate general discussion section.

Upon reflection perhaps locking the second thread would have come across as too aggressive so I've now unlocked it, but I stand behind every other action I've taken in this matter. If you are truly leaving then I'm sorry to see you go as I enjoy reading your posts on economics especially.

First of all, you didn't "point out why the first thread had been locked", you merely posted a guideline that was similar <but not the same> as the issue you were confronting. The bumped thread about the 'News Forum' coincided with this sentiment:

http://forums.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=69270#p69270

Although it's beyond the point of this discussion, I see no good purpose in trapping interesting topics in a forum that is less frequented than the main areas of the website. But I digress.



Here is the main problem that I have with LoR:

AndromedasWake[/color]"]Hello AeroMancer, welcome to the board.

The logo is free to use. League of Reason is a community and does not have any strict policy - nor is it represented by any individual or group. The purpose of including the logo is simply to attract more members to the community.

The video of the logo, made by our genius webmaster and designer of everything you see, CosmicSpork, can be found at http://vault.leagueofreason.org.uk

Despite repeatedly advertising iterations of this idea around the forums, the website is clearly run by a centralized hierachy who, evidently, abuse their powers. I have seen a large number of threads locked without explanation throughout the boards and dating back for some time. As I said, this isn't about a specific event, this is about a systemic problem. You have stated:

League of Reason, established 2009, is a multi-author blog written by a collection of highly motivated rationalists. Our aims are to promote reason, critical thinking and the public understanding of science, as well as taking a stand against censorship; particularly by religiously motivated individuals and organisations.

Yet the management staff of this website seem to censor conversations rather generously with a healthy dose of "fuck you" arrogance thrown on top. Beyond your own admitted abuse of power, here is an example of CosmicSpork shutting down a conversation that he disliked:

http://forums.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=68755#p68755

The irony of it all is that AndromedasWake ended up starting another thread which was inspired by that original post and even remarked about the fact that it had been locked. Just to be fair, here is an example of AndromedasWake locking a thread:

http://forums.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=66374#p66374

The thing that bothered me the most about that instance was that the thread was directed towards AndromedasWake and the heated debate that started could have been avoided if he had simply shared his own opinion. The fact that he neglected to share his opinion and locked the thread without addressing the content of the thread indicates that he disagreed with the suggestion which would make locking the thread a clear example of censorship!

There are other examples including ones that didn't involve me, but these examples were easy to find and illustrate the point that I'm making. If you want to preach "community run", then cut out all the bullshit hypocrisy. If you want to continue what you're doing, then quit preaching "community run". Ever since I've been on this website, the forums have been moderated by you, CosmicSpork, and AndromedasWake with some chat mods on the side. To the best of my knowledge, none of you were democratically elected and your decisions come swiftly and without explanation. Furthermore, contesting your actions is apparently also unacceptable.

So what is it? Where does LoR stand between "For us by us" and "For you by us"? You're promoting one thing while doing another... I understand that a power structure is unavoidable, but the one thats in place wreaks of hypocrisy. I don't know if complacency is the reason that you have all started to abuse your power or if an uncontestable authority structure was the plan from the start, but I'm telling you now and publicly announcing that there is a problem that needs to be addressed. Considering how it's god damned near impossible to have a reasonable conversation with the people who direct this place, you all get a "fuck you too" from me in return.

To summarize, I think it's bullshit that this place is run by 2 people who are barely engaged in the forum and another who openly admits that he locks threads because they annoy him (which is probably a reason used by the other two as well) :geek:

 

[nasher168]

I've never got the impression you seem to of the way things are run, I must say.

The thread you link to locked by Sporky was one about introducing a +rep system to the LoR. The general consensus was that such a thing would be a bad idea. It had been discussed in other threads before and had been rejected in that thread too. Why leave the thread open if it was apparent what the people's decision was?

The thread locked by AW... Come on now. That had descended into a shouting match between Prolescum and yourself. Frankly, it needed locking. You might have noticed that you, Prolescum and I were the only ones who posted in that thread before it was locked. People were, I think, choosing wisely to stay out of the warzone. Also, the initial suggestion might, if I may say so, have seemed a little silly. Prolescum certainly seemed to think so and, err, made himself rather clear on that...

Other than that, I'm sure someone will come along fairly soon and point out just how much Sporky has actually done for the forums... off his own back and-I think-with his own money.
Also, AW does engage with the forums. 372 posts is fairly high. It's just us lot who are sad and post a lot, not that AW isn't posting much.

Finally, for all these examples of hypocrisy and censorship you have spoken of, they make up only a tiny amount of the forum's content and even then I question the validity of calling it censorship or hypocrisy.
I notice that no one else seems to have such a problem with how things are run. Perhaps you must consider the possibility that your accusations and claims are unfounded.

 

[Aught3]

Okay, that got rather heated didn't it?

The original moderation team was composed of those who built the site from the ground up. They've put a lot of effort into the LoR and I think they deserve a significant contribution to the direction that this place takes. Most of the chat mods and myself were brought in to the mod team later as required due to our positive interaction with the community here. One point that you make and I agree with is that it might be time to bring some new moderators on board to share the work load around. You have my guarantee I'll bring this up with the rest of the team.

What I do not agree with is the claim that locking a thread in the Issues and Suggestions forum is tantamount to censorship. A moderator will check the issue/suggestion raised (Spork is particularly active there) and decide whether it is something that needs to be followed up on, or not. If not the thread might get locked to prevent it from being bumped to the top of the active threads list. If we wanted to censure suggestions (to what end?) it would be a trivial matter to delete the posts.

Second, the idea that you can't approach the moderation team or contest decisions is simply false. To prove this I can simply point to this thread where you've managed to engage me, got me to address a problem, and even reverse a moderation decision. And this is not the first time as other users can attest. Now, AW and Spork are very busy people so if you've tried to contact them and gotten no response I can understand that it might be frustrating but it's hardly the equivalent of "fuck you".

Btw, love the poster - I think it should be our banner for a while :lol:

Edit: I did not say I lock threads because they annoy me. I locked your thread because you repeatedly bumped it without adding anything substantial. As a side note, that annoyed me.

 

[JustBusiness17]

Nasher, thanks for trying to mediate but I think this should be viewed from a different perspective.

Moderators are individuals (or groups of individuals) who look after the forums from day to day. They have the authority to edit or delete posts and lock, unlock, move, delete and split topics in the forum they moderate. Generally, moderators are present to prevent users from going off-topic or posting abusive or offensive material.

I don't doubt the need for a moderating team but locking conversations that have gone off-course without listing an explanation doesn't seem to fit my understanding of their purpose. In my opinion, locking a thread should be an absolute last resort. Intervention (in the form of warnings, dispute resolution, etc..) should be the first approach. In the cases where users refuse to reform their conduct, the moderators should contact the offending person by PM in order to figure out why the user feels they are justified in their behavior accompanied by reasons that the mod believes its innappropriate. If the user can't intelligently defend their position and continue on the same course of action, a temporary ban should be implemented with a summary of the reasons for the punishment. I personally think that is a reasonable approach when compared to unexpected thread locking.

The decision to lock a thread is ultimately subjective which means there is room for error. If its done without discussing the reasons for doing so, it opens the door to censorship. If its done for personal reasons (annoyance, differing opinions, etc) then it is censorship. Spork could have left the thread open and ignored the conversation or explained what was wrong with the direction it was taking. AndromedasWake could have entered the discussion, explained his position, and warned us why the conversation was innappropriate. Aught shouldn't have locked a thread based on annoyance and I'm glad he realized that and corrected his mistake.

I don't doubt that the management staff has contributed a lot towards this community, but that doesn't excuse their use of extreme measures as a first line of defense - Especially when those measures are tools of censorship!

Edit: Aught, if I misunderstood your point about your annoyance, I apologize. In this post I actually applied that misconception to the wrong thread as well. But the thread I'm referring to in this post was locked as some kind of joke which is still innapropriate.

 

[AndromedasWake]

Obviously, I have to step in here and mirror Aught's points. I don't see anything inappropriate in locking a thread to prevent it being bumped. Users expressed a general disinterest in your suggestion and Spork is not here to incorporate every idea that everyone has, especially if said idea is controversial and potentially divisive to the harmony of the community.

In my opinion, locking a thread should be an absolute last resort. Intervention (in the form of warnings, dispute resolution, etc..) should be the first approach.

Our agreement is to ban users who receive repeat warnings, and we do not want to warn people over relatively minor offenses such as getting into a somewhat low-brow public debate (use PMs) or bumping a thread with a discarded idea.

Your ideas about stepping in are ideal for a fleet of 50 responsible moderators who are all excellent agony aunts, but growing a team of moderators is a slow process which requires trust. Nevertheless, we have enough moderation activity occurring every day to keep both the boards and chat from descending into anarchy. However, much of this can be attributed to the maturity of our regulars as well. Some in the past have had disputes and resolved them in PMs to become strong contributors and politely critique each other. Quite often I will grant users the benefit of the doubt with respect to whether the reason for the thread lock is obvious. For example, in your case you were in an argument with another user. You were fuelling said argument, but also had the nerve to report your opponent. When I had a look at that thread, which had fizzled out, I concluded that it was effectively a public record of what could have been a PM personality dispute, and was not relevant to its title. Locked.

In recent weeks, you have reported quite a few posts, claiming that other users were being disruptive, when on inspection it appeared that you were being quite thin-skinned when people disagreed with you. We had a similar situation with ShaneDK from YouTube, whose political ideas attracted opposition from several members. He claimed he was not getting enough support, as if he somehow deserved an equal fight. The internet's tough. If you're trying to defend ideas that no one likes, man up.

Regarding personal disputes, if they are not severe both users will usually calm down (away from the site) and come back with something constructive. In the rare cases that they are severe, both users will often be cautioned or worse, unless the logs demonstrate that one clearly goaded the other. We are not censoring you by locking threads such as those in I&S and your dispute. You are welcome to open new threads, provided they are constructive and/or you do not continuously bump them when no one's interested.

The expressed values of LoR (which I tend to gravitate towards) don't mesh with the reality of the community. That type of service gap is completely unacceptable to me because it's nothing more than a deceptive business practice. My frustrations comes as a direct result of the expectations established by LoR's management which are in heavy conflict with the reality of the situation. In other words the hypocrisy of this bureaucracy is intolerable.

I disagree. I think the moderator team do a very good job of upholding everyone's right to speak, whilst keeping the board focussed on constructive discussion. Of course such decision making is a subjective process, but the level of complaint is constantly evaluated. If many people complained that the LoR team were not meeting their own standards, then there'd be a warrant for reform. As it stands, aside from yourself and ShaneDK (who is a volatile and short-tempered individual, and a flagrant censor on his own YouTube channel) I can't think of anyone who has expressed such dissatisfaction. From my perspective, you feel you have been treated unfairly but in fact you have been treated like every other poster here, including the veteran members who are still happy to come back on a daily basis.

Any of them are free to make clear suggestions in the appropriate forum, or make an "I'm leaving" thread at any time (incidentally, such threads will always go to General Discussion) but the general consensus is that members are receiving fair treatment, and we are not censoring them.

 

[DepricatedZero]

Nasher, thanks for trying to mediate but I think this should be viewed from a different perspective.

Moderators are individuals (or groups of individuals) who look after the forums from day to day. They have the authority to edit or delete posts and lock, unlock, move, delete and split topics in the forum they moderate. Generally, moderators are present to prevent users from going off-topic or posting abusive or offensive material.

I don't doubt the need for a moderating team but locking conversations that have gone off-course without listing an explanation doesn't seem to fit my understanding of their purpose. In my opinion, locking a thread should be an absolute last resort. Intervention (in the form of warnings, dispute resolution, etc..) should be the first approach. In the cases where users refuse to reform their conduct, the moderators should contact the offending person by PM in order to figure out why the user feels they are justified in their behavior accompanied by reasons that the mod believes its innappropriate. If the user can't intelligently defend their position and continue on the same course of action, a temporary ban should be implemented with a summary of the reasons for the punishment. I personally think that is a reasonable approach when compared to unexpected thread locking.

The decision to lock a thread is ultimately subjective which means there is room for error. If its done without discussing the reasons for doing so, it opens the door to censorship. If its done for personal reasons (annoyance, differing opinions, etc) then it is censorship. Spork could have left the thread open and ignored the conversation or explained what was wrong with the direction it was taking. AndromedasWake could have entered the discussion, explained his position, and warned us why the conversation was innappropriate. Aught shouldn't have locked a thread based on annoyance and I'm glad he realized that and corrected his mistake.

I don't doubt that the management staff has contributed a lot towards this community, but that doesn't excuse their use of extreme measures as a first line of defense - Especially when those measures are tools of censorship!

Edit: Aught, if I misunderstood your point about your annoyance, I apologize. In this post I actually applied that misconception to the wrong thread as well. But the thread I'm referring to in this post was locked as some kind of joke which is still innapropriate.

Alright dude, I've respected your angle since I got here. Appreciated it - but hell, I didn't think Ayn Rand was rubbish either, and I know what most people think of her. However, I say now that you need a heaping dose of perspective.

I've frequented a great many forums. You talk about the "centralized hierarchy" who is apparently, in your mind, humping the rulebook that they're beating people with. Have you ever spent an appreciable amount of time at a Christian forum? Let me tell you a story. . .

I was trolling Rapture Ready, and brought up Purgatory. I was banned for being an atheist - however, do note that I presented myself AS a Christian, and even stayed to Christian-like arguments, citing bible verses and the like to support my claims. However, because they think Purgatory originated in apocrypha, I'm clearly an atheist. Therefore, ban.

Or lets take an Atheist forum where I wasn't trolling: IIDB. In the midst of a discussion there, I called someone out as just being argumentative, asking them to make a point or even an argument, rather than just naysay. Because of that the thread was locked and I was "warned". I replied to the warning with a sound "fuck off" and haven't been back there since.

In RR, it's centralized. In IIDB, there's a clear "old boys club" in charge. Here, there's none of that. Not everyone agrees with everyone, which is awesome. There's none of the constant cock slobbering that goes with sycophants on other forums, at least if there is I haven't noticed. That's why I love this place: I expect every post I make to have at least two people who disagree with me. Sometimes it's because I'm wrong, some times it's just slight differences in the way we look at it. We can go on and on, for instance, about igtheism and defining god - and no mod jumped in to that shut it down. I bet every one of them(at least who read it) had an opinion one way or the other, and didn't interfere with the party who opposed their view. Whether we're in agreement on one issue or not, though, we'll always disagree on another. And even if we do, we can find common ground and be respectful.

But it's exactly because the mods don't jump in everywhere.

It's because of the lax control on the forum. Yes they will end certain discussions, like should AW try to capitalize on his reputation or should we have rep points. Those either aren't up for public discussion(I suspect AW is wary of looking insincere) or have been beaten to death(rep points). However, if someone is being a douchebag, so far as I've seen, such douchebaggery is allowed to run its course. In the end, that's why there are no sycophants. There's no appearance that you can get people censored by disagreeing with them because the mods like you, there's no reason to try and curry favor, and sycophants are challenged and either chased off or grow their own spine and opinions.

This isn't censorship or the iron grip of The Man.