05-14-2016, 05:59 PM
(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.