BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
I’ve seen these troll accounts, I have also seen other posters debate these trolls. I still see nothing that out of the ordinary, these trolls probably generate some traffic and hits for mises.org as well.
Youtube seems to be a pretty good success with some of the most annoying trolls ever, I still think we need to consider more limited moderation. I personally have never had to ignore anyone ever on a forum.
My whole argument is that a forum doesn’t have to be like a club or a dinner party, that in fact, the most well trafficked sites around are not moderated.
I agree with you to the extent that censorship is harmful to the interests of a community devoted to academic and philosophical exploration. However, I don’t think moderators are inherently a bad thing, provided that they’re there to serve a specific purpose. I also agree that many a moderator can be a petty tyrant. However, it largely depends on how moderation is managed. Leaving it down to users voting and flagging stuff for spam/trolling does work, which I am not denying. What I don’t follow is whether you think mods should be done away with entirely.
Look, if you are looking for an anything goes forum, then these 3 alternatives are just not going to be for you. If you want an anything goes forum, go create one. Meanwhile, the rest of us who want a place to talk with reasonable people - whether they agree with us or not - we will go to one or all of those 3 alternatives.
You know, for people who are supposed to understand subjectivism, you guys really have no idea what it actually means. You can call Youtube and Facebook successful. But successful at what? Do Blake, Wheylous, and Autolykos share the same ideas of success that you do? Certainly Youtube and Facebook are popular. But so what? If Autolykos doesn’t consider a popular anything goes forum his idea of a successful forum, then that will not be his goal. If you read his rules, you can see that his idea of a successful forum is a place where people can talk and debate ideas reasonably without dishonesty and insults.
Wheylous has almost no rules, but if you think you can post just anything, go try it and see what happens. And clearly Blake shares similar ideas as Autolykos.
Moderation has been inconsistent and heavy handed at times on here. It has probably been worse over the past year or so do to only a few active mods. Like Youtube these forums depend heavily on user reporting since unless the mod is reading the thread he doesn’t know if he is do anything.
This does not mean that moderation though per se is bad thing for the reasons outlined above. I think the main issue is what type of forum atmosphere we want. I favour robust and respectful which requires light moderation.
I feel I’ve made a strong case against the value of moderators, so it’s comforting to see at least a few people agree. Again, that was and is not the purpose of this thread.
I’m glad you guys intend to continue the mises forums legacy, but personally there are plenty of intellectual communities out there with status quo administrative philosophy which are already well established and well trafficked, and since I have no emotional attachment to anyone here I have no intentions of following you guys to an unestablished, niche forum with status quo administrative philosophy. Enjoy yourselves on those three forums, really.
Meanwhile, this thread still exists as a resource for gathering suggestions about how to build an improved community as successor to the mises forums.
Well I agree, and I’m in favor of having a few users with the mod ability. I’m just against them using it to police other regular users. (I’m flexible on policing new, unproven users.)
I don’t propose ignoring them. I propose being rude to them, but if I try that on a moderated forum, I’ll be banned myself long before the troll. So actually in a sense having mods disarms regular users and protects the trolls. And maybe it’s more efficient to have the mods remove them (certainly not as satisfying), but with having classic mods come other dangers. I’ve seen trolls and literal troll invasions, including on a unmoderated forum whose administrator had dissapeared from the face of the eart, but never have I seen a quality user leave because of trolls. I have seen that happen over a conflict with a mod however. So which is the greater threat, really?
By this point you’re just strawmaning me. I did say in my very first post here I see mods as a technical cleaning service to remove spambots.
That’s not even an argument anymore. That’s just saying things for the sake of saying things.
I don’t really care what Blake, Wheylous, Autolykos or Babe the Talking Piglet do on their forums. I’m supporting my argument that I believe unmoderated forums, unmoderated in the sense that regulars don’t police other regulars, work better and provide a better experience overall. We’re allowed to do that right, debate opinion, theory, ideas? You want us to shut up and go start our own forums? Whoah, what an effective argument. You’ve really swayed us with that one.
Speaking of straw manning people…
Perhaps you didn’t read the thread? The OP had this:
Or perhaps when he said later:
He also said:
And:
And:
What you might notice is that hashem was talking about the successor to these forums. I mentioned the three already created possible successors, and I talked about how those particular admins are running their forums. Eventually hashem came out and said that he no longer cares about staying with one of the successors, and you might have noticed that he said that after my post.
So, when I say something like:
That’s entirely relevant to the actual posts in this thread. Hashem repeatedly said that his suggestions were for the successor forum, and I said to someone who claimed to agree with hashem that these successor forums are not going to be for them, and that they should go create a forum the way they want to. Those admins don’t seem to want an anything goes. Wheylous will probably have the lightest moderation of them all, but nonetheless he has said there will be some moderation.
Now, you claim you are for some light moderation, but hashem has said he was against it, and my post was not directed at you but at someone who claimed to agree with hashem.
Your comment to me was injected in the middle of a conversation with hashem. So when you disagreed with me I assumed you were taking his side, and he seems to have shifted away from his original position of supporting moderating spam to an anything goes unmoderated Youtube style. It’s hard to say with hashem.
It was my mistake for thinking you were supporting hashem.
…I did not agree with Smiling Dave’s month long temp ban.
Wasn’t effectual. either. I just posted as RobinHood those 30 days.
Thanks for the support, lucky.
I managed to miss that ban. What was the reason?
Quotes? Either way, I’m not opposed to improving my stance as I learn, unlike some people around here. Optimally, I’d be for a forum tailored toward intellectuals, which literally allowed anyone to post anything, which would stress the importance of features allowing users to avoid being overwhelmed by bullshit. That will never happen because ultimately, governments moderate the internet and so you need bans on illegal content and maybe porn. I said I think creative solutions are better than force. Solutions lead to progress, whereas force parades as a solution while still being a threat because power corrupts, meanwhile the problem has no incentive to resolve itself. However, I did say that in the successor forums, I’d support moderating illegal content and nudity, and I stand by that.
It could be easier. A humble mind (in the sense that beliefs I openly take a stance on are firm and based on evidence, but I also acknowledge that it’s merely the least-wrong answer I’ve encountered) always in search of truth would be open to new ideas would know my mindset where I’m willing to change my stance as I learn. I don’t think I’ve conceded any points you’ve tried to make, if that’s what you’re implying.
Before I quote you, I’m going to redirect you to Clayton’s post about this nonsense.
Now for the quotes. Your original post contained:
In a later post:
And later:
Later in that post:
Still later:
You start off the thread with saying that you are against moderation with the one exception of removing spam (and illegal content). Then in a following post you say that all moderation is either bad or unneccessary. Then you say that Youtube allows anything (it does in fact allow spam and nudity and illegal content; there is plenty of IP violating content on Youtube that never gets moderated) and would like that system. So, in keeping with your general attitude against mods, it seems that you have changed your mind regarding your original post.
But like I said, it’s hard to tell with you.
Well, actually you said illegal content and spam, and seeing as you said you fully support Youtube’s style, and Youtube does allow in practice illegal content, spam, and nudity, it makes it very difficult to know what your position is. On the one hand you say you are against that stuff, but on the other you say you “invoke even the entire philosophy of youtube” where “you could post any video” and “comments…are unmoderated”.
But, since you are clearly stating now that you support moderating illegal content and nudity (but not spam, I guess you changed your mind on that?), I guess your beliefs are cleared up.
Wait, no they aren’t. Your long paragraph was a response to me saying that you “seem[ed] to have shifted away from [your] original position of supporting moderating spam”, and nowhere in your response to me do you state otherwise. In fact, you specifically invoke something in its place previously only mentioned once by another person entirely. Since you are giving me trouble over very specific claims you have made, I can only assume that this was intentional.
Thus I do not understand your objection.
He brought his idea up as a suggestion for the new forums, but it’s clear he became weary of this very early on, as he met so much opposition and called from early on for the topic to move past discussing the matter of moderation and move onto gathering and discussing other suggestions for the new forums. Therefore it should had been clear he was now only defending his idea because of how many challenges it recieved, as an intellectual exercise, and talking about a theoretical absence of moderation that he had no real expectation to see actually implemented at any of the successor forums. Ergo the calls for the matter to be sidelined and the focus to move onto other suggestions for the forums, not connected to moderation, at least some of which you quote:
He hates talking about moderation, he was actually looking forward to talking about other ideas about the new forums that may be gathered.
Again he de-emphasizes the importance of the moderation issue for him. He wants to talk about other suggestions for the new forums instead.
He tries to discourage debate on moderation that is too philosophical/theorethical and tries to keep focus on suggestions for the new undertakings, explaining that his idea on moderation is only one of such possible suggestions, coming from him based on his personal experiences with forums.
And judging by your hostile-looking reaction to his position which included calls for him to drop defending it and move onto a forum of his own instead, along with attempts at ridicule writen in all-caps, it seems if you were a mod on here he would be just about to win this debate as you look ready to snap on him.
I like how youtube lets you vote on posts and if a posts gets too many negative votes it defualts to hidden. I worry more about anarchists/austrians trolling non-anarchists/non-austrians more than the other way around honestly.
Some of the comments on voluntarist reader against Trembley I felt were borderline trolling/abusive.
It’s interesting that you would say that, Wibee, as I approved his early posts before he got the status to post without needing approval.
Just because you created an account three years ago doesn’t mean you’ve actually “been here” at all. You seem to show up every few months to bitch about something or pick a fight and be dickish for a couple weeks, and then leave again. You had exactly 5 posts in all of 2010. And you didn’t start posting in 2011 until August. You not hearing of certain people on this forum isn’t exactly saying much.
YouTube has a character limit of 500 per comment. Users of the site can easily flag comments and make them hidden with just a few votes. And most of all, the uploader of the video has complete moderation control of what appears in the comments. He can block (read: ban) any commenter he wants, delete any comment he wants at any time, and can even turn comments off altogether.
How in the hell you can liken this sort of literal monarchy of the comment space to your “anarchy” described earlier, I have no idea. (Unless of course you’re just that ignorant about how YouTube works, which is entirely possible.)
Okay I’m really leaning toward ignorance now.
:EDIT:
And, confirmed.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone more adamant about something they know less about. You officially lose any credibility as an “experienced Internet user” with valuable insight on how online interaction works out. You have literally proven you know virtually nothing about your own shining example of your alleged “anarchy”, the one you have invoked so many times and have essentially presumed to stand on this whole time. You evidently have no clue what you’re talking about.
No wonder your prescription is so ridiculous. You’re literally basing it on evidence that literally doesn’t exist. You evidently have never actually used Facebook or Reddit or YouTube, and just assumed they worked a certain way…and then formulated a conclusion about how communication in Internet webspace goes based on your completely false assumptions.
The idea that you come in here touting “15 years of experience” and yet apparently have not even the first clue about basic functionality of “the most well-trafficked, biggest discussion sites of all time” is just insane.
And this is also not to mention your other claims…first it was 4 years on the Mises Forum, then it was 3…and in actuality it’s more like 1. You are so full of shit it’s unbelievable.
Fuck you. Shame on you, dude. You’ve been an asshole to me since your first response ever, with few exceptions. I’ve definitely been here almost 4 years, anyone is welcome to see my comments. I’ve definitely been on the internet 15 years and active in countless forums/message boards/blogs/whatever.
If your only argument is that I’m wrong about YouTube then fuck off, loser. Unlike almost everyone here I’m perfectly comfortable admitting when I’m wrong, you don’t need to flip out on some irrelevant straw man red herring ad hominem rage induced rant; but I think if you look through the comments you’ll notice that I was…how do you say…under the impression that you can’t delete comments on youtube. I might have even used language like—oh wait, you quoted me, “I don’t think you can delete comments on youtube.”
No. However, you did misunderstand my position and misrepresent me leading you to draw an irrational conclusion arguing a straw-man red herring ad hominem. And I can’t blame you, that’s much easier than forming a real argument or contributing productive ideas. Really a guy who posts 6.5 thousand times to at least one forum in two years needs to take it easy sometimes, so I’m not offended, you just need to get a grip.
My argument isn’t that youtube absolutely, beyond any shadow of a doubt is utterly unmoderated. If youtube was relatively unmoderated as I thought, then it would support my case, but my case is by no means dependent on youtube. If you actually read my posts, I’m arguing that in my experience, moderation has been unnecessary (and usually abusive) at best, and just downright abusive the rest of the time. My argument is that in my vast experience, moderation is a bigger threat than trolls. My argument is that to the extent that trolls/spam are threats, they’re lesser threats than mods, and both potential threats can be overcome through creative progress-causing solutions instead of perpetuating the default “necessary evil” anti-solution charge of lazy ignorant masses throughout history, “sure, X has power that has a history of abuse, but X is necessary because we’re too lazy to cause progress by creating a solution that doesn’t depend on X.”
-
You’re arguing a straw man red herring. My prescription isn’t based on youtube, it’s based on my experience with mods and trolls/spam over 15 years on countless sites.
-
My conclusions aren’t about how internet discussions GO, that’s just your misrepresentation. My conclusions are about how the threats of mods and trolls/spam CAN and SHOULD be dealt with moving forward. Again, my (admittedly wrong) assumptions about youtube were supporting ideas, but I made it explicit my conclusions are based on my experience with mods and trolls/spam on many sites over many years. If you can delete comments on youtube then I have less supporting ideas, but that doesn’t diminish my experience that moderation is unnecessary and tends to be abusive, or my view that we can think of creative solutions to trolls/spam that don’t rely on “necessary evils” like mods.
That carries a lot of weight, coming from a guy who insists on misrepresenting my argument, Captain Red Straw Man Herring.
Speaking of dickish, this coming from the guy picking a fight arguing a straw man red herring to conclude that I’m “full of shit”.