A little guidance... (2 Viewers)

[Andrus]

The Moderators will be able to issue infractions on the common boards where warranted. Admins will then review. We do have checks and balances here concerning moderation.

Where the Affiliated boards are concerned, those boards are moderated by their peers. We don't expect too much in the way of problems within those boards, so moderators will be given much more latitude on their respective boards. However, on the common boards, in the interest of maintaining a sense of fair moderation to our membership, unless it is due to something particularly egregious that has to be addressed immediately, the Admins will discuss and decide common board bans.

There has been very little moderating on this MCB board other than a few deletions, etc. thus far. We are still in the testing phase. That will ramp up significantly leading up to the official launch. Prior to launching some of the threads and posts will be removed from this board. Perhaps some members too, depending on how they behave between now and said official launch.

Regarding that, as well as in response to some of the comments that I have seen...

Myself, and our select Admins will manage this site using our own common sense and better judgement. Consistency is important. Being fair and impartial is important. Backroom politics cannot interfere with fair moderation. We have a plan and we cannot stray from it.

Personally, I've lost friends and staffers due to their not being able to sway me from what in the end I considered to be right. That is how SR was built. That doesn't mean that I don't seek the advice of the people that I respect. I often do. I don't know everything and am not always right, so when I am uncertain about an issue I seek advice and also listen. I am sometimes slow to to react because I like to read what others have to say on an issue, then analyze and reach either the conclusion or solution that I think is best.

A jerk is a jerk! Nuance doesn't factor into that. Don't be one and you should be fine. Use your heads when posting on this board. We really have to wrap our heads around the fact that the rude, insulting, antagonistic, or badgering behavior that anyone may have gotten away with over on the PDB will be tolerated here on this MCB board. You can display your hyper-partisanship to your peers on the affiliated boards to your hearts desire, but here on the Main Community Board as well as the Debate Arena (once that cranks up) we will require civil discussion.

Everyone has a clean slate here, but that doesn't mean that there will be a lot of patience shown to either past or present problem members from any side of the political spectrum. Be aware that unlike the PDB where I was hands off, here I will be hands on. There are a couple of members that got away with a great deal of significantly less than desirable behavior on the PDB that I thought should have landed them on the banned list a long time ago, yet are still there. They won't last long here unless the can observe the rules.

My politics? Doesn't matter! It isn't far from center, and I am determined to put any political bias I may have aside in the interest of remaining fair and impartial, which I see as paramount to the success of this site. In-fact, the four admins that we will have here are all moderates. Two lean slightly left, two that lean slightly right. Two of the admins here never moderated and rarely ever participated on the PDB. I am one of the four admins and I find the other three to be quite intuitive, intelligent, and reasonable.

The bottom line here is that we cannot make this work without the help of our core PDB members, and I certainly do not take any of you for granted. At the same time while most of you are not of concern behaviorally speaking, there is a small element of that core that have not shown that they can play nice on a consistent basis. I am simply attempting to get a message across to them regarding future behavior.

We are fully aware that this is going to be a challenge... but we are up to it.

 

[MT15]

Not trying to play semantics, however, one can very well back up a bad faith argument.

I just quoted you, but this reply is also to GMR:

Calling something a bad faith argument also implies you know the poster’s intentions, and furthermore that they are being duplicitous. How can you know their intent? It’s definitely a judgement that cannot be factual. It effectively discounts everything they say over your opinion of them, and doesn’t really allow for further discussion.

We can all have our opinions of what someone’s motivations are, but calling them out is just imposing your opinion. I think we are better off just arguing on the merits of the ideas, rather than falling back on opinions of motives.

It’s a trap we can all fall into, but it’s intellectually lazy (no pun intended, )

 

[N.O.Bronco]

All I would suggest is, when possible(given the part-time nature) for an emphasis to be placed on tighter moderation on the front end of conversations. Not in a presumption of bad faith, but through stern encouragement that you are expected to put effort into conversations broadly and interpersonally. And that needs to happen from the get go. As it seems like it would go a long way to preventing the scorched earth blow ups on the back end. Good faith is hard to moderate, quality of discourse is not. Blame-shifting, Excessive whataboutisms, goal-post moving, avoidance of qualifying statements of fact or fact-dependent opinion, low-hanging fruit chasers, gish galloping, excessive evasiveness, veiled insults etc.

Because it often feels pretty predictable after seeing it for so many years, but the cycle almost always goes: a poster comes into a conversation, makes a number of unqualified inflammatory statements, starts grinding their axe, whatabouts the conversation, or evokes broad-brushing attacks rooted in some sort of out-group disdain(often using evocative, insulting language). To which either people feel disrespected and respond, or several quality posters go to great lengths to challenge those assertions, assuming good faith, then the poster getting challenged refuses to reciprocate(and this is where things begin to break down). The cycle repeats and eventually, initially good-faith posters are driven to rage out of sheer frustration.

The Russia thread was a perfect example of this. The inciting event happened right at the beginning of the thread and had that been nipped it seemed highly plausible the thread could have moved forward without a hitch. A greater emphasis on a poster's first few responses instead of their last few seems like a good way to prevent a lot of these vicious cycles before they get going.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

Not trying to play semantics, however, one can very well back up a bad faith argument.

Do you mean like scientifically ‘proving’ the earth is only 6000 yrs old or arguing that things demonstrated in the mueller report aren’t demonstrated in the mueller report?

Which type do you mean?
(Or is it another one?)

 

[Lazybones]

Do you mean like scientifically ‘proving’ the earth is only 6000 yrs old or arguing that things demonstrated in the mueller report aren’t demonstrated in the mueller report?

Which type do you mean?
(Or is it another one?)

Donald trump has ties to white nationalist.

Obama is a Muslim sympathizer.

 

[MT15]

So, none of these arguments has to be bad faith. There are people who sincerely believe all of them.

To me, bad faith means pushing something you know to be false.

 

[Lazybones]

So, none of these arguments has to be bad faith. There are people who sincerely believe all of them.

To me, bad faith means pushing something you know to be false.

That’s fair. I see it as hyperbole.

Obama is a Muslim sympathizer for example. You are correct, people actually believe this.

If I dig up a link that shows he and LOuis Farrakhan had a conversation at a mutual friends house. I could then sell that as Obama is a Muslim because he loves Louis. I would do this for all the people who actually believe this to get up and arms.

 

[Dadsdream]

what about the wink-and-nod nicknames, labels, and slang like "a Vanderbilt" and "East Coast elitist" and "wealthy" and "liberal intellectual" which is all followed up by your admission that "despite" all of these things, you "used to enjoy his work"

I definitely agree that "If posters immerse themselves in websites that use derogatory terms about a politician, candidate or segment of the electorate, those words will inevitably creep into the discussions here, out of sheer habit if nothing else" but there's also an element of this operating in a way that maybe we aren't even aware when it happens.

My descrption of Anderson contained examples to give astute posters something to ponder.

You, sir, are an astute poster!

 

[N.O.Bronco]

So, none of these arguments has to be bad faith. There are people who sincerely believe all of them.

To me, bad faith means pushing something you know to be false.

Trolling thrives on that unprovable grey area, imo, you simply avoid that by policing the behavior underpinning trolling. The earlier the better

If someone rolls into a thread about Russia propaganda seeping into the American mainstream and starts talking about the Clinton’s and Trump derangement syndrome, it’s clearly off-topic, inflammatory, and should be warned swiftly, exiled from the thread upon failing to correct the behavior.

Donald trump has ties to white nationalist.

Obama is a Muslim sympathizer.

Neither of those statements are untrue in the proper context.

But responses that do not provide a proper context or some sort of falsifiable back up when prompted are where things become obviously problematic in any sort of debate, this board or anywhere. If you are going to say something provocative, it should be in line with the topic and that person should be expected to source themselves and engage the push back they receive in a respectful and comprehensive manner. Failing to do so should be grounds for an infraction. Sometimes people will get multiple responses, and people that only choose to go after the lowest hanging fruit amongst the responses should be actively discouraged in that behavior imo. As going to the weakest counter arguments as opposed to the most comprehensive or substantive ones degrade the quality of the discussion on a board attempting to elevate it. If you are someone doing it habitually, that should be moderated accordingly imo. If you are someone that can’t tell the difference, this board might not be right for you imo.

If someone wants to claim Obama wasn’t born in the country, I presume such person would be expected to do more than just state it’s their opinion and refuse or obfuscate to avoid an efforted dialogue. At least that is how I have interpreted the goal of this board.

 

[MT15]

That’s fair. I see it as hyperbole.

Obama is a Muslim sympathizer for example. You are correct, people actually believe this.

If I dig up a link that shows he and LOuis Farrakhan had a conversation at a mutual friends house. I could then sell that as Obama is a Muslim because he loves Louis. I would do this for all the people who actually believe this to get up and arms.

Yes, and if you would do that knowing that the original premise was false (that Obama is a Muslim or Muslim sympathizer) then you would be making a bad faith argument. It is the basis of much of what we see on the internet and sometimes on tv today where the bad faith most often has a profit motive, meaning that outrage drives clicks or viewers.

 

[Lazybones]

Yes, and if you would do that knowing that the original premise was false (that Obama is a Muslim or Muslim sympathizer) then you would be making a bad faith argument. It is the basis of much of what we see on the internet and sometimes on tv today where the bad faith most often has a profit motive, meaning that outrage drives clicks or viewers.

I agree with you. And that is why I used the two examples that I did. Those two statements are both false, but that doesn’t stop the headlines OR forum topics.

Example
Even Tucker can’t spin it as good for trump. That was the headline and description. However, that wasn’t what the article said. I think people read the article, but the headline helps their point more.

I think you and I agree.

 

[wardorican]

Let's agree to this on postings that you feel are in bad faith, intentionally misleading, etc.

Do your best to engage positively.

Report them, and let the staff sort it out.

Do not publically accuse.

That way you can offer your opinion, and let the staff decide if it is worth moderating or having a side conversation about. It will also avoid unnecessary conflict.

 

[Lazybones]

Let's agree to this on postings that you feel are in bad faith, intentionally misleading, etc.

Do your best to engage positively.

Report them, and let the staff sort it out.

Do not publically accuse.

That way you can offer your opinion, and let the staff decide if it is worth moderating or having a side conversation about. It will also avoid unnecessary conflict.

I hope you keep that energy to folks who disagree with you. I think the conversation between MT15 and I have been very cordial since the initial blast.

She understands my point and I understand hers. I’m fairness we figured this out after Andrus our his foot down. AND we did it privately. Both of us are sincere people looking at things from opposite sides of the coin.

I enjoy asking questions and probing so I can determine if the person really has a belief or if they are being hyperbolic. Having nothing to do with the person, but a better understanding of a topic.

 

[wardorican]

I hope you keep that energy to folks who disagree with you. I think the conversation between MT15 and I have been very cordial since the initial blast.

She understands my point and I understand hers. I’m fairness we figured this out after Andrus our his foot down. AND we did it privately. Both of us are sincere people looking at things from opposite sides of the coin.

I enjoy asking questions and probing so I can determine if the person really has a belief or if they are being hyperbolic. Having nothing to do with the person, but a better understanding of a topic.

What's funny is that I think a good chunk of you all on the right that complain about "showing their work", are missing that it's just another way to challenge firmly rooted beliefs. I.e. are you just being hyperbolic? (But the GOP version).


I think when some on the left allude to "show your work", they mean, that maybe you are wrong about the premise. If you actually looked at the data, you may feel differently. A lot of people get caught up in headlines or by the authors take on something.

As an engineer and someone who has done a fair bit of six sigma and lean manufacturing (i stopped at my greenbelt), I get frustrated with how stats are often misused in any and all news reports. Clearly math isn't usually a reporter's strong suit.

But, those misleading stats get burned into the general public's brains.

So, in short, I think a good number of us are trying to do the same thing. We all just need to work on, or keep using, our better techniques.

 

[wardorican]

The issue we all have to understand though is that it takes a lot of energy and patience to do that. And not everyone reciprocates that. I get frustrated when I put in effort I to a topic, find the base data, not the hyperbole, just to receive crickets or ignorant retorts.

 

[Speed_eRacer]

As far as showing my work, I’ve always been an experience guy and find statistics and studies sometimes hard to fall in line with. There is a lot of things that can skew research but my experience is something that I know for fact for me. I also always find difficulties in telling someone else how they should feel or act or believe because we don’t know the person. I’ve only walked in one persons shoes and it’s my own so when I discuss issues I try to put myself in other peoples shoes but it’s only an opinion that I can have and not a fact that the person has experienced so thinking I’m going to go and dig up statistics that someone did that I have no idea was in a controlled experience is rare for me. I’m also not always going to change my thoughts on a subject if I have an experience that goes against the stats.

 

[Andrus]

I’ve been out of pocket tending to family issues so though I had planned to go through the threads doing clean up last night I just couldn’t get to that. I see that some clean up has already taken place (self and moderated), and I appreciate that. I have to post clear guidance to the MAP moderators also prior to the official launch, so I realize there is some uncertainty of the staff side, and they are waiting on me.

I am still waiting to hear back from our coder on fixes. Delays, delays!

You are all smart enough to know what triggers one another, so think about what you are posting and avoid intentionally triggering one another on this board. We all experience frustration when dealing with entrenched opposition. The key on this board is to avoid dealing with such frustration by replacing it with angry or insulting posting.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

The issue we all have to understand though is that it takes a lot of energy and patience to do that. And not everyone reciprocates that. I get frustrated when I put in effort I to a topic, find the base data, not the hyperbole, just to receive crickets or ignorant retorts.

I don't think someone needs to have ten charts to argue a point, but if you come into a thread saying the global consensus on climate change is wrong because of some conspiratorial talking point you heard, you should be expected to have supporting evidence when asked.

And if you are injecting yourself into these conversations you should be expected to reciprocate in an efforted and meaningful fashion to the highest quality responses you are given, no?

 

[Lazybones]

The issue we all have to understand though is that it takes a lot of energy and patience to do that. And not everyone reciprocates that. I get frustrated when I put in effort I to a topic, find the base data, not the hyperbole, just to receive crickets or ignorant retorts.

Data doesn’t dictate someone’s core beliefs. Also when you talk about data in politics is not the same as data in my case analyzing a stores profits.

Data in politics is VERY subjective. A good example is the political compass test. You may look at the data of that survey; where I see a hugely loaded test that invalidates the results.