Discussion of Warning System

[Webmaster]

If you wish you can talk about the warning system here.

[Kinser79]

Word filters are a terrible idea and a great way to end up with an echo chamber. The warning system is probably fine but in order to have it enforced, we're going to need written rules otherwise it becomes arbitrary which of course results in an echo chamber.

If the idea is to have actual debate here, that requires free speech here. Anything less will result in overmoderation, echo chambers and a quick death of the forum.

[Webmaster]

(05-13-2016, 10:28 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Word filters are a terrible idea and a great way to end up with an echo chamber.  The warning system is probably fine but in order to have it enforced, we're going to need written rules otherwise it becomes arbitrary which of course results in an echo chamber.

If the idea is to have actual debate here, that requires free speech here.  Anything less will result in overmoderation, echo chambers and a quick death of the forum.

I’m not sure how the word filter creates an echo chamber since its context neutral. I implemented it mainly because some filtering programs will block sites based on language, and I want to stay clear of the filters.   I agree about having rules and non-biased enforcement, I’m working on drafting the rules and selecting moderators.

[Bronco80]

(05-14-2016, 03:19 PM)Webmaster Wrote:

(05-13-2016, 10:28 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Word filters are a terrible idea and a great way to end up with an echo chamber.  The warning system is probably fine but in order to have it enforced, we're going to need written rules otherwise it becomes arbitrary which of course results in an echo chamber.

If the idea is to have actual debate here, that requires free speech here.  Anything less will result in overmoderation, echo chambers and a quick death of the forum.

I’m not sure how the word filter creates an echo chamber since its context neutral. I implemented it mainly because some filtering programs will block sites based on language, and I want to stay clear of the filters.   I agree about having rules and non-biased enforcement, I’m working on drafting the rules and selecting moderators.

Which filtering programs are you referring to?

I don't agree with Kinser on the echo chamber point but I would personally prefer that profanity wasn't censored.  But it's your board, and I'll abide with whatever you decide.  Another alternative thought: is there a setting to remove the censors when people are logged in?

[Webmaster]

(05-14-2016, 04:32 PM)Bronco80 Wrote:

(05-14-2016, 03:19 PM)Webmaster Wrote:

(05-13-2016, 10:28 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Word filters are a terrible idea and a great way to end up with an echo chamber.  The warning system is probably fine but in order to have it enforced, we're going to need written rules otherwise it becomes arbitrary which of course results in an echo chamber.

If the idea is to have actual debate here, that requires free speech here.  Anything less will result in overmoderation, echo chambers and a quick death of the forum.

I’m not sure how the word filter creates an echo chamber since its context neutral. I implemented it mainly because some filtering programs will block sites based on language, and I want to stay clear of the filters.   I agree about having rules and non-biased enforcement, I’m working on drafting the rules and selecting moderators.

Which filtering programs are you referring to?

I don't agree with Kinser on the echo chamber point but I would personally prefer that profanity wasn't censored.  But it's your board, and I'll abide with whatever you decide.  Another alternative thought: is there a setting to remove the censors when people are logged in?

I’m talking about the firewalls/filters the schools and offices have, on another site I was on people were getting blocked by their office so the administration of the site put up in a filter.  I’m not personally bothered by profanity but I 1) I want to keep the site from getting blocked and 2) I want to attract new users, and too much foul  language especially in subject lines will turn off some prospective users.  I’ll see if there are plugins the limit the filter to subject lines.

[Kinser79]

(05-14-2016, 03:19 PM)Webmaster Wrote:

(05-13-2016, 10:28 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Word filters are a terrible idea and a great way to end up with an echo chamber.  The warning system is probably fine but in order to have it enforced, we're going to need written rules otherwise it becomes arbitrary which of course results in an echo chamber.

If the idea is to have actual debate here, that requires free speech here.  Anything less will result in overmoderation, echo chambers and a quick death of the forum.

I’m not sure how the word filter creates an echo chamber since its context neutral. I implemented it mainly because some filtering programs will block sites based on language, and I want to stay clear of the filters.   I agree about having rules and non-biased enforcement, I’m working on drafting the rules and selecting moderators.

http://generational-theory.com/forum/thr...tml#pid399

Generally speaking word filters block words that are considered profanity and depending on how rigorous the filter is it can filter out words that could be considered politically problematic.  As such while a word filter would be just fine on profanity--I can live without using various words for excrement and fornication, even if I am miffed about the asterisks in my "Modern art is S**t" thread; I used that particular profanity for a clear reason--I cannot support filtering out of words that would be otherwise problematic...the "n-word" for example.  Considering that politics is going to be a big part of what we do here--particularly during election cycles.

TL;DR:  Kinser supports people being able to call Trump an a**hole just like he supports people saying Trump is the best thing since sliced bread.

Filtering out of websites has to be done carefully.  While it may be appropriate to filter out National Socialist Movement (they are very OTT with the whole Jew thing) or "Grannies I want to <well you get the idea>" it would not be appropriate to filter out Breitbart, or Huff Post.  It definitely won't be appropriate to filter out governmental sites, or the sites to other primary sources of information.

As to moderators I think that those selected should be those who are committed to allowing free speech, which includes the right to express very unpopular ideas--otherwise there will be an echo chamber.  If I may make a suggestion, it might be wise for moderators to have separate moderator accounts.  Such as "Moderator X"

[Kinser79]

(05-14-2016, 05:14 PM)Webmaster Wrote:

(05-14-2016, 04:32 PM)Bronco80 Wrote:

(05-14-2016, 03:19 PM)Webmaster Wrote:

(05-13-2016, 10:28 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Word filters are a terrible idea and a great way to end up with an echo chamber.  The warning system is probably fine but in order to have it enforced, we're going to need written rules otherwise it becomes arbitrary which of course results in an echo chamber.

If the idea is to have actual debate here, that requires free speech here.  Anything less will result in overmoderation, echo chambers and a quick death of the forum.

I’m not sure how the word filter creates an echo chamber since its context neutral. I implemented it mainly because some filtering programs will block sites based on language, and I want to stay clear of the filters.   I agree about having rules and non-biased enforcement, I’m working on drafting the rules and selecting moderators.

Which filtering programs are you referring to?

I don't agree with Kinser on the echo chamber point but I would personally prefer that profanity wasn't censored.  But it's your board, and I'll abide with whatever you decide.  Another alternative thought: is there a setting to remove the censors when people are logged in?

I’m talking about the firewalls/filters the schools and offices have, on another site I was on people were getting blocked by their office so the administration of the site put up in a filter.  I’m not personally bothered by profanity but I 1) I want to keep the site from getting blocked and 2) I want to attract new users, and too much foul  language especially in subject lines will turn off some prospective users.  I’ll see if there are plugins the limit the filter to subject lines.

These in and of themselves are problematic as many schools are instituting word filters to prevent access to any line of thought that hasn't been directly approved by the administration.

[Webmaster]

Ok after doing some research the network filters shouldn’t really be a problem. There is no way to limit the filters to subject lines (my preferred policy); since I don’t think profane words were overused at the old forum I’ll disable the filters as long as the subject lines are clean.

[Webmaster]

(05-14-2016, 05:28 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(05-14-2016, 03:19 PM)Webmaster Wrote:

(05-13-2016, 10:28 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Word filters are a terrible idea and a great way to end up with an echo chamber.  The warning system is probably fine but in order to have it enforced, we're going to need written rules otherwise it becomes arbitrary which of course results in an echo chamber.

If the idea is to have actual debate here, that requires free speech here.  Anything less will result in overmoderation, echo chambers and a quick death of the forum.

I’m not sure how the word filter creates an echo chamber since its context neutral. I implemented it mainly because some filtering programs will block sites based on language, and I want to stay clear of the filters.   I agree about having rules and non-biased enforcement, I’m working on drafting the rules and selecting moderators.

http://generational-theory.com/forum/thr...tml#pid399

Generally speaking word filters block words that are considered profanity and depending on how rigorous the filter is it can filter out words that could be considered politically problematic.  As such while a word filter would be just fine on profanity--I can live without using various words for excrement and fornication, even if I am miffed about the asterisks in my "Modern art is S**t" thread; I used that particular profanity for a clear reason--I cannot support filtering out of words that would be otherwise problematic...the "n-word" for example.  Considering that politics is going to be a big part of what we do here--particularly during election cycles.

TL;DR:  Kinser supports people being able to call Trump an a**hole just like he supports people saying Trump is the best thing since sliced bread.

Filtering out of websites has to be done carefully.  While it may be appropriate to filter out National Socialist Movement (they are very OTT with the whole Jew thing) or "Grannies I want to <well you get the idea>" it would not be appropriate to filter out Breitbart, or Huff Post.  It definitely won't be appropriate to filter out governmental sites, or the sites to other primary sources of information.

As to moderators I think that those selected should be those who are committed to allowing free speech, which includes the right to express very unpopular ideas--otherwise there will be an echo chamber.  If I may make a suggestion, it might be wise for moderators to have separate moderator accounts.  Such as "Moderator X"

Diversity of opinions is something a value and I have no intention of limiting what website people link to (excluding spammers).  However I know that a number of people left the forum because the tone was not civil.

[Ragnarök_62]

(05-14-2016, 04:32 PM)Bronco80 Wrote: Webmaster

(05-13-2016, 10:28 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Word filters are a terrible idea and a great way to end up with an echo chamber.  The warning system is probably fine but in order to have it enforced, we're going to need written rules otherwise it becomes arbitrary which of course results in an echo chamber.

If the idea is to have actual debate here, that requires free speech here.  Anything less will result in overmoderation, echo chambers and a quick death of the forum.

I’m not sure how the word filter creates an echo chamber since its context neutral. I implemented it mainly because some filtering programs will block sites based on language, and I want to stay clear of the filters.   I agree about having rules and non-biased enforcement, I’m working on drafting the rules and selecting moderators.



Which filtering programs are you referring to?

I don't agree with Kinser on the echo chamber point but I would personally prefer that profanity wasn't censored.  But it's your board, and I'll abide with whatever you decide.  Another alternative thought: is there a setting to remove the censors when people are logged in?

I'm with Kinser'79/Bronco80 on this. I find it odd to censor stuff just because some fascist sites upstream like to do this stuff. I say, if some wahoo fascist .gov or .com site censors,  it's THEIR loss. I'm a moderator on a mailing list and I don't censor any of the "7 words you can't say on TeeeVeee. I just censor spams, out of hand flame wars [I just ask the participants to take the conversation offline. ], and blatant ad-homs. I know that's not doable here.  I don't know if there's a way to make a mosh pit thread.

[Webmaster]

(05-14-2016, 06:04 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(05-14-2016, 04:32 PM)Bronco80 Wrote: Webmaster

(05-13-2016, 10:28 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Word filters are a terrible idea and a great way to end up with an echo chamber.  The warning system is probably fine but in order to have it enforced, we're going to need written rules otherwise it becomes arbitrary which of course results in an echo chamber.

If the idea is to have actual debate here, that requires free speech here.  Anything less will result in overmoderation, echo chambers and a quick death of the forum.

I’m not sure how the word filter creates an echo chamber since its context neutral. I implemented it mainly because some filtering programs will block sites based on language, and I want to stay clear of the filters.   I agree about having rules and non-biased enforcement, I’m working on drafting the rules and selecting moderators.



Which filtering programs are you referring to?

I don't agree with Kinser on the echo chamber point but I would personally prefer that profanity wasn't censored.  But it's your board, and I'll abide with whatever you decide.  Another alternative thought: is there a setting to remove the censors when people are logged in?

I'm with Kinser'79/Bronco80  on this. I find it odd to censor stuff just because some fascist sites upstream like to do this stuff. I say, if some wahoo fascist .gov or .com site censors,  it's THEIR loss. I'm a moderator on a mailing list and I don't censor any of the "7 words you can't say on TeeeVeee. I just censor spams, out of hand flame wars [I just ask the participants to take the conversation offline. ], and blatant ad-homs. I know that's not doable here.  I don't know if there's a way to make a mosh pit thread.

I've listened and disabled the filters, just keep it out of the subject lines.

[Kinser79]

(05-14-2016, 06:04 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: I'm with Kinser'79/Bronco80 on this. I find it odd to censor stuff just because some fascist sites upstream like to do this stuff. I say, if some wahoo fascist .gov or .com site censors,  it's THEIR loss. I'm a moderator on a mailing list and I don't censor any of the "7 words you can't say on TeeeVeee. I just censor spams, out of hand flame wars [I just ask the participants to take the conversation offline. ], and blatant ad-homs. I know that's not doable here.  I don't know if there's a way to make a mosh pit thread.

I did suggest an "off topic" forum. Honestly I don't know how one can prevent flame wars from happening (and I've run many forums in my day), the least intrusive way I've found is to lock the thread and let it get buried.

(05-14-2016, 06:10 PM)Webmaster Wrote: I've listened and disabled the filters, just keep it out of the subject lines.

Thank you. Keeping expletives out of subject lines is an acceptable compromise. However, I don't think that we really can control who blocks or doesn't block the forum. In general though I don't think we'd ever cross the line into territories where blocking usually occurs.

I know that were I a moderator I'd not only delete pornographic material, or ads for impotence pills (or similar) but I'd probably ban the poster who posted it unless I knew for certain that said poster was not a spam bot.

[Ragnarök_62]

Quote:I've listened and disabled the filters, just keep it out of the subject lines.

1. Thank you.
2. The request above is reasonable and I'll happily comply.

[Bronco80]

(05-14-2016, 06:29 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

Quote:I've listened and disabled the filters, just keep it out of the subject lines.

1. Thank you.
2. The request above is reasonable and I'll happily comply.

I concur!

[Bob Butler 54]

(05-14-2016, 06:04 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: I'm with Kinser'79/Bronco80  on this. I find it odd to censor stuff just because some fascist sites upstream like to do this stuff. I say, if some wahoo fascist .gov or .com site censors,  it's THEIR loss. I'm a moderator on a mailing list and I don't censor any of the "7 words you can't say on TeeeVeee. I just censor spams, out of hand flame wars [I just ask the participants to take the conversation offline. ], and blatant ad-homs. I know that's not doable here.  I don't know if there's a way to make a mosh pit thread.

I disagree. I would like civil conversation. The occasional zinger doesn't bother me, but when things go down hill the language goes with it. Some folks seem to think that the more expletives used the better their argument is.

Sure, run filters off for a while. Watch what happens.

[radind]

(05-16-2016, 08:20 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(05-14-2016, 06:04 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: I'm with Kinser'79/Bronco80  on this. I find it odd to censor stuff just because some fascist sites upstream like to do this stuff. I say, if some wahoo fascist .gov or .com site censors,  it's THEIR loss. I'm a moderator on a mailing list and I don't censor any of the "7 words you can't say on TeeeVeee. I just censor spams, out of hand flame wars [I just ask the participants to take the conversation offline. ], and blatant ad-homs. I know that's not doable here.  I don't know if there's a way to make a mosh pit thread.

I disagree.  I would like civil conversation.  The occasional zinger doesn't bother me, but when things go down hill the language goes with it.  Some folks seem to think that the more expletives used the better their argument is.

Sure, run filters off for a while.  Watch what happens.

I like to see different points of view with civil dialogue, but don't enjoy foul language. So, I will just put more on ignore and do without some opinions.

[Bronco80]

See, to me, the civility of the conversation has to do with the actual meaning of the expression than specific syntax being used.  Saying "Donald Trump is lying" and "Donald Trump is peddling bullshit" expresses the same statement.  People feel comfort in saying certain words over others, in certain circumstances.  Personally, I got far more annoyed back in the day when Glick and playwrite kept tossing around the work "amygdala" to personally insult each other, but I wasn't calling for the word amygdala to be censored.

[playwrite]

(05-16-2016, 11:27 AM)Bronco80 Wrote: See, to me, the civility of the conversation has to do with the actual meaning of the expression than specific syntax being used.  Saying "Donald Trump is lying" and "Donald Trump is peddling bullshit" expresses the same statement.  People feel comfort in saying certain words over others, in certain circumstances.  Personally, I got far more annoyed back in the day when Glick and playwrite kept tossing around the work "amygdala" to personally insult each other, but I wasn't calling for the word amygdala to be censored.

I'm curious as to why "amygdala" as in "amygdala-dominated thinking" is offensive to you. It is a scientifically-shown phenomenon that gives credence to behavioral differences between those considered to have more conservative than progressive political viewpoints.  Here is a good summary and links to several scientific papers on the subject -

http://2012election.procon.org/view.reso...eID=004818

Quote:Differences in Conservative and Liberal Brains

16 peer-reviewed studies show liberals and conservatives physiologically different

For some, it is akin to climate change denial: the science is there but it is perhaps a tad too frightening to grasp that political differences have biological foundations, particularly with the realization that those differences include different preferences for logical versus emotional thought processes and the two poles can only talk past one another. 

There is also a value judgement that the amygdala-dominated conservative is operating on a lesser, emotionally-based, paradigm.  However, many conservatives actually embrace the difference and see theirs as being the superior thought process particularly in a longer-term survival mode of what they part-in-parcel see are eventual societal catastrophes like a Muslim Brotherhood takeover or a zombie apocalypse.  One of the best examples of this is a book on the topic -

"The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics: How Conservative and Liberalism Evolved within Humans"

In that book, an obvious amygdala-dominated tells us the benefit of studly "K-onservative wolfpacks" running roughshod over and culling "promiscuous progressive sheep" that would otherwise drain everyone's resources!

"Amygdala-dominated" is shorthand for a phenomenon that explains much of what we consider contemporary issues, providing a very insightful lens to look at the 4T framework.  Perhaps I'll start a thread to better explain it.  If the new forum is like the old, there will be reams of examples of the phenomenon

[Bronco80]

You're reading too much into that example.  I'm hardly offended, just merely annoyed.  Even if I were offended, I still wouldn't want to bar you, Glick, or whoever from talking about amygdalae in frank detail, as you've done below.

BTW, good to see you again PW, it's been too long, and that's all my fault.

[playwrite]

(05-17-2016, 10:41 AM)Bronco80 Wrote: You're reading too much into that example.  I'm hardly offended, just merely annoyed.  Even if I were offended, I still wouldn't want to bar you, Glick, or whoever from talking about amygdalae in frank detail, as you've done below.

BTW, good to see you again PW, it's been too long, and that's all my fault.

Good to see you back as well!

I realize you're not someone to call for banning and you're annoyance is slight.  I just took the opening as a way to re-introduce one of my favorite subjects!