-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
So Long LoR, and Thanks for All the Fish!
- Thread starter JustBusiness17
- Start date
monitoradiation
New Member
JB,
To be honest, I rarely stray away from the two main forums, so I haven't exactly read anything you've posted elsewhere. I suspect it might be similar for most folks on the board. I only clicked on this thread because I saw the thread title on the sidebar on the main page.
I've liked your contributions here and wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors.
To be honest, I rarely stray away from the two main forums, so I haven't exactly read anything you've posted elsewhere. I suspect it might be similar for most folks on the board. I only clicked on this thread because I saw the thread title on the sidebar on the main page.
I've liked your contributions here and wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors.
JustBusiness17
New Member
@ AW -
What is this, some kind of character assassination? It seems to me that the majority of posts that I've reported weren't even directed at me. Furthermore, many of them were acted on which indicates that they weren't unwaranted. So rather than appreciating the extra set of eyes, you toss it aside like I was wasting your time... You know, it's hard to say what some of those discussions WOULD have turned into without a moderator's voice telling people to settle down, but that's exactly the point I was making above. You call it "thin-skinned", I call it "early intervention". I've been in my fair share of heated arguments on these boards and everytime they happen, it's always shocking that the mods are so absent in the entire thing. I've seen more non-mods try to break up fights than anything. You can't tell me that a thread that needs to be locked AFTER the argument couldn't have benefited from some policing BEFORE it went completely off course. Its the difference between treatment and prevention!
My ideals don't include "a fleet of 50 responsible moderators ...". My ideal is a community is one where the moderating staff do their job and stay within it. Locking threads in lieu of guiding them back on course seems like the lazy man's approach to moderation. If you feel that you need 50 people in order to drop (what should be viewed as) a substandard practice, then you're sadly mistaken. Its nothing more than jumping in and getting your hands dirty rather than taking the easy way out by shutting down the threads that you don't like. How are you supposed to know how many people you need to do a job properly if you haven't even tried yet?
If me and ShaneDK are the only people who have ever complained, then I finally have something in common with a libertarian. Not many people are comfortable rocking the boat by challenging authority (especially in cases where "do a better job" is the central theme of the complaint) so in that respect, I have to respect SDK. There are likely others who share my concerns while others may exist who are simply ignorant about how an effective moderation team would actually perform their duties. To think that you're all perfect because only two people have had the balls to tell you truth is a self-deceiving lie.
This isn't coming from any feelings of unfair treatment because I see that everyone on the forums is being under-served equally. The fact that I'm not pulling my punches comes from a series of abuses of power ending with one of only three Sheriffs in town thinking it would be funny to lock a thread complaining about the way threads were being locked. You guys flexed and now I'm flexing back!
You can deny it all you want and try to explain away locked threads, but I still think there is a certain level of censorship at play. Naturally, any censorship that takes place on an anti-censorship discussion board is going to be much more subtle than other circumstances, so you can probably get away with it. I don't care if a decision to lock a thread is 90/10, legitimate/personal, as long as there are personal feelings involved, its still censorship. If you're not censoring, then perhaps you should think twice the next time you decide to click the thread locking button without first trying to put the conversation back on track or giving a detailed explanation for the reasons that it's being locked.
What is this, some kind of character assassination? It seems to me that the majority of posts that I've reported weren't even directed at me. Furthermore, many of them were acted on which indicates that they weren't unwaranted. So rather than appreciating the extra set of eyes, you toss it aside like I was wasting your time... You know, it's hard to say what some of those discussions WOULD have turned into without a moderator's voice telling people to settle down, but that's exactly the point I was making above. You call it "thin-skinned", I call it "early intervention". I've been in my fair share of heated arguments on these boards and everytime they happen, it's always shocking that the mods are so absent in the entire thing. I've seen more non-mods try to break up fights than anything. You can't tell me that a thread that needs to be locked AFTER the argument couldn't have benefited from some policing BEFORE it went completely off course. Its the difference between treatment and prevention!
My ideals don't include "a fleet of 50 responsible moderators ...". My ideal is a community is one where the moderating staff do their job and stay within it. Locking threads in lieu of guiding them back on course seems like the lazy man's approach to moderation. If you feel that you need 50 people in order to drop (what should be viewed as) a substandard practice, then you're sadly mistaken. Its nothing more than jumping in and getting your hands dirty rather than taking the easy way out by shutting down the threads that you don't like. How are you supposed to know how many people you need to do a job properly if you haven't even tried yet?
If me and ShaneDK are the only people who have ever complained, then I finally have something in common with a libertarian. Not many people are comfortable rocking the boat by challenging authority (especially in cases where "do a better job" is the central theme of the complaint) so in that respect, I have to respect SDK. There are likely others who share my concerns while others may exist who are simply ignorant about how an effective moderation team would actually perform their duties. To think that you're all perfect because only two people have had the balls to tell you truth is a self-deceiving lie.
This isn't coming from any feelings of unfair treatment because I see that everyone on the forums is being under-served equally. The fact that I'm not pulling my punches comes from a series of abuses of power ending with one of only three Sheriffs in town thinking it would be funny to lock a thread complaining about the way threads were being locked. You guys flexed and now I'm flexing back!
You can deny it all you want and try to explain away locked threads, but I still think there is a certain level of censorship at play. Naturally, any censorship that takes place on an anti-censorship discussion board is going to be much more subtle than other circumstances, so you can probably get away with it. I don't care if a decision to lock a thread is 90/10, legitimate/personal, as long as there are personal feelings involved, its still censorship. If you're not censoring, then perhaps you should think twice the next time you decide to click the thread locking button without first trying to put the conversation back on track or giving a detailed explanation for the reasons that it's being locked.
TheFlyingBastard
New Member
VyckRo has a thread which counters the idea that this is some kind of totalitarian censorship.
Prolescum
New Member
TheFlyingBastard said:
JB17 isn't really saying it's totalitarian, and VyckRo suffers from hyperbolic plague. This thread should, at the very least, give pause for contemplation for those it concerns, which is always a good thing. If it doesn't, well, that speaks volumes too.
borrofburi
New Member
Yes, but you seem to be the only one. Moreover, I'm pretty sure most of us browse by "view active topics" anyway.JustBusiness17 said:
This thread is also one in which you seem to be the only one... Moreover, I've noticed you've long since dropped the "it's not community run!" argument in favor of "it should be better even if I'm the only one to say so!"
I do, however, think that you perhaps make a valid point: in the ideal world, we would say "hey, calm the hostility down guys, take it to PMs, or the thread will be locked" more often and then waiting a little bit longer before locking the thread (if hostility continues). But is that your only complaint? You seem to have others, but they all seem to either be the same thing, or boil down to "you didn't agree with me"; am I misunderstanding? Perhaps you could be clearer?
Indeed, it is hard for me to see this as censorship having played in a calvinist forum for a while where about 1/4th my posts were deleted within a couple hours of my posting them; and potentially all of them now, because I "mocked" the admins (I was actually pointing out an argument was invalid due to faulty logic by switching some nouns around (such that they either admit the logic was wrong, or my argument concluding bad things was right, they did neither by deleting it instead)), and it's actually in their calvinist rules that you will not contest a moderation decision (I could not abide), combined with criticism of the site owner and primary admin (considered "bad attitude" and thus against the rules, though criticizing them was not explicitly against the rules) was a permaban offense, and they potentially deleted everything after I left.Aught3 said:
In summary, I do not see locking as the grave offense you seem to.
Eh, but it's not true, I still see Schrodinger's Finch drop by rather occasionally, and MikeFoz as well. Gnug and Squawk, last I knew, have forum moderation powers, and gnug does use them when required (though he primarily deletes spammers).Aught3 said:
TheFlyingBastard
New Member
Prolescum said:
k, just the censorship part then. Before VyckRo's return I knew nothing about the guy and he came in here blathering about how people here are afraid and claiming victory for a discussion he didn't have (lol). I mean, if one person is worth shutting up for being annoying it's him.
Never assume that everyone will agree with your point of view. Everyone has different perceptions and understanding of things.
Ex. A sees a stuff toy as something to give to a girl. B could see a stuff toy as her friend. C could see a stuff toy as that which represents the thing which she hates the most.
Let stuff toy represent your concepts, arguments, or ideas. A, B, and C would represent the different members of this forum. By analogy, this illustration is how things work.
Be tolerant and open minded. Learn to question your own knowledge and test if it is factual or just opinion.
Now I am of the opinion that you want everyone's attention and ask you not to leave. You are now giving a tantrum and testing if anyone cares for you. I'm sure that on some of your posts I even disagreed with you. That's reality, it's time to grow up. I am sure that you'll find no other place where people will scrutinize you more and at the same time treat you in a humane manner.
Whatever decision you make. The responsibility and the choice will be up to you. Just be conscious when you make it.
Ex. A sees a stuff toy as something to give to a girl. B could see a stuff toy as her friend. C could see a stuff toy as that which represents the thing which she hates the most.
Let stuff toy represent your concepts, arguments, or ideas. A, B, and C would represent the different members of this forum. By analogy, this illustration is how things work.
Be tolerant and open minded. Learn to question your own knowledge and test if it is factual or just opinion.
Now I am of the opinion that you want everyone's attention and ask you not to leave. You are now giving a tantrum and testing if anyone cares for you. I'm sure that on some of your posts I even disagreed with you. That's reality, it's time to grow up. I am sure that you'll find no other place where people will scrutinize you more and at the same time treat you in a humane manner.
Whatever decision you make. The responsibility and the choice will be up to you. Just be conscious when you make it.
borrofburi said:
Indeed. Same with kicking someone from the chat, which some of us had a debate about recently.
What I found out there is that some people REALLY take that seriously.
Why is it such a horrible thing that a thread gets locked?
borrofburi said:
I mostly delete spammers and approve new posters, and sometimes deal with complaints (and requests). Oh, and I'm also on the unofficial welcoming committee, not sure if that counts.
I have to be honest here and admit that I don't really read all that much. I simply don't have the time, so I read selectively.
I certainly don't see any censorship around here, JB17. I don't see a mod team that muffles criticism or crushes dissenting voices. What I do see is a mod team that cracks down on a lot of silly, immature behaviour. Trolling, nonsense, personal flamewars, etc. And we have been extreeemely lax at times. Just look at how long we let someone like that Wazoo guy go on about how atheists deny God, or phi_tran's nonsense about evolution. I think I actually finally locked one of those threads, but it took a while because I'm probably too patient at times. I'm not always patient, which will show. Again, I don't have all the time in the world. Nor do many of the others on the mod team, and some might even have less patience than I do, which is quite fair, I think, since I have a bit too much.
I simply don't see the picture you're painting in your criticism. And all your business and democracy references leads me to believe that you have a perspective on this that, quite frankly, no one else here does.
JB17, your complaints seem to me... well, if not entirely unjustified, then at least wholly exaggerated.
DeathofSpeech
New Member
First... let's get past the misappropriation of the whole "free speech" censorship issue.
This is a private service run by people who invested significant of their time into it and have the desire that it reflect their intention that it be useful for the purpose they intend.
That the site represents reason and expression of diverse opinion, requires a balance between acceptable forms of expression and moderation to enforce limits on just how much thread crapping can happen before a thread no longer is useful for discussion of a topic.
Finding moderators who have the time to add to the initial investment, can be trusted to understand and represent that investment, and who have a cool and measured response in dealing with people is no easy feat. Their decisions are seldom popular with those they are forced to moderate.
If you feel that a site (any site) is unfair or misrepresentative of their intention then your best recourse is to set up your own site and moderate it as you think best.
In doing this you will inevitably learn that the very best strategy for moderation is to do nothing... provided that doing nothing does not cause your site to no longer reflect the purpose for which you have set it up... which is to say, that no matter how tolerant you are of argument, someone will always find a cause to complain that that tolerance is not broad enough to suit them.
Your characterization of the people who made the initial investment as not being accountable is incorrect. It implies that they should be accountable to you, and that they are not otherwise accountable. Correctly stated, these folks are accountable to their own conscience and not to anything else, so they are in fact accountable. The fact that they are not accountable to you, or anyone else in particular, is true but irrelevant. Their house, their rules. If you don't find the rules acceptable and voicing your opinion does not meet with a revision of those rules, then your recourse is to set up your own site.
This posting just makes you look terribly butt-hurt. It does nothing to argue that those who invested their time should have invested it more to your liking.
This is a private service run by people who invested significant of their time into it and have the desire that it reflect their intention that it be useful for the purpose they intend.
That the site represents reason and expression of diverse opinion, requires a balance between acceptable forms of expression and moderation to enforce limits on just how much thread crapping can happen before a thread no longer is useful for discussion of a topic.
Finding moderators who have the time to add to the initial investment, can be trusted to understand and represent that investment, and who have a cool and measured response in dealing with people is no easy feat. Their decisions are seldom popular with those they are forced to moderate.
If you feel that a site (any site) is unfair or misrepresentative of their intention then your best recourse is to set up your own site and moderate it as you think best.
In doing this you will inevitably learn that the very best strategy for moderation is to do nothing... provided that doing nothing does not cause your site to no longer reflect the purpose for which you have set it up... which is to say, that no matter how tolerant you are of argument, someone will always find a cause to complain that that tolerance is not broad enough to suit them.
Your characterization of the people who made the initial investment as not being accountable is incorrect. It implies that they should be accountable to you, and that they are not otherwise accountable. Correctly stated, these folks are accountable to their own conscience and not to anything else, so they are in fact accountable. The fact that they are not accountable to you, or anyone else in particular, is true but irrelevant. Their house, their rules. If you don't find the rules acceptable and voicing your opinion does not meet with a revision of those rules, then your recourse is to set up your own site.
This posting just makes you look terribly butt-hurt. It does nothing to argue that those who invested their time should have invested it more to your liking.
Master_Ghost_Knight
New Member
I can not say that this comes to me as a surprise (I'm starting to get a bad reputation of this), but there are somethings that need to be said.
You started of by saying that the fofrum had excessive censorship and endout saying that it had to litle and missguided censorship. Well which one is it?
There is a been a common topic about condescenting people in regards to this forum to genericly blame its problems on the League of Reason, or to adress it as they, or them. There is no "they" or "them", the League of Reason is an aninanimated thing, it is a piece of software in a computer, the people participating in it are the ones who makes it controversial, funy, condescending or whatever it is you see it to be and that is it, noone can claim to be the League of Reason there are only participants.
About the management and censorship, I have to say that from my experience this is by far the most open forum I have ever had the pleasure to articipate in. How many boards you see out there with an all section dedicated to sugestions resulting in a almost emediate introduction of features?
Here to see a topic locked is a rarity, on other boards I have been topics are being locked on the daily basis, I know I have moderate a few and it did get to me when someone else locked a topic for frivolous reasons.
I do have to admit that on several instances when I am replying to a particularly frustrating topic and the day hasn't gone very well, I get to simply spew whatever comes to my mind giving an answer apropriate of a jerk (I do apologise for that). On any other forum I would have been suspended by now much less go by without a warning. But the thing is, here I get to say whatever I think, and you can't call censorship on that.
And it didn't had to be like this, you don't pay to participate in the forum, none of us do. You are living on someone elses house, eating someone elses food by someone elses rules, you don't get to demand comodities. Some people, you included get to scream censorship and cry as they throw themselves on the ground. You don't know what censorship means. If AndromedasWake decided tommorow to delete my acount and all of my posts (because I was for instance giving harmfull advice) I would have been upset, but that wouldn't be censorship because it's his house, his rules and he gets to decide who he lets in to his house. And he has the damn right to throw me out of his house if I shit on his carpet. Censorship is when someone else shits on your carpet and they get to throw you out of your own house.
So relax, have a beer and don't cry like a baby just because you don't allways get what you want.
You started of by saying that the fofrum had excessive censorship and endout saying that it had to litle and missguided censorship. Well which one is it?
There is a been a common topic about condescenting people in regards to this forum to genericly blame its problems on the League of Reason, or to adress it as they, or them. There is no "they" or "them", the League of Reason is an aninanimated thing, it is a piece of software in a computer, the people participating in it are the ones who makes it controversial, funy, condescending or whatever it is you see it to be and that is it, noone can claim to be the League of Reason there are only participants.
About the management and censorship, I have to say that from my experience this is by far the most open forum I have ever had the pleasure to articipate in. How many boards you see out there with an all section dedicated to sugestions resulting in a almost emediate introduction of features?
Here to see a topic locked is a rarity, on other boards I have been topics are being locked on the daily basis, I know I have moderate a few and it did get to me when someone else locked a topic for frivolous reasons.
I do have to admit that on several instances when I am replying to a particularly frustrating topic and the day hasn't gone very well, I get to simply spew whatever comes to my mind giving an answer apropriate of a jerk (I do apologise for that). On any other forum I would have been suspended by now much less go by without a warning. But the thing is, here I get to say whatever I think, and you can't call censorship on that.
And it didn't had to be like this, you don't pay to participate in the forum, none of us do. You are living on someone elses house, eating someone elses food by someone elses rules, you don't get to demand comodities. Some people, you included get to scream censorship and cry as they throw themselves on the ground. You don't know what censorship means. If AndromedasWake decided tommorow to delete my acount and all of my posts (because I was for instance giving harmfull advice) I would have been upset, but that wouldn't be censorship because it's his house, his rules and he gets to decide who he lets in to his house. And he has the damn right to throw me out of his house if I shit on his carpet. Censorship is when someone else shits on your carpet and they get to throw you out of your own house.
So relax, have a beer and don't cry like a baby just because you don't allways get what you want.
JustBusiness17
New Member
Meh... If people want to think this is about some desire for attention, let it be. For a more accurate understanding, I direct people at my record... I'm a person who happens to be passionate about business (in particular, marketing). I believe that I've detected an incongruence between what LoR portrays itself to be and what it actually is. Perhaps I'm a little too sensitive to these things, but when it happens in a rationalist community, I don't think it's exceptional to point it out! Integrity is something worth striving for and I've noticed a discrepancy between what LoR advertises itself as and what it actually is. If people want to think I'm complaining for attention (which is perfectly understandable) then by all means, point it out. But I hope that you consider all the other reasons that I might be complaining as well - it's only rational!
Edit: The redundancy highlights my point
Edit: The redundancy highlights my point
australopithecus
Active Member
For someone who left you sure seem to be posting a lot.
JustBusiness17
New Member
Only in this thread :geek:australopithecus said:
PS: I subscribed to it
australopithecus
Active Member
Kind of irrelevant though isn't it. The thread is on the forum, you claimed to be leaving the forum. Posting in one thread only in this instance is akin to saying "I'm going to give up fast food...........except KFC". It's not a criticism, just an observation. If I had ,£1 for everyone I've seen storm off a forum after making a big deal about leaving only to reply a few days later I could buy a fair few dvds.
DeathofSpeech
New Member
JustBusiness17 said:Only in this thread :geek:australopithecus said:
PS: I subscribed to it
You subscribed to a thread on a forum that you've made much foot-stomping about leaving?
So, does that validate your announcement that you must leave for your own good conscience more, or less credible?
Is there a point to protracting your stay?
If you were making a decision to leave on ethical grounds, what does that say about the ethics of remaining to argue other than as self validation?
What purpose does this thread serve?
borrofburi
New Member
Hmm, so you're saying we can flood the thread *and* your inbox?JustBusiness17 said:Meh... If people want to think this is about some desire for attention, let it be. For a more accurate understanding, I direct people at my record... I'm a person who happens to be passionate about business (in particular, marketing). I believe that I've detected an incongruence between what LoR portrays itself to be and what it actually is. Perhaps I'm a little too sensitive to these things, but when it happens in a rationalist community, I don't think it's exceptional to point it out! Integrity is something worth striving for and I've noticed a discrepancy between what LoR advertises itself as and what it actually is. If people want to think I'm complaining for attention (which is perfectly understandable) then by all means, point it out. But I hope that you consider all the other reasons that I might be complaining as well - it's only rational!
Edit: The redundancy highlights my point
So err, care to address my post, specifically the questions in it? I'm trying to understand, but I don't see it.
Lallapalalable
New Member
Thats probably the most realistic phrasing for the 'If I had x y's I could buy z' saying.australopithecus said:
I usually hear something that grossly exaggerates it, and this was a tad refreshing.
ImprobableJoe
New Member
The nice thing about NOT starting a "goodbye" thread, (especially one where you refuse to ever fucking leave!) is that when if you decide to come back you just start posting again. I got sick of this place, so I took a few months off. Didn't say anything, didn't post a "suck it League of Reason, I'm leaving!" thread, I just stopped posting.
Then, when I was don't being sick of this place, I just came back and started posting again. Didn't say anything, didn't post a "I'm back, so suck it League of Reason" thread, I just started posting again.
Life is so much better when you toss out the drama. This is the Internet, it isn't even a series of tubes, so who gives a shit what happens here? If posting somewhere, or whatever other online activity you partake of, makes you feel happy or fulfilled then do it. If it doesn't add something positive to your life, then stop. Just don't make such a big deal out of everything... real life is your friends and family, your hobbies and interests, and can include the Internet but really shouldn't focus on it...
Says the Lime Tord. :facepalm:
Then, when I was don't being sick of this place, I just came back and started posting again. Didn't say anything, didn't post a "I'm back, so suck it League of Reason" thread, I just started posting again.
Life is so much better when you toss out the drama. This is the Internet, it isn't even a series of tubes, so who gives a shit what happens here? If posting somewhere, or whatever other online activity you partake of, makes you feel happy or fulfilled then do it. If it doesn't add something positive to your life, then stop. Just don't make such a big deal out of everything... real life is your friends and family, your hobbies and interests, and can include the Internet but really shouldn't focus on it...
Says the Lime Tord. :facepalm: