Personal Attacks

[Stan]

Get a team of 5 to agree on what is acceptable...

That could take a miracle..

Everyone is so RIGHT in their own eyes...

[Neil D]

Quote:

Ha, I like you.

Oh yes ... there are many here in addition to Bonnie ... that I am sure you could relate well with. I've been called the Devil by a moderator. Some are very straight forward and speak their mind unapologeticly.

Call sinners by their name .....

Oooooh, I can see the value in coming along side quietly, and smacking someone with a 2x4...or 2x6 if I am feeling particularly strong that day...It's so much more gratifying to broadside someone when they least expect it...At least with a 2x4, you can make a significant impression that just wont be ignored......

[Woody]

Quote:

When it counts in the final countdown not many will be left stannding.

Well then ... all of us here might as well just duke it out and see how few are left. That seems to be the holy and righteous thing to do ....

[Neil D]

Quote:

We've been through the moderation thing before. I agree, it would definitely be ideal to have perfect, impartial moderators with the wisdom of Solomon who took no part in the discussion. I'm positive that if you can PM the names and e-mail addresses of some of those to Stan he'll start using them immediately.

Hey, Bravus, I will have you know, that I have volunteered to moderate various forums, dispensing with my wisdom and expertise with the full vision of impartiality, and Stan still refuses to use me in those forum.... What can I say????

[there buster]

Quote:

Get a team of 5 to agree on what is acceptable

Nope. Quite the contrayr.

Quote:

The rules don't have to be perfect, either, just consistently enforced.

Quote:

Everyone is so RIGHT in their own eyes

Don't have to be right, or be convinced that the rules are right. Just have to know what is/is not acceptable.

[Stan]

OK

Come up with 5 diverse people and we can do this.

[Woody]

Quote:

Don't have to be right, or be convinced that the rules are right. Just have to know what is/is not acceptable.

I have to believe that ANY five people on this forum could be honest enough to follow specific rules that are laid out. If name calling is not allowed ... then I think it would be clear when it is done.

What MM suggested about contacting and educating people by PMs when they have been observed doing something like personal name calling .... would be a great approach.

Right now ... what do we have? When a moderator thinks he has seen enough .... the ENTIRE thread gets shuts down. Hardly an appropriate method. And no one learns anything.

Is there currently a consistant management of promoting a pleasant environment? OR is it desireable to have what MM is promoting?

[Amelia]

I would encourage everyone to look for the moderators name for each part of this board you post in. Many are NOT moderated at all. So please be specific as to which forum you are complaining about so we know which moderator is being hunted.

[Bravus]

Quote:

Quote:

it would definitely be ideal to have perfect, impartial moderators with the wisdom of Solomon who took no part in the discussion.

This straw man gets trotted out every time this topic gets discussed. But anyone who has actually run a successful organization of any kind can tell you it doesn't take any such sort of super human.

I may have overstated the case in making the point. Leave aside the superhumans for a minute and concentrate on the last few words of my post: 'who take no part in the discussion'. If moderators were paid, this would be a realistic standard. They're not, they're here because they enjoy being here and participating. Where's the payoff for them if they have to ref but can't play?

BTW, I would be very happy if Stan could set up a forum (other than the church planting one) where ichabod is the moderator, because I would sincerely like to see his approach in action.

[Woody]

I think the wrong perception of the work of the moderator is seen. If a moderator sees that a post is contrary to a rule here on CA ... then he should send a PM to educate the poster. This is not a big deal. It would not even have to be considered a warning although at some point it could include that.

The way it is now is that when a moderator finally loses his/her patience ... the entire thread gets sent to cyber Hell. Good and Bad. No education of any kind. If issues could be addressed in a personal confidential way PRIOR to the moderator blowing his/her top ... then we could expect to see growth and a more pleasant place here on CA.

First of all there needs to be decided what we want to tolerate here on CA. Do we like name calling and "calling sinners by their name" ? These decisions need to be made before we can expect any moderator to "enforce" anything.

[Guest charis]

The problem with doing pm's instead of publicly halting the guilty party in the thread is that nobody else learns that the problem child has been "punished"... ergo, it appears that the problem child is being catered to. And if that is the case, then what's to stop someone else in their quest to become a problem child?

[Woody]

Right now ... no halting is being done. I would suggest that the PMs will work and if they don't then the time will come for the public halting. But the ground work needs to be done prior to that in my humble opinion. The PM should result in the poster modifying what was said after the moderator specificly identified what was objected to. If too much time has elapsed for the poster to edit then he can authorize how the moderator could edit it.

[Guest charis]

Right now ... no halting is being done. I would suggest that the PMs will work and if they don't then the time will come for the public halting. But the ground work needs to be done prior to that in my humble opinion. The PM should result in the poster modifying what was said after the moderator specificly identified what was objected to. If too much time has elapsed for the poster to edit then he can authorize how the moderator could edit it.

IMHO Egads, Redwood! By the time someone has gone through *that* cycle, the thread could be reduced to ashes. The Admins and Mods have other lives aside from here, and may not get to the specific areas they moderate.

I agree there needs to be a WRITTEN set of rules for reference, plus the consequences if said rule is broken. Then nobody could say they were not forwarned. In addition, members can choose whether or not they accept pm's, so the idea of using pm's as slapping one's hands isn't even possible.

[Woody]

If Admin. is not allowed to contact a member then there IS something wrong here.

I differ about how much work it is to write a note to the few people that would seriously need it. But that is just my opinion. Maybe you had a more widespread view of the problem than I.

I see very few here that are inappropriate or breaking any rules of unbecoming behaviour.

[Stan]

The problem with doing pm's instead of publicly halting the guilty party in the thread is that nobody else learns that the problem child has been "punished"... ergo, it appears that the problem child is being catered to. And if that is the case, then what's to stop someone else in their quest to become a problem child?

We have tried both ways. Neither works that well.

If everyone would just be identical things would work.

People must use common sense. Not all seem to have that package.

Should anyone want to write a list of common sense communication, please feel free to start that.

People who lack social skills will not read them, those that have them have no need to read them.

Have been following this thread with interest.

[Guest charis]

:R

never mind.

[Stan]

No, I really appreciate that you said that, it is a very clear option that is fair and reasonable.

No if everyone was also fair and reasonable.

[there buster]

Quote:

nobody else learns that the problem child has been "punished"

charis is right . . .and nearly right.

She's right that the problem with private correction is that nobody learns. Part of the reason for moderation is to educate posters on what is and is not proper.

One of the sad things is that in the recent thread that Stan first deleted and then went through the difficult process of retrieving while excising the 'nasty' parts (as I recall he described them) that all the opportunity to understand Stan's criteria was lost. Not knowing what was eliminated or why, everyone's left wondering exactly what he found objectionable, why, and who did it.

The "what" and "why" help us identify what Stan finds objectionable. The "who" helps increase safety rather than decrease it. Not knowing "who" allows every one to assume it was someone else, and increases the likelihood the objectionable behavior will be repeated by the abuser. At the same time, it gives no assurance to the abused that the problem has been recognized.

I know it was a lot of work, and appreciate the labor. I'm just sorry so much of the value was lost.

She's almost right about knowing who was at fault, as indicated above. But the purpose of the moderator(s) should not be punishment but correction--actually, I prefer the word "discipline," because it comes from the same root as "disciple."

Through careful correction, Stan (or the other moderators) could disciple us all in proper netiquette, or at least proper posting for this forum.

That's why it doesn't have to be either perfect or even totally correct. It just has to be consistent.

This would be somewhat more time-consuming at first, though no doubt less so than retrieving and editing that entire thread. It could be expedited by modeling for moderators on the moderator forums. After a while, it would become second nature for those on this forum. Some would not like it, but they would go elsewhere.

No forum will ever be perfect, or even largely harmonious--people differ, as Stan reminds us. But it could be much more productive--with discussions that actually move forward, and where the vulnerable don't get squashed by the aggressive.

Some who have ruled by intimidation and abuse would object, but only sociopaths persist in behaviors that are counterproductive to their own interests, once they understand they're not getting their way.

Classrooms, offices, churches--forums. All these and more a places of human interaction, and as such will become arenas for conflict. But effective discipling can help people understand the ways to resolve those conflicts productively.

[Woody]

Quote:

Have been following this thread with interest.

I appreciate that.

I have observed that if a moderator is not the "official" moderator of a thread then they don't attempt to do anything about it.

Is it possible for ALL moderators to be willing to do something when they NOTICE an issue ANYWHERE.

If the manner of a most recent offender is not clear evidence of abuse ... then I don't know what is. He has offended just about every part of society. When we witness this type of poster ... what do we do? I appreciate that you came in and made a comment. My personal preference would be to make a general comment and also a personal and specific one through a PM. It would not take that much additional time.

I believe that we can afford to follow the principles of Matt.18 even here. I think that discipline should be done confidentally not in public.

But if something can't be done with this recent offender that is different from just shutting down a thread .... then I give up.

[Woody]

Quote:

That's why it doesn't have to be either perfect or even totally correct. It just has to be consistent.

Yes. This is the foundation.

But I do not believe that discipline needs to be openly personal. We can learn by general pointing out of the rules and consistent enforcement without naming names. The personal nature should be done through a PM in accordance with Matt.18

It is not always fun to follow Matt.18 but it IS the best way.

If someone says "Redwood ... You are a Jerk" When a moderator comes along and reads that ... A general statement like ... Just a reminder ... that rule number XXX states that we do not allow personal name calling. He would not have to address the specific offense but just has to restate the rule. The offender that called me a Jerk should be sent a specific PM reminder of the rule and what was the offense.

I realize that you would not be able to do this everytime. But when there is a serious and repeated offender like this recent one ... then it is time to hear the moderators or ADMIN. speaking up and sending PMs.

Just me speaking up with my two cents and even more.

[Woody]

OK. I've been serious long enough. Time for a little Redwood humor.

Quote:

Should anyone want to write a list of common sense communication, please feel free to start that.

I will add one [tic"] ....

"No one should be allowed to quote Ellen White unless the specific topic of the thread is Ellen White."

I am honestly willing to follow this if everyone else is willing. But we must have consistant agreement and enforcement .

lol

[Neil D]

"No one should be allowed to quote Ellen White unless the specific topic of the thread is Ellen White."

I am honestly willing to follow this is everyone else is willing. But we must have consistant agreement and enforcement .

lol

AAWWWwwwwwwwwww...crumb buckets....I think even EGW would have had fun with some of her writings takin' out of context and applied in a humorous way to someone/situation....

Shoot, whatcha doin', Red? Makin' life nothin but ho hum???? Where's the humor in that????

[Woody]

Quote:

I think even EGW would have had fun with some of her writings takin' out of context and applied in a humorous way to someone/situation

Personally ... I find that she is rarely used in context. There is far more misuse and abuse than correct reading of Ellen White.

People constantly use her for their personal agendas. Some are believers in HER more than her message. Her message is a good one. But few can see that through their own agenda.

[carolaa]

Originally Posted By: charis

The problem with doing pm's instead of publicly halting the guilty party in the thread is that nobody else learns that the problem child has been "punished"... ergo, it appears that the problem child is being catered to. And if that is the case, then what's to stop someone else in their quest to become a problem child?

We have tried both ways. Neither works that well.

If everyone would just be identical things would work.

People must use common sense. Not all seem to have that package.

Should anyone want to write a list of common sense communication, please feel free to start that.

People who lack social skills will not read them, those that have them have no need to read them.

Have been following this thread with interest.

Another forum I belong to has all messages of "newbies" moderated, plus the mods send PMs to people who have broken the rules. After 3 or so PMs to the same person, that person goes on moderation. It seems to work well for all, and the mods on that forum are volunteers, also. That way, only the ones breaking the rules are on moderation, and being on moderation means their messages are slower to get posted so they are likely to either go away or behave so they can get off moderation.

[Woody]

Hey ... Thanks Carolaa. Sounds good. Would it work Stan?