" In the end communities are mind games and you can use moderation to make those mind games efficient with regard to particular goals. In the given case to me the goal is dissemination and integration."
“In this particular case I believe Discours is currently the best way to integrate a community that could otherwise fall apart easily.”
The fact that stuff is imagined means it’s not a factual object - it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have real consequences. Not my idea btw, look up B. Anderson “Imagined Communities” and the literature that followed along the cultural turn in humanities…
Let me get this straight, the mods pick each other (rather than the Community) according to having similar outlooks/views as the original mods. These mods then efficiently use mind games to “steer” the Community in their desired direction by way of shutting down dissenting conversation? How is all of this not the very antithesis of DIrvine’s vision and goals with the Safe Network.
Yes, both mods/users, not sure where all the questioning of the Guidelines is taking place or why you find this a bit hypocritical. The only hypocritical thing I can see is for mods to judge others on the guidelines when doing all the exact same things themselves - now that’s actual hypocrisy.
Same here but I would have preferred a more Community based approach to modding on this one- That way mods could have the confidence of the Community, have something to legitimise their authority/positions and not leave themselves open to accusations of clique forming behaviour etc
Let me give you another perspective: Someone registers a domain, sets up a forum apart from Maidsafe and provides the necessary technical infrastructure because he wants to give people with similar interests a place to unite. He creates a code of conduct that allows for what he thinks is the most appropriate way to run his forum, allowing for comparatively high amount of freedom to talk about all sort of stuff. He casts some moderators from the community who help to take care that people comply with the guidelines. The process is driven by pragmatism and personal experience, particularly since there is more interest in discussing than in moderating. Moderators ask those who they believe are good at doing the job.
If you have ever been a moderator of a highly active forum you will know why this is handled this way: the job takes a lot of motivation and time AND people will usually not ask for it. Have you ever seen applications for moderation? I mean, it´s really easy to post a thread somewhere on the forum and ask to be part of the team. There´s any rule that prohibits applications, much rather moderators have asked the community to become engaged and you´d certainly get a profound feedback from the community as well.
Do you know why anyone does it? Because most poeple DON´T want to do it. They prefer to talk about SAFE and not waste their time with the issues people are regularly creating in social places. So, when complaining about the selection process, I guess, you should take that into account.
Every person in social contexts is part of the steering process and certainly, moderators have a special role. You appear to suggest that there has to be a secret higher plan where dissenting people are excluded from discourse. Fact is, the higher plan is plainly written in the guidelines and moderators interprete this code. I have been in conflict with moderators in the past and there was always space to address my problems with decisions.
Your vision of a forum seems to be a lovely place where flaming, trolling and highjacking of threads doesn´t exist. I disagree with that vision even though I know that there will always be cases that are unfairly treated. I probably accept that because to me making mistakes is a human thing and most people are open to improvement.
Well, that´s up to you to decide. My interpretation is quite a different as I have argued and I think it´s absolutely fine if we disagree here.
I was referring to the fact that when you signed up to the forum you accepted the guidelines which clearly state what roles moderators have and what actions they are allowed to take. Anyone forced you to accept those guidelines, same as moderators have repeatedly said that EVERYONE on the forum is free to open a thread with concrete alternative proposals.
Regarding your vague statement that mods are not complying to guidelines I don´t know what exactly you are referring to. A concrete case would have been a good start to talk about what “actual hypocrisy” is.
[quote=“Al_Kafir, post:22, topic:6047”]
Same here but I would have preferred a more Community based approach to modding on this one[/quote]
I have asked you that in the past: why don´t you simply set up a new forum? Ressources are free and like minded people will follow. Otherwise: propose an alternative guideline and ask people what they think about it. Maybe forum members and the admin will agree. To me these discussions are not at all constructive and I´d love to be proven wrong.
Yes, we both have our own viewpoints and I fully understand and agree with your perspective - under normal conditions and on an average forum. However this forum has many other things to consider in regard to security of the Safe Network, which itself is built on a vision that the Community bought into. This is about transparency and many other things really.
Maidsafe pay for the hosting etc of what was (in my understanding) supposed to be a Community run forum, for the Community. Why do we have a different individual owner of the forum who can shut down any dissenting opinion or legitimate enquiry or discussion at the drop of a hat - even just in theory? It is not the best set up as far as I can see…and why were the Community involved in picking mods then but no longer. How difficult is it to set up a forum? I’ve no idea - not that I don’t appreciate that of course, but things have changed now, we’ve grown as a Community, issues are arising which need addressing. Come on, if the mods don’t even understand the importance of intellectual honesty when arguing etc or why it’s in the guidelines even though the potential consequences have repeatedly been spelled out …then I think we have a major problem myself.
Mods continue to argue dishonestly themselves all the time in fact and when that doesn’t work there’s always the option to shut down anything they (not the Community( don’t like.
Where would this “meta” proposal be posted for the Community’s attention?
Ah, you answered my earlier question.
This wouldn’t address the concerns I have.
Well to me and the other users discussing and others they were/are important
maybe I will fulfill your desire…
Fair enough…I think I’ve not been all that vague and mentioned in other posts here or the other meta threads, but I will see what I can do and get back to you…got to take dog out.
.
Complaints should be sent to @moderators. That’s where we look a decisions we made if people want us to. Using the flag option is the fastest way to do this.
Where? Certainly not in the quote you posted. That explains how mods pick mods.
Lol…yeah…been there done that - are you asking me to shut up?
Edit:
Agreed, unless new mods and should be implemented for the second reason. I wouldn’t say “individual moderators” but rather moderation. Happybeing said that quote, not you btw.
Again, I ask where? The only “Why” I can see is why mods think mods should pick mods.
Serious yes and I have also explained more than once to you yourself, why I will not be bundled off to a side room anymore - because I’ve already experienced that enough thanks. So why when you know this do you suggest it again?
It seems there’s some sort of competition going on to simplify and speed up forum software.
Discourse is taking the other route, though. It’s an explosion of features nobody needs or wants. The ui is so cluttered, complex and lacking in hierarchy that finding the actual content gets tiring. Also it’s probably the slowest forum software out there. It’s so resource heavy on the servers that every time you load a thread you can almost feel a big chunk of polar ice melting. It loads and renders forever on mobile. It even populates your browser history with dozens of entries when all you do is read one medium length thread. The first time I saw Discourse I posted a bug report to the company using it as I thought their forum front page was seriously broken.
Guess what my thoughts are on whether it’s the right software for this, or any, forum
