Is Nahm banned? Or just demoted?

[Carl-Richard]

1 minute ago, Scholar said:

You misunderstood my post, it was in regards to first arguing about content (for example something like debating whether Dr K is wrong), and then become active in the moderator role in the context of that conversation. I clarified why I thought that was problematic, it has nothing to do with arguing about moderation choices. I am saying that when you participate in a conversation, to avoid bias and perception of bias, you ought to put aside your role as a moderator, and if you think there is a violation ask another moderator to take over.

That defeats the purpose of a moderator, because the moderator has to be engaged in the discussion to know the context of an eventual violation of the guidelines. You're essentially proposing that we need moderators to moderate the moderators.

[Scholar]

6 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

That defeats the purpose of a moderator, because the moderator has to be engaged in the discussion to know the context of an eventual violation of the guidelines. You're essentially proposing that we need moderators to moderate the moderators.

Why do moderators have to engage in discussion to know the context of a violation of the guidelines? I dont agree at all. Again, there is a conflict of roles.

When I debate about animal rights as a moderator, I become biased. Whether or not I want to, the entire point of bias is that I am unaware of it. At that point, my decision making ability is compromised, therefore I have to set aside my sword of moderation, engage in the fist fight, and if there is a rule I think was broken I just report or message another moderator. That moderator doesn't have to have participated in the debate about animal rights to know whether or not guidelines were followed.

 

This is why inherently debate-bro like moderators will always have a conflict of interest.

Edited February 22, 2022 by Scholar

[Carl-Richard]

6 minutes ago, Scholar said:

Why do moderators have to engage in discussion to know the context of a violation of the guidelines? I dont agree at all. Again, there is a conflict of roles.

When I debate about animal rights as a moderator, I become biased. Whether or not I want to, the entire point of bias is that I am unaware of it. At that point, my decision making ability is compromised, therefore I have to set aside my sword of moderation, engage in the fist fight, and if there is a rule I think was broken I just report or message another moderator. That moderator doesn't have to have participated in the debate about animal rights to know whether or not guidelines were followed.

Sure, if Leo wants to establish some guideline for moderators that says that (currently our guidelines do not have that rule), then I would gladly accept that. However, it would make moderation extremely tedious, as virtually all moderation actions would have to be discovered by 1 moderator and then extracted by a 2nd moderator (if we count all verbal engagement with the topic as a marker for bias). Sure, it would probably lead to less abuse, but would it be worth it? There is a trade-off for everything. Granting somebody power is also granting them the ability to abuse.

[supremeyingyang]

7 Pages - That escalated quickly.

I can only think about the a phrase from Niklas Luhmann to Systems Theory 'As Systems grow, they tend to more and more self-referential' - the last weeks might be a milestone in the development of this forum. I'm curious if this forum goes underground some day or if it will be shutdown in the near future. I can see that happen..

@Nahm acted more and more erratic in the last weeks, but why he is away is beyond me.. I read more pages of this drama^^

 

 

Edited February 22, 2022 by supremeyingyang

[Tim R]

People often think that moderation decisions like locking a thread or giving warning points is a personal matter, or that it's because the mod disagreed with your post on a personal level.

That is 99% not the case.

I always point out that moderation decisions or thread locking is not a personal thing, it has nothing to do with my opinion or with me agreeing/disagreeing. 

Almost half of all reported posts don't have a thread-lock or warning as a consequence simply because they don't violate the guidelines. But they get reported because of some personal disagreement between two or more members and they want the other member to get silenced or their thread locked.

As Carl-Richard said, we moderate in terms of guidelines. Our function is to make sure that they are adhered to. That's it.

People love to think that mods constantly abuse their power and silence users who disagre with them or Leo, which quite frankly, is just bs.

Heck, even I don't agree with everything Leo says and I'm mod, go figure. It has nothing to do with worshipping Leo and tyranically enforcing his world view.  That's just typical deflection of resposibility. 

Yes, mods are falliable but hey, good thing there's a system that acts like a buffer for all the times when mods make a mistake, and that system is called; you need 20 warning points until you get kicked out, 20! So if someone has (almost) 20 warning points, I think it has very little to do with mods being falliable or power hungry tyrants, rather you just didn't adhere to the guidelines. 

[StarStruck]

29 minutes ago, Scholar said:

I think people are pointing out a valid dynamic with moderators, which is one of the reasons why I wouldn't want to be a moderator.

Someone like @Carl-Richard is very active in arguing with members, in which case he is kind of changing his role from moderator to member. There is a reason why in debates, the moderator is someone who is not participating in the debate. It gives them the ability to focus on moderation and be as unbiased as possible.

Once a moderator starts arguing with someone in the forum, they basically should stop considering themselves a moderator in the context of that conversation, to avoid A) being perceived to be biased in regards to moderation and B) to avoid being biased in regards to moderation. In that case, another moderator has to take the role of the moderator and consider the moderator participating in the conversation as another member, otherwise the lines kind of become blurry which we all know from the recent Dr K/Mr Girl drama, that it will lead to problems.

It's a bad move to have a moderator argue with a member in terms of content, and then start moderating them in regards to TOS violations. These two things should be considered separate processes and moderators, due to their role, should I guess tend to avoid arguing and focus on moderation.

 

There is really no point to that if the mods back each other’s ass. What is the point if they always choose the side of their fellow mods? This is corruption and it should be weeded out. 

Mods shouldn’t be allowed to form clans and favor clans, do self promotion for anything and people with low consciousness or big ego shouldn’t become mods. It just takes the quality of the forum down. 

[Scholar]

10 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Sure, if Leo wants to establish some guideline for moderators that says that (currently our guidelines do not have that rule), then I would gladly accept that. However, it would make moderation extremely tedious, as virtually all moderation actions would have to be discovered by 1 moderator and then extracted by a 2nd moderator (if we count all verbal engagement with the topic as a marker for bias). Sure, it would probably lead to less abuse, but would it be worth it? There is a trade-off for everything. Granting somebody power is also granting them the ability to abuse.

I don't think it would make moderation extremely tedious, it's a bit weird that you are saying that imo. Not at all all moderation decisions would have to be checked by another moderator, it would only have to be in the rare cases where a moderator argues with a member on-topic, and then sees a guideline violation. The entire point of a moderator is to be a moderator, you are not just a member with power tools, in general a moderator ought to try to uphold his position as a moderator and not engage in debates the same way members do, if they seek to moderate. I don't think that's hard to accomplish at all, I think most moderators are by default kind of following that rule, you seem to be an exception because of how you love arguing with others, from what I have seen.

 I also like to argue with others, which is why I wouldn't take the role of a moderator if I had the opportunity (which I shouldn't have because of how confrontational I can be sometimes) because of that. If I would take it, I would reconsider my approach to how I talk to people and either be very strict about what I just described above, or not participate as much in arguing with others.

 

@Michael569 comes to mind who also likes to argue, but I haven't seen him debate and then do moderation in the same context.

Edited February 22, 2022 by Scholar

[Leo Gura]

You guys need to calm down.

Nahm has not been banned.

[SOUL]

Administrating and moderating a forum of any kind is a challenge but with this type of forum there's an additional layer of challenge to it.

Not only are the admin and mods trying to herd the cats involved with typical internet culture they are doing it on a forum of exploring abstract mysticism while themselves are also pursuing the esoteric insights of abstract mysticism.

One of if not the most powerful influence in our lives is direct experience and we trust that our perception of this experience is as we perceive it to be. This is such a strong psychological feature of our mind it is literally what creates the self identity of us.

So I exercise patience with others but especially with those who are taking on the task of the cat rodeo even if they don't necessarily return the favor because I understand the nature of what is unfolding with all of this.

I hope members and mods ..oh, admin too, not let all the swirling sensations of the imagination get too much for them that they take it out on others, it's a distraction.

That being said can someone do something about the BS 3 point warning I got 3 years ago for what was an innocent and innocuous comment... haha.... I couldn't help myself.

Peace!

Edited February 22, 2022 by SOUL

[Scholar]

5 minutes ago, StarStruck said:

There is really no point to that if the mods back each other’s ass. What is the point if they always choose the side of their fellow mods? This is corruption and it should be weeded out. 

Mods shouldn’t be allowed to form clans and favor clans, do self promotion for anything and people with low consciousness or big ego shouldn’t become mods. It just takes the quality of the forum down. 

I don't think Moderators would necessarily back either other's asses, I would hope they are more mature than that.

 

6 minutes ago, Tim R said:

People love to think that mods constantly abuse their power and silence users who disagre with them or Leo, which quite frankly, is just bs.

Yes, and because people love to do so I think the policy I have suggested would help mitigate that perception.

Edited February 22, 2022 by Scholar

[puporing]

LoL the overflow thread to "Nahm Demoted" thread...

[Mafortu]

27 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

But then the mods wouldn't be able to participate in conversations.

You would, just normal name and no "moderator" under it.

This is the reason why game companies no longer publish their "balance updates " under a specific user... gamers would go ape-shit and send death threats to whomever published the patch notes, be it twitter or forums. Now patch notes are posted under the "The Development Team".

Its a win-win for everyone.

[RevoCulture]

2 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

He would chuckle and say there was no one to kick from the forum and no forum to leave

And Absolutely speaking he would be right!

Funny how everything is an aspect of truth, like puzzle pieces they all belong. It is equally true to say an illusion is real.  Purple elephant.  Thats not real, why?  Its not physical?  What is physical?  The idea that that image isnt real is suspect, it exists.  It all dep3nds on your definition of what existence is.  The idea that something is but a person denies it, saying no it doesnt. How can something exist but not exist?  How can something be part of the design but be excluded by someone because of... what... 

Nahms beliefs are being tested, to.what degree do you actually exist within that body of knowledge.  If there is no Nahm or forum there is no reason to not return because nothing has happened.  Only reason to not return would be if some personal feelings prevented it, which would violate the tenets of Nahms position.

Actually there was no reason to show in the first place.. Why participate in something that isnt real, and why spray a condescending top tier truth over peoples honest investigstion?

Nothing happened.  This is where these positions get exposed, the weak ground they were originally built upon.  

Not that there isnt truth in it, undoubtedly there is, but there is wayyyy more going on.  

Maybe Nahm and some others cant distinguish the trees from the forest.  Its all top tier absolutist overly simplified spirituality being used in agressive and counter productive way.  

If people dont believe any of this is real.maybe they should act on that and leave?  Let everyone else have conversations about the journey between here and there.  

Edited February 22, 2022 by RevoCulture

[Carl-Richard]

16 minutes ago, Scholar said:

Not at all all moderation decisions would have to be checked by another moderator, it would only have to be in the rare cases where a moderator argues with a member on-topic, and then sees a guideline violation.

Are you expecting the moderator, who during a course of a discussion is incrementally approaching a compromised position of bias, to be able to self-report this condition accurately? Is that also not a bit contradictory? The moderator himself has to make the call. You're expecting the moderator to not abuse his powers in order to not abuse his powers.

[Roy]

Since we are on the topic, all members reading this message you are free to criticize me via publicly in this thread or PM me. I will take the feedback and contemplate how I can improve as a moderator. Thanks and enjoy your day.

[Inliytened1]

@RevoCulture that's an enlightening perspective on the matter

 

[Scholar]

1 minute ago, Carl-Richard said:

Are you expecting the moderator, who during a course of a discussion is incrementally approaching a compromised position of self-bias, to be able to self-report this condition accurately? Is that also not a bit contradictory? You're expecting the moderator to not abuse his powers in order to not abuse his powers.

I think you are trying too hard find holes in my proposal. People usually don't consciously abuse their power. If there is a guideline for moderators in place that I suggested, it will reduce the instances of biased decision-making occuring, aswell as give members a better perception of the moderation team in regards to how they enforce the rules.

It's pretty simple, once you start debating with an individual, you don't moderator that individual. So, each time you start debating with someone, as you are doing right now with me for example, you do have wavered your moderation role so to speak. I think moderators will be able to make a conscious effort, as like I said I think most of them already do, to watch out for this dynamic.

 

For example, right now you are compromised and should not moderate my behavior, instead another moderator should take over that role. What I am expecting is a conscious effort of moderators to follow certain guidelines to minimize decision-making based on their own bias.

[Preety_India]

3 minutes ago, Scholar said:

For example, right now you are compromised and should not moderate my behavior, instead another moderator should take over that role. What I am expecting is a conscious effort of moderators to follow certain guidelines to minimize decision-making based on their own bias.

I appreciate this perspective. Some mods are biased. Minimizing the impact of the bias would help. Also I observed that one mod tends to favor another creating a group think or circle jerk 

 

[StarStruck]

24 minutes ago, Scholar said:

I don't think Moderators would necessarily back either other's asses, I would hope they are more mature than that.

 

Most don't .. but not all and specially Carl-Richard. And there should be a mechanism to address that. Currently certain mods have formed clans, favor clans and corruption is abound. There should be an independent board that is a higher hierarchy than the mods.

Edited February 22, 2022 by StarStruck

[Carl-Richard]

7 minutes ago, Scholar said:

I think you are trying too hard find holes in my proposal. People usually don't consciously abuse their power. If there is a guideline for moderators in place that I suggested, it will reduce the instances of biased decision-making occuring, aswell as give members a better perception of the moderation team in regards to how they enforce the rules.

Sure, it sounds reasonable if you want to minimize risk. I still think it will be a bit tedious though. Moderation happens at the edge of disagreements. That is where violations occur. Usually, the way you discover these disagreements is by being engaged yourself. Moderators are moderators because they are active on the forum, and the most active people like to engage actively in discussions. If being a moderator is incompatible with this, then I will gladly give up my status, because that would go against everything I like about the forum.