New moderator

[Nile577]

I haven't had a response from Russell yet (or indeed, in this thread, from Scourge). Are Seditious, OldScratch, Cythraul etc. willing to stand? I am keen to resolve this as quickly as possible. In short: if you are willing to moderate the forum, please sign below.

 

[Russell]

Hey, sorry for my lack of reply - I have finals starting Tuesday and have little time to do anything right now.

Once a consensus is reached and all regulars have agreed I'll make a change - I can take you off now Nile577 if you so wish. Merely from a website and moderation point of view I'd suggest a neutral moderator is preferable; if you have a vociferous moderator with strong viewpoints - especially in a forum like this where the idea is open debate - their position of authority can give that viewpoint an 'official seal of approval' or a more powerful position in the eyes of some users. It may also disuade open discussion and disagreement with that person for fear of the misuse of their authority - something which can (but by no means always does) go hand in hand with strongly held extreme viepoints. In an ideal world moderators would not take sides and would remain impartial, but clearly in the case of this forum that is not possible. All this said, it's entirely up to the regulars, whatever you decide as a whole should be easy enough to do.

 

[derbeder]

if noone's up for it, i could do it, i guess.

 

[Nile577]

if noone's up for it, i could do it, i guess.

I think you'd be an excellent choice. True, your posts display a near-genius level of learning but, despite that, I'm sure you'd make a good moderator of Ultimatemetal.com's Philosophy board.

 

[OldScratch]

I haven't had a response from Russell yet (or indeed, in this thread, from Scourge). Are Seditious, OldScratch, Cythraul etc. willing to stand? I am keen to resolve this as quickly as possible. In short: if you are willing to moderate the forum, please sign below.

Unfortunately, like others time and availability is my issue right now. Sometimes, I cannot visit for days at a stretch and just don't feel that would be fair or make me best for the gig. I would certainly support Seditious' "nomination" were he willing!

 

[Cythraul]

My computer is currently taking the proverbial shit and I don't know when I'll be able to resolve this issue. Ergo, I probably won't be online much. Don't even consider me.

I like the idea of making derbeder a mod.

 

[Scourge of God]

I would agree with the general consensus that almost any of the regulars can be trusted to be fair and effective moderators. I would, however, like to see a little tweaking to the forum itself:

1. Tamp down some of the racial discussion: when people think this forum is essentially a satellite of the ANUS/Corrupt solar system, the intrusion of race and ethnic issues into almost every thread of any length is what motivates that criticism. At the very least, I'd like to see efforts made to keep topics that aren't inherently race-related from being dragged around to the favorite preoccupation of much of our membership of all ideological stripes.

2. The moderating staff, whoever that may be, really needs to make an effort to crack down on some of the more egregious attempts at thread hijacking (see MetalBooger's antics in my thread on the VA Tech shootings for an example). Contentious debate is fine. Arguing, even namecalling and occasional forays into severe incivility won't ruin the forum. People who neurotically (and methodically) wreck threads will.

3. How about including a 'no blatant logical fallacies' rule with a local ban for repeat offenders?

Other suggestions? Maybe Justin could seperate this into a new thread and sticky it. This forum is great, but it can still be improved.

 

[derbeder]

Good suggestions. If someone commits a blatant logical fallacy with the intention of causing frustration and thereby trolling, then something could be done. But I don't believe someone should be banned (even temporarily) for making a simple logical mistake otherwise. There are other things one could do in such a case.

Looking over the forum policies, I wondered whether many of the threads here comply with these policies. For instance, the policy says

explicit political issues and/or "hot topics" in themselves are not appropriate- they must be approached in a more circumspect manner with regard to their larger ramifications. Discussion of politics, even activism, is a central element of philosophy and is encouraged here. However, political punditry and sensationalism is not, and is antithetical to this board's concerns

For instance, do the recent threads "Anti-Semitic Double Standards" and "Don't Mourn The Dead In Blacksburg" (not to speak of "Do My Paper, I'll Give a Free Beer") violate what the policy says here? Are they really approaching their respective subjects with regard to larger ramifications? Arguably not. But then we are told by the policy that if a thread is in clear violation of the policy, it is supposed to be deleted. If they are in violation even if not blatantly so, they are supposed to be locked. So what to do here?

If moderation is to be consistent with the guidelines in the forum policy as it is, a whole lot of threads will end up disappearing. Maybe we could change what the policy says on this matter, if people wish to continue the sort of discussion in threads like these. What do people think?

 

[Norsemaiden]

I would agree with the general consensus that almost any of the regulars can be trusted to be fair and effective moderators. I would, however, like to see a little tweaking to the forum itself:

1. Tamp down some of the racial discussion: when people think this forum is essentially a satellite of the ANUS/Corrupt solar system, the intrusion of race and ethnic issues into almost every thread of any length is what motivates that criticism. At the very least, I'd like to see efforts made to keep topics that aren't inherently race-related from being dragged around to the favorite preoccupation of much of our membership of all ideological stripes.

2. The moderating staff, whoever that may be, really needs to make an effort to crack down on some of the more egregious attempts at thread hijacking (see MetalBooger's antics in my thread on the VA Tech shootings for an example). Contentious debate is fine. Arguing, even namecalling and occasional forays into severe incivility won't ruin the forum. People who neurotically (and methodically) wreck threads will.

3. How about including a 'no blatant logical fallacies' rule with a local ban for repeat offenders?

Other suggestions? Maybe Justin could seperate this into a new thread and sticky it. This forum is great, but it can still be improved.

It is odd that you should be calling for a "tamp down some of the racial discussion" since you have made the most extreme remarks in this area lately! Now I wonder whether that wasn't just in order to make a point. Perhaps you wanted more of a reaction against what you had posted... Just speculating.

It has to be said that ANUS/CORRUPT really try to side-line discussion concerning race on their forum and came up with the idea that such posting should be largely confined to one permanent thread, the "Multiculturalism Fails" thread - in much the same way that we have here the "Conspiracy" thread.

My view is that no one should be banned unless they are using obscene and threatening language in flames of other posters.

 

[Blowtus]

I think it might be nice to not have everything derail into the multiculturalism issue I don't think banning people who cannot debate and discuss as effectively as we may like is a positive unless they are intent on continually disrupting threads and not learning over time.

 

[speed]

As I've said before, I like your posts Scourge of God, and you've made some excellent suggestions; however, I'm not comfortable with you being moderator. I suppose I think this way as you seem to have an agenda, and you go on the attack quite effortlessly. I know from personal experience, one of the primary problems and difficulties with moderation (and why I wanted to step down) is one has to refrain from really arguing and mocking other posters one may disagree with.

 

[Justin S.]

Moderation has been somewhat lax over the past month or so for a variety of reasons (that I don't wish to get into). I apologize for this. I will make a renewed effort to use the mod tools with discretion and a view to the policy.

However, as Scourge and derbeder have rightly pointed out, there still are issues with the general conception and direction of the board. Despite this, I think the general outline of the forum policy is sound. I think "reform" is all that is needed, so I will start a new thread for suggestions.

Furthermore, we should settle the mod issue in a timely fashion. To expedite the selection (respecting Nile's wishes) I will start a new poll-thread, where we can vote on and discuss the matter.