If I was a moderator on this forum...

[henry quirk]

**She asked - she's free to do that and I assume you'd support that freedom. *He has the power to say yes or no or nothing

*Seems to me: Rick, as owner, views less (or little) moderation as better overall.

**Of course lace can ask.

I wouldn't trust the lot of you to tie my shoes.

[promethean75]

Velcros don't have laces, Henry. Stop frontin.

th-105349270.jpg (15.16 KiB) Viewed 988 times

[Iwannaplato]

**She asked - she's free to do that and I assume you'd support that freedom. *He has the power to say yes or no or nothing

*Seems to me: Rick, as owner, views less (or little) moderation as better overall.

**Of course lace can ask.

I wouldn't trust the lot of you to tie my shoes.

Not really the point. This is a private enterprise. Private organizations, corporations, property owners, restrict all sorts of behavior and even speech within the boundaries of their control, which allows all sorts of quite profound restrictions and often direct punishment and removal. Your post implied that any such restrictions would be wrong, but presumably you allow for owners to control their property, should they want to.

*Not a one of you ought be in charge, in-forum, of a damn thing outside of your account and what appears on your screen.

Not for you to decide. And there is an implicit rule in here, though perhaps you didn't intend it. It all depends on the owner's wishes, which may change.

complete freedom naturally encourages absurd levels of excess by some
And even a smidge of power (of one over another) invites abuse.

Actually no. Since anyone who disliked that control could simply move on to another forum. Just as we can ignore someone, so can anyone ignore this forum. Or any gathering of people. The bridge club who bans someone for shrieking about their underwear during games the whole time. Etc.

EDIT: *and not a one of you ought be in charge, in RL, of a damn thing outside of your life, liberty, and property.

I certainly hope you make this clear to those in power of organizations that do restrict these things in the name of property ownership. The corporations that restrict free speech where they can inside their organizations and even without - post with care online if you work for them - for example. Otherwise regions of fascism/communism can simply buy up reality and control it that way. Which they already do. Countries within countries, let alone what the accomplish via lobbying, campaign finance, revolving door employment with oversight, paying for the organizations that oversee them, control of media, etc.

Here in a philosophy forum no one should have a smidge of power. But in corporations, it's a tad more than a smidge.

But perhaps you've complained about this. I could easily have missed it.

[henry quirk]

Your post implied that any such restrictions would be wrong

Nope. I said not a one of you ought to be callin' the shots on anything but your posts, your accounts, your forum views, your lives, liberties, and properties.

That's it, that's all.

Didn't say diddly about what Rick can or ought to do with his property (cuz that's his business).

you allow for owners to control their property, should they want to.

Obviously.

It all depends on the owner's wishes, which may change.

Obviously.

perhaps you've complained about this

In-forum: I've had posts deleted and a thread locked. I did complain and bitch and moan.

In RL: I don't waste my time. I just do what I can to keep the leash off my neck and the muzzle off my face.

[Iwannaplato]

Your post implied that any such restrictions would be wrong

Nope. I said not a one of you ought to be callin' the shots on anything but your posts, your accounts, your forum views, your lives, liberties, and properties.

This implies that someone could be doing it and that would be fine, just not one of us. But given you don't own this forum, it isn't your place to rule what should/ought to happen. It might make some sense if you thought owners out there ought not do what they do as a rule, which is restrict the free speech of their employees in a variety of ways. Obviously you can weigh in on what you prefer/dislike, but as mere preferences and dislikes.

That's it, that's all.

Didn't say diddly about what Rick can or ought to do with his property (cuz that's his business).

So, if he chose to assign a moderator, that'd be fine.

you allow for owners to control their property, should they want to.

Obviously.

In-forum: I've had posts deleted and a thread locked. I did complain and bitch and moan.

I didn't mean here, though good information noted. I meant in wider society where corporations and business owners do control what others say in those regions they can control.

In RL: I don't waste my time. I just do what I can to keep the leash off my neck and the muzzle off my face.

Yeah, which you projected onto this thread, and instead of actually noticing that many suggestings were either tongue in cheek or nothing like a penalty box, you couldn't be bothered. Some shit out in the world bothers you, something reminds you of it, so you blurt out a generalized insult at everyone in the thread and present yourself in this noble battle for freedom.

I'm sure you'll understand where my fuck you Henry is coming from. Tie your own shoelaces, twerp.

[Lacewing]

You folks have everything you need right now.

What has that got to do with anything? Why don't you say this to yourself when you envision the value or benefit of any change in anything at all?

Lol, who remembers when Henry threw that pissy little snowflake tantrum and threatened to leave and make his own forum?

I think I do remember that!

If X offends, put 'em in the penalty box and forget about 'em.

The simple way you are framing it is not as broad as the way it has been framed. You are free to use your simple framing technique on your own life... but I don't think you do. I think you only use it to shut down ideas/suggestions you don't agree with.

Not a one of you ought be in charge, in-forum, of a damn thing outside of your account and what appears on your screen.

That's your particular opinion. As I've said, I've had (and probably still do) moderation privileges on another philosophy forum and I performed the administrative job well when I was there. I left because that site was too restrictive, which doesn't appeal to me. The idea presented here is about moderation (of excesses) for an environment that many people use. I am able to separate work from play.

complete freedom naturally encourages absurd levels of excess by some

And even a smidge of power (of one over another) invites abuse.

Again, the simple and skewed way you frame this is tied to shutting down whatever you don't agree with -- it does not recognize any broader context or application.

[Lacewing]

Just as we can ignore someone, so can anyone ignore this forum. Or any gathering of people. The bridge club who bans someone for shrieking about their underwear during games the whole time. Etc.

Good example.

Moderation is surely useful in all publicly shared spaces, simple because of how humans are.

In person: Someone throwing trash all over the sidewalk, someone heckling funeral-goers, someone pooping on the floor in a Walmart... all of these have happened. Online: Someone excessively bombarding a public forum with huge amounts of their "stuff" which are mostly unengaged with, someone physically threatening another, someone posting images or content that are clearly a violation of forum membership... all of these have happened.

Personally, I prefer balance in all things. Neither a complete lack of moderation nor over-moderation. Some people are incapable it seems, for whatever reasons, of moderating themselves. So, if they want to share a public environment, it might be most fair for everyone to have some guidelines and limits within that shared space.

[Iwannaplato]

double.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Just as we can ignore someone, so can anyone ignore this forum. Or any gathering of people. The bridge club who bans someone for shrieking about their underwear during games the whole time. Etc.

Good example.

Moderation is surely useful in all publicly shared spaces, simple because of how humans are.

In person: Someone throwing trash all over the sidewalk, someone heckling funeral-goers, someone pooping on the floor in a Walmart... all of these have happened. Online: Someone excessively bombarding a public forum with huge amounts of their "stuff" which are mostly unengaged with, someone physically threatening another, someone posting images or content that are clearly a violation of forum membership... all of these have happened.

Personally, I prefer balance in all things. Neither a complete lack of moderation nor over-moderation. Some people are incapable it seems, for whatever reasons, of moderating themselves. So, if they want to share a public environment, it might be most fair for everyone to have some guidelines and limits within that shared space.

This forum 'is' moderated. The obvious 'post-modern' bot was banned not that long ago. Scary though, just how gullible people really are. Perhaps it was 'doing a Sokal', because it kept getting responses from idiots who seemed to think it had profound insight and wisdon
I'm sure someone will get around to doing something about dattasmarmy eventually.
I recall a site where the moderators were so power-crazed that they immediately banned anyone who made any comment that didn't fit with their own personal radical agenda. I didn't realise this when I joined and was instantly banned (my one and only comment) which was accompanied by a threat to do 'what?' with my ISP address, for an innocent comment about Richard Dawkins (supportive, while the wankers running the site were hell-bent on destroying him). Wokies are such kunts. I'm sure they, too, thought they were doing an excellent job of moderation. Human nature dictates that very few humans are going to say 'by golly, I'm a really bad moderator'...

[Age]

You folks have everything you need right now.

Ignore. If X offends, put 'em in the penalty box and forget about 'em.

Not a one of you ought be in charge, in-forum, of a damn thing outside of your account and what appears on your screen.





And even a smidge of power (of one over another) invites abuse.

Well said "henry quirk".

Lol, who remembers when Henry threw that pissy little snowflake tantrum and threatened to leave and make his own forum?

I do not recall ever seeing that tantrum.

[Age]

You folks have everything you need right now.

Ignore. If X offends, put 'em in the penalty box and forget about 'em.

*Not a one of you ought be in charge, in-forum, of a damn thing outside of your account and what appears on your screen.

complete freedom naturally encourages absurd levels of excess by some

And even a smidge of power (of one over another) invites abuse.

So if the owner of the site sees Lacewing's OP and thinks, hey, great, she sounds like a moderator I'd like to try, he shouldn't decide to do that. Can't owners of websites make decisions like that.

WHY did you JUMP to this CONCLUSION? And,

WHY are you ASSUMING here that the OWNER should not decide to do that?

Also, WHY would propose that the owner might think that "lacewing" would sound like a "moderator" that they would like to try?

Was this proposal based solely on "lacewing", itself, saying and claiming, 'I did a good and fair job... honest!' ONLY? Or, is there some 'thing' else here that one would PRESUME "lacewing" sounds like a so-called "mderator" that they would like to try?

I don't see the problem. She asked - she's free to do that and I assume you'd support that freedom. He has the power to say yes or no or nothing - and I assume you'd support his freedom to do what he wants with his property.


You know, free enterprise and all.

EDIT: *and not a one of you ought be in charge, in RL, of a damn thing outside of your life, liberty, and property.

Unless, OF COURSE, when "henry quirk" BELIEVES that 'it' has some 'right' to SHOOT DEAD people who just want to 'touch' "henry quirks" property.

[Age]

**She asked - she's free to do that and I assume you'd support that freedom. *He has the power to say yes or no or nothing

*Seems to me: Rick, as owner, views less (or little) moderation as better overall.

**Of course lace can ask.

I wouldn't trust the lot of you to tie my shoes.

Not really the point. This is a private enterprise. Private organizations, corporations, property owners, restrict all sorts of behavior and even speech within the boundaries of their control, which allows all sorts of quite profound restrictions and often direct punishment and removal. Your post implied that any such restrictions would be wrong, but presumably you allow for owners to control their property, should they want to.

*Not a one of you ought be in charge, in-forum, of a damn thing outside of your account and what appears on your screen.

Not for you to decide. And there is an implicit rule in here, though perhaps you didn't intend it. It all depends on the owner's wishes, which may change.

complete freedom naturally encourages absurd levels of excess by some
And even a smidge of power (of one over another) invites abuse.

Actually no. Since anyone who disliked that control could simply move on to another forum. Just as we can ignore someone, so can anyone ignore this forum. Or any gathering of people. The bridge club who bans someone for shrieking about their underwear during games the whole time. Etc.

But what you said here does NOT refute the statement about even a smidge of power (of one over another) invites abuse, and what you said here also does not back up and support your claim of 'no'.

But the statement, 'even a smidge of power (of one over another) invites abuse', just does NOT stand up on its own and is NOT supported by itself also, anyway.

EDIT: *and not a one of you ought be in charge, in RL, of a damn thing outside of your life, liberty, and property.

I certainly hope you make this clear to those in power of organizations that do restrict these things in the name of property ownership. The corporations that restrict free speech where they can inside their organizations and even without - post with care online if you work for them - for example. Otherwise regions of fascism/communism can simply buy up reality and control it that way. Which they already do. Countries within countries, let alone what the accomplish via lobbying, campaign finance, revolving door employment with oversight, paying for the organizations that oversee them, control of media, etc.

Here in a philosophy forum no one should have a smidge of power. But in corporations, it's a tad more than a smidge.

But perhaps you've complained about this. I could easily have missed it.

"henry quirk" BELIEVES ABSOLUTELY that 'it' can KILL people DEAD if ANY one just 'touches' "henry quirks" property anyway.

[Age]

Your post implied that any such restrictions would be wrong

Nope. I said not a one of you ought to be callin' the shots on anything but your posts, your accounts, your forum views, your lives, liberties, and properties.

That's it, that's all.

Didn't say diddly about what Rick can or ought to do with his property (cuz that's his business).

you allow for owners to control their property, should they want to.

Obviously.

It all depends on the owner's wishes, which may change.

Obviously.

perhaps you've complained about this

In-forum: I've had posts deleted and a thread locked. I did complain and bitch and moan.

In RL: I don't waste my time. I just do what I can to keep the leash off my neck and the muzzle off my face.

Well you are NOT doing a very good job here.

you are LEASHED and MUZZLED far more than you BELIEVE you are.

[Age]

Your post implied that any such restrictions would be wrong

Nope. I said not a one of you ought to be callin' the shots on anything but your posts, your accounts, your forum views, your lives, liberties, and properties.

This implies that someone could be doing it and that would be fine, just not one of us. But given you don't own this forum, it isn't your place to rule what should happen. Obviously you can weigh in on what you prefer/dislike.

Are you here suggesting that it is "lacewing's" place to rule, or have a view on how to rule, what should happen, but it is NOT "henry quirk's" place to rule, nor have a view on how to rule, what should happen?

That's it, that's all.

Didn't say diddly about what Rick can or ought to do with his property (cuz that's his business).

So, if he chose to assign a moderator, that'd be fine.

you allow for owners to control their property, should they want to.

Obviously.

In-forum: I've had posts deleted and a thread locked. I did complain and bitch and moan.

I didn't mean here, though good information noted. I meant in wider society where corporations and business owners do control what others say in those regions they can control.

In RL: I don't waste my time. I just do what I can to keep the leash off my neck and the muzzle off my face.

Yeah, which you projected onto this thread, and instead of actually noticing that many suggestings were either tongue in cheek or nothing like a penalty box, you couldn't be bothered. Some shit out in the world bothers you, something reminds you of it, so you blurt out a generalized insult at everyone in the thread and present yourself in this noble battle for freedom.

I'm sure you'll understand where my fuck you Henry is coming from. Tie your own shoelaces, twerp.

[Age]

You folks have everything you need right now.

What has that got to do with anything? Why don't you say this to yourself when you envision the value or benefit of any change in anything at all?

Lol, who remembers when Henry threw that pissy little snowflake tantrum and threatened to leave and make his own forum?

I think I do remember that!

If X offends, put 'em in the penalty box and forget about 'em.

The simple way you are framing it is not as broad as the way it has been framed. You are free to use your simple framing technique on your own life... but I don't think you do. I think you only use it to shut down ideas/suggestions you don't agree with.

Not a one of you ought be in charge, in-forum, of a damn thing outside of your account and what appears on your screen.

That's your particular opinion. As I've said, I've had (and probably still do) moderation privileges on another philosophy forum and I performed the administrative job well when I was there.

What is this 'well' word relative to EXACTLY?

Did EVERY one think you performed the 'administrative job' 'well'? Did you and just SOME "others" think you performed the 'administrative job' 'well'?

How many were 'they'?

All we are SEEING here is that 'ego', under the label "lacewing', TELL us how 'well' you did your job, from that 'ego's' perspective of 'things' here ONLY.

Absolutely ANY one could come on here and CLAIM that 'I did my job well'.

Also, what are the EXACT REASONS of WHY are you NOT doing 'that job' ANYMORE?

Were there too MANY complaints?

Did you CHOOSE to leave?

Did the owner ask/want you to leave?

Did another one get the position of 'moderator' and REMOVE you from LYING and/or DECEPTION?

Were you FIRED from that job?

If yes, then what for?

Were you FIRED for ABUSE OF POWER when you were a so-called "moderator"?

Is this forum still going?

If yes, then WHY are you NOT there?

But if no, then WHY NOT?

Was your "moderation" a cause in some way?

There are so many unanswered questions here.

I left because that site was too restrictive, which doesn't appeal to me.

Did you leave voluntary?

Were you asked to leave?

Could you have been FORCED to leave, but you just TELL us 'you left'?

And, does it NOT seem somewhat CONTRADICTORY that you left a site because it was 'TOO restrictive' but YET want to make this site 'MORE restrictive', but only UNDER YOUR CONTROL and POWER?

If this does NOT seem somewhat CONTRADICTORY, to you, then just so you KNOW that this is VERY CONTRADICTORY to "others".

The idea presented here is about moderation (of excesses) for an environment that many people use.

Are you even AWARE that some want moderation (of excesses) in relation to what 'you', "lacewing" write and say here, for an environment that many people use?

But MOST do NOT even 'try to' "justify" their OWN tiny, little narrowed and even somewhat VERY CLOSED views here, like 'you' are OBVIOUSLY DOING here, "lacewing".

I am able to separate work from play.

you have made a LOT of PREVIOUS CLAIMS here so far, which have ended up being False, Wrong, or Incorrect. So, WHY should we ACCEPT this here of yours "lacewing"?

complete freedom naturally encourages absurd levels of excess by some

And even a smidge of power (of one over another) invites abuse.

Again, the simple and skewed way you frame this is tied to shutting down whatever you don't agree with -- it does not recognize any broader context or application.

LOL
LOL
LOL

And 'this' coming from THE one that WANTS to HAVE POWER and CONTROL OVER "others" here, so that they COULD SHUT DOWN WHATEVER they do NOT AGREE WITH.

"lacewing" 'you' could NOT be coming across MORE CONTRADICTORY and HYPOCRITICAL here even if you wanted to.