The Moderator Mission
 

(In a message written to the moderators of this site, I have laid out my expectations for them as we continue forth from our "State of the TFP" discussion. I've decided that this is relevant for sharing and the users of this site will also learn what is expected of them. This holds everyone accountable for their role in making this site what it is and their role in shaping it as we move forward.)


Dear TFP staff,

I've taken it upon myself to talk with as many members and past members as I could over the last few days and I have a good idea of where we are and where we need to be. Honestly, where we are is irrelevant. Where we need to be is what it has always been, but I feel the need to reiterate it to provide a clear example on how to better take care of the board. At the risk of sounding righteous, I want you all to know how serious I am about what this forum is.

The essence of the TFP is free speech without fear of discrimination. This means that we must harbor OPINIONS, no matter how different or counter-establishment they are. We must enforce MATURE conversation and understanding. Polarization, right/wrong, left/right, and disrespect will have no place here. All that matters is expression, sharing, and respect.

Your position is not any easy one any more. I hope you all understand how the site has worked in the past, so that you can contrast it to the policies I am about to lay out. The efforts involved will yield an incredible product, and not only a heap of respect from myself, but from the thousands of users who are and will be browsing this website.

The foremost point in all of this is the issue of free speech. Learning to recognize an opportunity for discussion is key to your task. Shutting down a conversation will now be a last resort when all possible hopes of salvaging mature discourse have failed. I hope not too many threads will end in lockdown, because what we do during the course of a discussion has a great deal of influence on how it ends up.

Members exhibiting polarizing and directed aggressions will be counseled. As we approach an election year, there will be all too many exchanges about political parties and what is wrong with them. It is our job to shape these threads to become more enlightening to all readers. Assaults on blathering personalities will become discussions on their impacts. Mockeries of inane policies will become insights on their meanings and conjectures on the freedoms they affect.

There are other forums on the internet devoted to bare-knuckled opinion brawling. We can be different. While many users simply desire a soapbox and an audience to dispense their rhetoric to, we must have them accept the views of others. No user will be right, correct, justified, or certified with his or her knowledge of any issue. The result is that EVERYTHING is up for debate and discussion. The product is growth. The trend is evolution.

Your responsibility as a moderator is difficult because the most basic human motivation is the need to be right. It involves interaction, listening, and diplomacy. It involves the same correspondence I have had with many users recently; calling them into chat, email exchanges, and instant messaging. It is a full-contact position and it's very important.

I've heard a lot recently about the TFP being "just an internet site." These comments are good to take into heart when people are at eachothers' throats or when you want to distance yourself from the events that are transpiring. However, we have to realize that we have a mission and we have to realize that our cause is very relevant. If we let our guard drop regarding the pride of the TFP, then we might as well let ourselves get assimilated by the other, more active and more populated communities on the net.

It's hard to be of a different mind in today's world. It's hard to be yourself. We have to be champions of our future; to evolve where others resist.

This is the Tilted Forum Project. Welcome.

Good ideas, but I think you're in for trouble in the politics board. You cannot expect someone who is firmly against abortion to understand or respect someone who is for it. You cannot expect someone who is gung-ho for the war in Iraq to have his opinion accepted by someone who is against it. It's simply not going to happen.

I think that if these ideas are strictly enforced, especially on the politics forum, we'll end up with a bad example of a discussion tournament from the high school speech team. Most of the conversation will be spent with platitudes such as "I respect and admire your opinion that X subject is black. Let's try to see how we can make that work with this guy's opinion that it is white." Such discussion is disingenuous because it is inherently false. Republicans do not respect the opinions of a democrat who disagrees with them and vice versa, and you know what? That's ok. Why force people to have to pretend and sugarcoat what they say when that isn't reality? I think you should enforce an underlying respect for the *person* without worrying so much about respect for all of their ideas. Where I come from, we're not so bloody sensitive that we'll go running home crying if someone tells us "sorry, but you're dead wrong here."

All it takes is....Three Little Words:


" In My Opinion"

and a bit of maturity

In my opinion, you're an idiot for thinking that it's that simple...

Okay, so it lacked maturity but I think it still demonstrates my point...

Unfortunately, I think Halx's suggestions are neither possible nor desirable. They're laudable goals but as shakran has suggested, there are many topics (many of which will be the more interesting ones on this forum) are intensely important to the participants and they're going to debate their positions vehemently.

For instance, I hope I demonstrated (with playful glib which I hope is obvious) above that the mere words "in my opinion" is simply not enough. People feel that if their opinion is attacked then they're attacked and that position is not entirely unwarranted.

"I think drugs should be legalized."
"You're an idiot"

This is obvously unacceptable. However, how about attacking their position instead?

"I think drugs should be legalized."
"Anyone who thinks that drugs should be legalized is an idiot and here's why..."

Again, it's pretty transparent that someone is calling someone else an idiot. But if you feel that a position is foolish then the person who holds that position is going to feel that you're calling them foolish... mostly because you are! But that's the nature of disagreement. People are going to take some of these opposing positions personally, especially if the position is personal to them.

I think people should just grow up and not take other people's opposition so hard. Grow a "thicker skin," as it were. Personally, I think there should be less debates and more communication in an attempt to actually understand the other side but I've learned that I can't convince everyone (or even most people) to take this route. They'd rather be dead than red... I mean, wrong. They'd rather be dead than wrong so they must debate their side so that they can, at least, be plausibly "right." A foolish notion if I've ever heard one but... can I tell them that? I don't want to offend anyone....

My favourite example (and maybe I'm starting to ramble here) is if you're talking about yourself in an unfavourable light. Maybe a lot of people don't know this about me (even though I've brought it up a couple of times) but I'm a staunch defender of pedaphilic rights. Pedaphiles are not bad people and are totally villified in our society. Yet, I'm pretty sure that if anyone wanted to talk about their pedaphilic inclinations or even anything involving them that people will judge him harshly using, at least, the "non-insult" insults that I alluded to, above. Seriously, let me bring up how pedaphilia is legal and watch all the "slippery slope" arguments get thrown on the screen...

plus the fact that "in my opinion" does not apply to many arguments.

"In my opinion the Iraq war was started on false pretenses" not only is not true (it WAS started on false pretenses. Opinions have nothing to do with it. We don't say "In my opinion the sky is blue" because it IS blue. Opinion on sky color is irrelevant) but it destroys the strength of an argument.

In the above example, the false pretenses alegation is a FACT. Now, i should have to back up my claims when I say something is fact, but I should not have to turn that real fact into fake opinion.

I think "in my opinion" is redundant... of course it's your opinion, that's why you wrote it.

My only complaint during all of the "What is wrong with TFP" and "new forum" and "Let's get back to the goal" is the utter lack of disrespect some people are able to get away with when they direct it at someone that has an unpopular or "unenlightened" opinion. Either there are rules for how we interact, or there aren't. There should not be a double standard depending on if you are skewing towards a harmonizing, togetherness, open, happy enlightened viewpoint or not. That is absolute bullshit.

For what it's worth, I'm firmly against abortion but I do respect and (imho) understand the various pro-choice positions. That's my self-analysis, anyway.

I probably have - and show - a little less respect, though, for the obviously flawed, just plain bad arguments that exist on both sides of the debate.

A valid complaint. Thing is, as much as we try to avoid this, you guys need to remember that mods are people too. Sometimes something might not stick out to us upon first look, for whatever reason, but reporting the post can make us say "you know what, yeah, that's not acceptable."

If you see something that you think is in violation of the rules, please report the post. Reported posts go to ALL the mods, so it's much less likely for someone to get away with something due to a bias unintentionally clouding a mod's judgment.

The worst that happens if you report a post is that none of the mods think it requires action. It doesn't make you look bad, we don't get upset that we get the e-mails or anything like that. So don't hesitate to do it if you think something should be done.

A forum is the sum of its users, not of its mods and admins. This forum would be a very difficult one to mod as Hal (et al) wants to keep it as open and inviting as possible without it falling into a flamefest of immaturity. Depending on mods & admins to use their best judgement over having a clear set of rules places too much responsibility on the mods & admins. It also brings into play the many differing point of views that the mods & admins have. However, putting a set of rules in place can result in killing off the openness & discussion that is the ultimate goal of the forum.

An interesting task. You kids have fun with ya, ya'ear?

Feel free to ignore this post or tell me I'm full of it. I've been absent from TFP for quite some time now, coming back only when receiving Hal's email.

first, i thought the moderators mission was to recover 'tablet of the monkey king'.

second, it is possible, as we all know the tablet is located in the valley of fire past the jungle of despair... oh wait... wrong topic.

but seriously it can be done, if you read the back and forth between i and willravel in the 9/11 conspiracy thread, we never once called each other names, we still respect each other, we may have never gotten much of anywhere, but we did not resort to childish name calling.

Look, for a while the mods got a little out of control. I totally agree with that but these 'what's wrong' 'how do we save it' 'mods are teh evil' threads are getting really tedious. If people spent half of the time they spend on bitching about how things should be and instead posted something new there would be no problems.

It's going to take a bit of thick-skin growing, and a bit of respect for others, whether one agrees with their position on anything (politic included) or not.

I don't understand why folks feel free or more free to emotionally bludgeon others in the politics forum, but it's not acceptable there or anywhere else.

And a person's opinions are rarely changed by someone calling them a dumbass. But folks are more likely to listen to different viewpoints on an issue (and maybe even change their minds) if treated with respect, and the interaction is not just an excuse to roll in emotional vomit. I don't often see folks working to be persuasive in explaining their PoV, I see a lot of prideful, stiff-necked, self-indulgent posturing, trying to shout down others or filibuster the damn threads.

So I guess folks can either use the politics forum to lovingly and verbosely illustrate their preconceived and unchangeable positions, OR they can actually *Communicate* with others, get other's input and opinions and viewpoints and interpretations and share their own, to grow in understanding (if nothing else, in seeing how others see the same issues), and *gasp* evolve.

What happens if you don't respect the person or their position?

arguing ideas i think is acceptable -but belittling a person for having those ideas is not...

there's no reason to make any argument personal... and if people don't like their ideas being disagreed with - well no sulking - either do a better job articulating your point - or agree to disagree and move on - (my new favorite saying is the best part of beating your head against a brick wall - is stopping)

You use the back button.

What if I don't respect the Back button?

I'm pretty sure I heard it muttering pejoratives about my mother a couple of days ago.

::beats up carno's back button::

it'll be only say nice things about your momma from now on :D your sister, is another story :D

i think people really do know how to behave - imagine the person you are arguing with is sitting across from you - forum anonynimity tends to make people bolder thna they really are and they will say things they wouldn't say in real life. the person being debated with is a real person - just like you...

Uhh, to get back to the OP here, I don't think that's what you generally call a mission statement. It's sort of more like an email reminder, and it's not the most concise and usable document I've ever seen. Would you mind getting workshopped on it, Hal?

Here's my thought:

Google "mission statement" and use one of those resources to come up with a more effective (read: concise) statement. I am fully aware that this is not a business, nor does anybody around here own any 'shares' of the TFP. That said, certain widely used or "mainstream" things are widely used for a reason. I sometimes get the impression that too much pride in how the way we do things around here is different from the "mainstream" causes situations where we stubbornly do things a way that could use improvement. Most of the time, it is admirable that this is a different place; others, it can be frustrating. I don't think it would hurt to put together a real mission statement, and maybe even explore something along the lines of a strategic plan for how to implement it. (I don't think a full official strategic plan would be necessary though.)

Here are some examples of mission statements that work:

NOAA:

On the less technical (and verbose) side, there is also NPCA's:

Finally, there is Google's (also very concise):

--

I just get the idea that you're going more for effective than original with this particular endeavor, and maybe your approach should reflect that more.

You approach them with maturity, and debate their points.

Alot of you seem to think that what our leader is asking for is unreasonable. The point that should be taken is that we should try anyway. Does it make sense to give up on an idea simply because it is difficult? The struggle to reach reaps its own rewards. Likewise, cowering away does nothing. Which would you rather contribute to our community?

I think you all forget that this is how things used to be. And it worked fine.

Have you heard that saying, Never wrestle with a pig; you'll both get muddy, but the pig likes it?

I don't think anybody around here who has brought up this point is one to "cower" in one of those situations. I have witnessed a lot of members argue like brick walls and sit in the shade of the "use the back button" rule like pigs in the mud. If you want to call that debate, go ahead and stay deluded. The point some others have made about this in other threads is that it's getting tiring having to choose between leaving a discussion that might otherwise be engaging or wrestling with a pig.

I propose that my statement makes discussions more engaging.

Mal, it's a good point, but I don't think most people can live by this rule here. You said it yourself... being on a forum in and of itself lends itself to making online interaction very different from real-life interaction (especially for those who live online and have few social skills as a result). I'm not saying that everyone is like this, or that anyone *has* to be like this... but it's hard to get away from in this kind of setting. If only we all had individual webcams and live shots of everyone sitting there typing away behind their monitors, able to talk to each other through mics... maybe we'd treat each other differently then, lol. WoW meets TFP? :D

You nerd you.

I think, for my part, abaya has a point: it's always easier to treat those members you know with respect than those you don't. Meaning, those who have their pictures up or have shared some other piece of themselves besides their opinion on a given issue are more easily pictured as part of a bigger world--not just the narrow one of their opinion.

I know, right now, replying to abaya's post--I'm imagining her at her computer. Let's hope that it stops there ;)

I for one refuse to move into my parent's basement. My wife would resent it, the kid would most likely try to take dryer rides and the 1000 mile one way commute would drive me batshit crazy. :no:

How hard is it to ask people to be polite? That's the kernel of truth that I find at the center of this argument. And do we really need 4 threads going on that at the same time?

Is this in response to my suggestion for a more concise mission statement? I'm not sure if I should be shaking my head at an attempt to mock my suggestion, offering more suggestions to a person who just didn't quite get it, or assuming it's just a non sequitor.

A precise statement would direct TFP in the direction that Halx alone would like to see it go. By being somewhat vague, it is up for interpretation by individual members and potentially taking TFP in a direction that is just as desireable but not originally envisioned.

And yes, I know my spelling sucks.

There is something that I have wanted to say for a long time to those that are critical of the Politics forum that have rarely, if ever, participated there in the last year. I believe it is relevant to Hal's OP.

Politics earned it's vile reputation with the poor behavior of mods and members (myself included) a long time ago. In the last year or so, it is rare to see that type of behavior or to see a topic locked. I give full credit to the current mods that guide that forum and the many members that prefer respectful discourse. Mockery and disrepect for the person rather than the opinion is virtually gone.

In short, the Politics forum is one of the great successes of TFP and it is long overdue that we recognize it for what it is today, not what it was a year ago.

::jumps off soapbox, slips and falls::

SC: The second paragraph is my "mission statement" - everything else is intended to outline the specifics. My comment was simply to state that I think people are blowing it off because they don't see the value of it.

What I see in the community now is a love for carnal response. You think of something and post it without thought. Take Chimera's proposal for example. Instead of considering his views, the posters tear down his personality. This is not responsible posting.

I don't disagree with that statement but there are some posters who have such strong personalilties and rub some people the wrong way with said personality that it becomes very difficult to separate the person from the idea. And it's my personal belief that they want it that way.

There's one in particular who comes to mind - who would saiy the sky was blue and the politics crew would argue to the death that the sky was not blue no matter how their point was backed up)

This just reminds me of what shesus said in chat, about the little kids. The slapper is always the one to get punished when they finally lose it, despite the amount of unobserved provocation from the slapped. I appreciate that you are addressing that thread as if I wasn't one of those people tearing down his personality, but everyone knows I was, and I am not going to back down from what I said or agree that what I said should be poo-pooed.

I didn't say what I did about tecoyah/chimera because I had a funny idea and posted it without thinking. It wasn't a 'carnal' response. Maybe I could have said it in a more boring way, but the point would have been the same. If I was giving in to the desire to slap and not 'posting responsibly,' then it was because I've watching the same person contribute time after time without "responsible thinking" first.

Of course, I know what your response to me will be, you've already responded here: (LINK)

What you're describing as "social frustration" is certainly frustration, but not of the social variety. It is frustration with irresponsibile thinking. I don't think there's anything wrong with conflict if it means taking people to task when they are unwilling to stand behind their own ideas with rational discourse.

Argue the topic, not the person.

Your response is irrelevant to the topic I was discussing. It side-steps the issue, and inadequately addresses my concerns, at best.

You already said you knew how I was going to respond, so I didn't bother typing it out. My suggested solution is that you take what you know about a poster OUT of the equation when you comment on a post.

Hal, with all due respect, that's just never going to happen unless all posts are completely anonymous, which would seem to me to defeat the purpose of this board. What you're asking SC is to forget people that she know IRL and those she's gotten to know strictly through electronic means. While it might seem like a fantastic idea, no one here operates in a vacuum, and personal history is one of those constant influences that is impossible to eradicate unless you remove the personalities that are conflicting. Sorry, I just forget what I know about people. I'll subsitute my earlier suggestion of civility and stick by that.

Jazz, all I'm asking is that a post be judged on the merits of its content. I think it is a crucial step in growing as a community. I think we're too obsessed with personalities at the moment and we are forgetting that 1) people change, mature, grow, and adjust, and 2) even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then.

A person should not allow his/her knowledge of a poster dictate a response based solely on that knowledge. People have a way of surprising you when you least expect it.

it's actually be interesting to see what happened ifthe posts were anonymous - or at least hidden and see if that makes a differnce - granted some people have very specific writing styles but it'd be intriguing ...

Wait... I'm supposed to do what now?

Your response is STILL irrelevant to the topic I was discussing and side-steps the issue, not even attempting to address my concerns. Plus, you have just demonstrated that you yourself cannot do what you are suggesting that everyone else do, which is to take what you know about me out of the equation when you comment on a post. I linked that other response and then added a further point, which you haven't even acknowledged, let alone rebutted or supported. It appears that you haven't considered it at all.

The issue I brought up is that you are mixing up social friction and frustration with irresponsible posts. (I am using your own terminology to make this clearer.) Irresponsible posts are not the ones where we let our thoughts or emotions show too clearly (isn't that sort of what we want around here anyway?) - irresponsible posts are the ones where the poster does not have the courage or desire to take responsibility for what they said. Perhaps if we were allowed to call out irresponsible posts as we should be able to, I wouldn't have felt the need to respond to tecoyah/chimera's thread about participation by questioning his character. However, it's hard to have any thought when reading that thread but, 'Look who's talking!'

If you can think of a reasonable way to allow for this sort of idea to be expressed (because I think it's a perfectly reasonable idea), I will happily abandon my aggressive stance in this thread, go back into that thread and even apologize to him for bringing something up in the wrong venue. Until that day comes, this will likely continue to happen.