SoloHQ: Forum

Forum

Post 0

Tuesday, June 14 - 2:51pm

Link

Edit

I'm 'out of the loop' for a few days, and there's another bustup, complete with people leaving, hurt feelings, and bitter words written.

WHAT THE FUCK?!

I would like to take this opportunity to refer everyone back to Lindsay's article Seven Deadly Sins, in particular Sin #1:

Gratuitous and premature umbrage-taking

Now, David's original post was outright offensive - the act of reading it was in fact unpleasant to me, and I wasn't the target of his diatribe. Joe 'moderated' David, which in my opinion was admirably tolerant - if SOLO was mine, I'd have insulted him back and kicked him off permanently.

You'd think the issue would rest there. David would realise that he'd overstepped the bounds with his post, and shortly be returned to unmoderated status.

But no.

Instead people get their noses out of joint and insults start flying. Sin #1 is committed all over the place, and often on behalf of other people!

In particular, complaints are directed at Lindsay for expressing his opinions on the matter in his ususal high-volume, high-tempereature style. Unsurprisingly, the kind of person with the personality to drive a project like SOLO, FreeRad, etc. etc. forwards isn't the kind of person to mince words when one of his friends & colleagues is insulted on his own site, so he fires back with both barrels.

Then things really break down, with Kelly and Jennifer departing, which is a bloody shame, as I greatly enjoyed your presence here. You will be missed.

However ...

If I had simply upped-stumps and left every time a friend, loved one, family member, employer, colleague etc. etc. insulted me & made my blood boil, I'd be living in a fucking cave in the wilderness, talking to rocks and making love to stray sheep (we're talking New Zealand wilderness here).

We're trying to change the world with great ideas here people. SOLO is intended to be a place of greatness, and most of the time, it is. One can visit this site, participate in dialogue, read articles, admire artwork, think, and feel one's spirit SOAR.

This is not one of those times >:-(

Arguing

Post 1

Tuesday, June 14 - 3:14pm

Link

Edit

Duncan Bayne lucidly noted:

If I had simply upped-stumps and left every time a friend, loved one, family member, employer, colleague etc. etc. insulted me & made my blood boil, I'd be living in a fucking cave in the wilderness, talking to rocks and making love to stray sheep...

...or in my case, cows. Mmmmmoooooooooo!

I totally agree with this observation. I really hope we can develop more clarity up front with all newcomers here regarding the forms of benevolence -- civility, sensitivity, generosity -- expected in exchanges so this never happens again. Perhaps we need to have some sort of "code of honor" to which all new and current SOLO members need to agree in order to gain posting privileges.

Although not directly implementable in this format, I think it interesting to share that in Toastmasters Clubs, current members of a club vote on whether to accept a new member or not. Due to various laws and threats of lawsuits, this process proves necessary so that a club can later vote to expel a troublesome member. Without such an "induction" vote, expelling destructive members becomes much harder. If and when SOLO ever formalizes itself as a corporation, this issue will definitely need addressing clearly.

Post 2

Tuesday, June 14 - 3:32pm

Link

Edit

I suggest everyone take this as a learning experience and cherish your fellow SOLOists and what they have to offer and not take it for granted.

Jim

Post 3

Tuesday, June 14 - 3:33pm

Link

Edit

Duncan,

I largely agree with your posts, especially this part:

�If I had simply upped-stumps and left every time a friend, loved one, family member, employer, colleague etc. etc. insulted me & made my blood boil, I'd be living in a fucking cave in the wilderness, talking to rocks and making love to stray sheep (we're talking New Zealand wilderness here).�

Yes, hard lesson to learn in life.

I want to emphasize though that it doesn�t make the insult right, whichever party it comes from, or to whomever it is targeted. We are constantly asking people to empathize with Lindsay�s �unusual high-volume, high-temperature style�, yes, no problem for me. However, conversely, should we also ask Lindsay (and everyone) to empathize with Jennifer�s style and feelings? Please ask that question.

I still think the situation can be salvaged, or at least the part that�s salvageable. Because Lindsay is the one who has the clout, then he has to be the one who can mend - before it is too late.

Hong

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 6/14, 3:47pm)

Post 4

Tuesday, June 14 - 3:33pm

Link

Edit

This could be mostly automated. The process could go:

1. A new member Bob signs up.
2. His posts are moderated.
3. Once at 50 posts, a link to "new member vote - Bob" appears on the front page, which only existing members can see and visit.
4. This page, automatically generated, contains links to all 50 of Bob's posts, and a yes / no vote.
5. Once, say, 50 existing members have voted, the vote is closed.
6. If the majority have voted yes, Bob is removed from moderation, and sent an automated acceptance message.
7. If the majority have voted no, the moderators are notified, and Bob is kept on moderation. Once he's posted another 50 posts, the process is repeated.

Thoughts? Obviously the numbers above are illustrative, rather than an actual proposal.

Post 5

Tuesday, June 14 - 4:17pm

Link

Edit

I think Duncan has the right idea. Perhaps this could become an ongoing part of a person's profile -- a moderation scorecard in which other members can sanction or unsanction that person's freedom to post without moderation. This would be a different score than the current Atlas points score.

Understand that I merely suggest this as food for thought for that time in the future when SOLO becomes its own entity separate from the current owners. Of course, if those owners think this or a similar idea worthy of test, perhaps they can say so here.

I only hesitate because it smacks of simple majority rule rather than judicious rule.

Post 6

Tuesday, June 14 - 4:40pm

Link

Edit

I for one don't think Jennifer's "umbrage taking" was at all gratuitous. She doesn't own the site but she contributed more of value than most posters, and her contributions have been appreciated by many who are now responding to her farewell message. She deserves much better than to be insulted in the way that she has been - it's not like she defended Elmore's garbage, all she did is ask a couple of honest questions. That doesn't change the fact that it's Linz and Joe's site, and they can treat people any way they wish - but people who aren't happy with their treatment can leave.

I agree with Hong, it would be wonderful if this could all be mended, though it seems there's sadly little hope of that.

Post 7

Tuesday, June 14 - 4:45pm

Link

Edit

I don't think Jennifer's umbrage taking was gratuitous, either. I think Lindsay did, in fact, insult her.

I think people taking offence on Elmore's behalf is, in fact, gratuitous.

I also think Jennifer should reconsider leaving SOLO on the basis of being insulted - does that really outweigh the benefits she sees from being here?

FWIW though, that might be coloured by my desire to have her return.

Post 8

Tuesday, June 14 - 4:53pm

Link

Edit

What is really sad is that it's not that hard to mend. Really.

Most people who keep on dumping on David Elmore hardly followed the whole exchange between David and Joe which spilled over into Joe's next article. Like I have said before, that explains, but doesn't justify, David's behavior.

Then came the charges brought against David in public and the general feeling that David was getting moderated because Joe, and not someone else, was the target. This escalated things too quickly, and I do not blame David for feeling like the primary goal of the whole moderation scheme, including its announcement on a thread, was to humiliate him. I'm sure that a polite conversation before moderation would have had a different effect. But now, even the proprietors have made their pride a public issue.

Then people who wanted to understand the justice in what happened get told in the most impolite terms to bugger off.

All that is needed to fix this is some private conversation. David's moderation can be viewed as sufficient punishment and fair warning, and the apology can be made optional. Jenny can be told that she wasn't the subject of the insults,or given an apology. All in private.

No need for soap operas!

Post 9

Tuesday, June 14 - 5:35pm

Link

Edit

Originally, the whole Atlas system was supposed to be like a vote. If someone puts up something that you think is good, then you sanction them and they get a vote. If someone puts up something that sucks and makes the site worse, you unsanction them and they lose half a vote. Anyone who has a net contribution of at least +10 is unmoderated, and everyone else who has not yet earned that remains moderated. Unfortunately, the sanction/unsanction was abused horribly, so we took out the unsanction feature.

The problems were that people would go back and unsanction anything and everything that their enemies had ever posted to try to punish them, and also automatically unsanction anything and everything that their enemies post in the future. Another problem was that people would go through and sanction old posts of other people just because they thought that the other person was being unjustifiably attacked. The other problem was that we didn't have any way to display posts that were negative (had more unsanctions than sanctions), so sometimes people would be unsanctioned unjustifiably (according to most others) but no one would realise it, so they couldn't correct it.

I'm thinking about adding the unsanction back in so that horrible posts can be really punished and people can know that what they have posted is not appreciated. But to fix the problems above, I think that unsanctions need to be limited to 24 hours of the original post time, sanctions on posts should be limited to a week, and we need an icon to show posts that have received unsanctions. That way, if someone is unsanctioned, someone else can think that it's not justified and try to correct it. This would be a sort of free market of moderation. As it is now, with sanctions flying fast and loose, and no way to unsanction, we are having huge "sanction inflation", and basically anyone and everyone is out of moderated status within a couple of days, almost, and no way for bad behavior down the line to be punished without the extreme and controversial action of us actually placing someone on moderated status.

Any thoughts?

Post 10

Tuesday, June 14 - 5:55pm

Link

Edit

Jeff, you and I have similar thoughts as I caught myself mulling today about how to resurrect a more objectively useful system of sanctioning and unsanctioning. I think the time frames you specify fall within the bounds of reason and that, over time, you can fine tune those bounds.

For an icon of unsanction, we need something like an anti-Atlas. Perhaps a classic of Greek art representing evil. Can someone name a figure of ancient Greece who represented disvalues and garnered artistic representation?

Will your proposed limit on sanctions apply only to forum posts or to all submissions, including articles, gallery items, etc.?

Please also read the thread Nathan Hawking started on "Suggestions for Moderation Procedure." I encourage you and the other staff to consider an Ombudsman position to assist with conflict resolution.

Post 11

Tuesday, June 14 - 5:55pm

Link

Edit

My first thought is, how much would unsanctioning punish? Too much and it might dissuade people from bringing up controversial ideas. Just imagine how many unsanctions would have gone out over the rape thread when the discussion was anything but rational. Sanctions are fun and I like them, but I honestly don't think they're a good way to free-marketize moderation. Like you said, in the past unsanctions weren't used rationally. There is no indication that they ever will be.

P.S. What would an unsanction look like? Atlas drops the world?

Post 12

Tuesday, June 14 - 5:57pm

Link

Edit

Jeff:

Originally, the whole Atlas system was supposed to be like a vote. If someone puts up something that you think is good, then you sanction them and they get a vote. If someone puts up something that sucks and makes the site worse, you unsanction them and they lose half a vote. ...

I'm thinking about adding the unsanction back in so that horrible posts can be really punished and people can know that what they have posted is not appreciated. ...

Any thoughts?

Jeff, I started a thread with a suggestion for a moderation mechanism. My concern with making moderation and negative assessments a group function is that group blowups will tend to happen MORE often, not less.

If an elected committee had been in place, and had handled the matter less publicly (even if not invisibly), I doubt the present atmosphere of randor and tension would exist.

Bad behavior needs to be disciplined. No doubt about that. But there are ways which will tend to create less strife, if my view.

I think the "sanction" feature adds a positive flavor to the group. I think an "unsanction" feature will only detract from this, introducing an element of negativity--not unlike the "thou shalt pass (negative) judgment" denunciatory culture of other Objectivist groups.

Nathan Hawking

Post 13

Tuesday, June 14 - 5:58pm

Link

Edit

There would be no time limit on sanctioning gallery items (articles, book reviews, movie reviews, etc). For an icon, I was thinking of something simple like a skull or just an Atlas with a no smoking circle-slash in front of it.

Post 14

Tuesday, June 14 - 5:59pm

Link

Edit

Luke:

Please also read the thread Nathan Hawking started on "Suggestions for Moderation Procedure." I encourage you and the other staff to consider an Ombudsman position to assist with conflict resolution.

Definitely worth considering!

NH

Post 15

Tuesday, June 14 - 6:56pm

Link

Edit

I think the issue of moderation and banning is becoming unnecessarily complicated. Besides, I think such issues should be left to Solo's owners, not to a majority of its members. I certainly don't want the obligation to read endless posts to make decisions about who should be moderated, who should be banned; and who should be accepted as a member; and such procedures would take the heart out of Solo's free-wheeling attitudes. Wouldn't it be simpler for a policy of NO PERSONAL INSULTS: INSULT ONE -- YOU ARE MODERATED; INSULT TWO -- YOU ARE BANNED to be established?

Barbara

Post 16

Tuesday, June 14 - 7:06pm

Link

Edit

Barbara - interesting idea, but then there would have to be a special exemption for Linz.

Post 17

Tuesday, June 14 - 7:19pm

Link

Edit

To all:
I have a suggestion. Why don't we all ban whomever we don't like. I didn't read David's response to Joe's article because I had stopped reading him a while before that. I'd had enough of his rationalism and just plain nasty comments.

So, if you are insulted by someone one too many times, or if you are sick of reading someone's posts, well, just stop. I've done that to several posters in the past and, with one exception, they have all left. With that one exception, I found that others continued to post responses to this person, so I went back to reading their posts.

If you stop responding to people, eventually they give up and go away. And if they don't, well you don't have to read them.

Thanks,
Glenn

Post 18

Tuesday, June 14 - 7:21pm

Link

Edit

I'm posting the following on several relevant threads:

I wonder at the message these public feuds are transmitting to the world. They seem to be saying that being an Objectivist -- like being in love -- means never having to say you're sorry.

Post 19

Tuesday, June 14 - 7:24pm

Link

Edit

I am deeply saddened by the recent events -- but I feel, as Luke does, that this crisis is a real opportunity (to put heads together, brainstorm, offer our best ideas, etc). I normally have a lot to say about these kinds of matters, but I'd rather not at the moment -- my emotions are still running too high. All I have to offer, for now, is an idea for the no-sanction icon, which Jeff suggested:

Yes, that's who you think it is.
Ed

WTF?