Tribal morality, Lack of objectivity

[Kriminal99]

Forum mods here are not objective

 

Basically this is about selfishness and a general lack of objectivity of the moderators at this site. Mods close threads they don't agree with citing subjective rules and do not make an effort to seperate their personal opinion on a thread topic from their actions as a moderator. They refer to each others "respectability" as if this were somehow signifigant to you, a person who gave them no such label. Etc

 

Subjective rules

 

Imagine a forum has a rule that says something like "Don't be stubborn". Of course any such rule is a joke - anyone who disagrees with the moderator or his friends would be labeled stubborn for continual disagreement whereas the moderator would never recognize the stubborness of himself or his tribe.

 

The question is are any rules on this site like this? The answer is yes. In general any rule that is not EXTREMELY specific will cause this problem. But specific to this site, here is a few examples:

 

Strange Claims - If you disagree with something, then you are likely to label it a "Strange Claim" as your opponent would likely do with your claims

 

Annoying members - Most people are not prepared for rational debate, partially because most discussion forums such as this one ENABLE their lack of maturity. They will become annoyed for no other reason than that you poked holes in their argument, and if they are moderators, friends of moderators, or hold the more popular opinion their annoyance will be interpreted as your having done something wrong.

 

Trolling - Pretty much the same as above. If you undermine more than one person's argument in a given debate, you are likely to be deemed a troll.

 

Tribal Morality

 

Tribal Morality is basically where members of a group effectively alter the definitions of right and wrong to mean whatever behavior members of their tribe exhibit. Subjective rules as mentioned above are a useful tool in doing this.

 

This is basically the "Good ol' boy concept" which refers to a popular term used by corrupt police officers of the deep south during the civil rights era who were members of KKK and other such organizations. If an officer was accused of doing something wrong, the next higher officer in charge would simply reply "Who officer bubba? naaahhh... hes a good ol' boy. If he did that it was because the person deserved it".

 

The analagous statement you might hear on these forums is something like "Such and such moderator is a respected member who's opinion on the .. blah blah blah"

 

Of course such statements are fallacious in every regard. Any given person decides for themselves whether or not a 3rd party is "respect worthy". It is not signifigant to any outside person or group that members of a certain group all pat each other on the back. And having respect is not something that makes immoral actions suddenly moral.

 

The only criteria that objectively determines a moderators usefulness is his ability to objectively enforce specific rules equally (with respect to how often they are broken which is obvious when rules are made specific) on all sides and his ability to refrain from letting his opinions or beliefs biasing his moderation. But his usefulness in general is not signifigant - rather only if he did it in any specific case is.

 

Thus the above behavior can simply be reduced into the principal of might makes right, which of course is a challenge for anyone to undermine their supposed "might"

[Kriminal99]

Whilst having had nothing to do with the original post, you have to admit that was rather funny. Krim, did pgrmdave threaten you with violence? I he did, I didn't see it. Or are you referring to that because you don't seem to be holding your own as far as our rules are concerned?

 

Like it was pointed out: This is a private 'club', if you will, where newcomers are welcomed with open arms provided they stick to the rules. And the rules aren't the US Constitution where 'Freedom of Speech' is guaranteed; the rules are the Rules of Hypography. Grin and bear it. If we don't do it, we'll quickly degenerate into a pile of muck like the myriads of unmoderated forums out there. You will NOT lay down the rules to us that we've been successfully applying over the years.

 

And that's about it.

 

All I can say further, is 'Like it or Leave it'. 'Shape up or Ship out' also comes to mind.

 

Effective enforcement of rules

 

One cannot seperate one brand of using force to circumvent your opponent and his beliefs (as opposed to confronting them) from another. Passive aggressive, deceptive behavior and making unsupported and obviously contested statements about your opponents behavior before using moderator status to prevent someone from responding are perfect examples. Consider a less cyberspace version of a similar experience where you try and tell someone to shutup because you are right and they are wrong. Do you think someone is just going to do it because you tell them to? To say such a thing is nearly implying threat of physical force- it automatically raises the question "or else what?"

 

Rather in real life and balanced situations people confront arguments with logical arguments of their own that they hope will convince the other person that their idea is correct or they must stop argument for the time being or they don't have time to consider that at the moment etc. Declaring by fiat that the other person is wrong and you don't have to consider what they are saying no matter how much time you have because it is socially acceptable (in your isolated group vs a world population of billions or infinite future people that will agree with whatever is most truthful) for you to ignore them does not lessen anyone's resolve to fight you on the internet or anywhere else. It is rarely the case that you so overpower someone and anyone he could ever rally to his cause that it is a smart thing to do to behave in this manner. Doing this is just a means to try and satisfy your ego and be antagonistic.

 

False Advertising

 

What you say about a private club would make perfect sense were it not for the issue of false advertising. You do not see many discussion forums labeled (and this forum is nowhere near as bad as COUNTLESS OTHERS for instance scienceforums.net) "Come to our forums heavily policed by opinionated facist forum nazis! Make sure not to do or say anything that might make the moderators insecure or they will assault you in a passive aggressive manner doing their best to hide their true intentions until another of them deletes your posts or threads etc!" Yet this is how many forums operate. Obviously few people would use them if the forums were labeled in such a manner.

 

It's like throwing a party. Yeah it's your house, but the people who came to the party didn't do it so you could be a nazi about it and tell you what you could do or say or who they could meet by preventing certain people or groups from joining (Like throwing a party and only inviting girls) etc. They came because you gave the impression that you were hosting a place where people could meet each other and have a good time. A discussion forum regarding science and philosophy may not have "Freedom of speech" in the sense that you can use curse words etc, but there is certainly implied a freedom of speech in the sense that you can argue for any position or belief without being subject to passive aggressive assaults by "respected" members or moderators and be penalized for responding in kind or acknowledging such behavior for what it is.

 

Perhaps there are some kinds of (passive) aggressive behavior that are ok for BOTH sides to participate in? So what are they so I can know how to respond to such people without crossing any lines? For that matter, if I don't know what these lines are, then how do the people using them against me know so they don't cross the line? I think it is far more likely that the only such line that exists is between agreeing and disagreeing with the majority.

 

Clear rules

 

Objective and intelligently designed rules may be very succesful in improving the quality of debate, but subjective rules do no such thing. Rulemaking is about creating a clear line that must be accepted by all parties prior to whatever is being regulated begins. Would there be a problem if the forum rules were as clear and as fairly enforced as the rules of a game like basketball?

 

The problem begins when deception and confusion occurs. Your rules CAN be effectively interpreted to mean that anything that you do not like (perhaps including people who defeat your arguments or the arguments of "respected members") is against the rules. Thus your members think it is okay to be nasty as long as you are on the "right" (socially accepted and typically incorrect) side. Then when their opponents defend or retaliate the rules are selectively enforced. Thus noone can read the rules and get an accurate impression of what the forum is like, how they should conduct themselves, or whether or not the forum is worth their time.

[Eclogite]

From the foregoing I understand that you are not happy with some of the rules, or with their application. You feel they are being interpreted in a manner that is subjective and harmful to proper, informed debate. Is that the gist of it?

What I don't get is any specific example of it. You seem to have tried to remedy this in your second post, but frankly I was completely unable to follow what you were driving at.

I'm posting here without my (very junior) mod hat on, out of curiosity as to what you are driving at. Could you offer a very specific example of what you mean. That would be helpful.

[ughaibu]

Eclogite: The posts were put here by a mod, Kriminal99 may not be aware of them.

[ughaibu]

See this thread, latest post: http://hypography.com/forums/physics-mathematics/10119-questions-about-infinity-4.html

[Eclogite]

Thank you ughaibu. Now I am more confused than ever. That is pretty confused, believe me.;)

[ughaibu]

While Kriminal99 was editing his post, a mod edited and moved it, Kriminal99 then submited his edited version thus removing the mod-edited version including the explanation. At least, that's how it appeared to me.

Less confused now?

[ronthepon]

Actually, that'd be me... excuse me for the bit about the lower reigion of the post.

[Kriminal99]

From the foregoing I understand that you are not happy with some of the rules, or with their application. You feel they are being interpreted in a manner that is subjective and harmful to proper, informed debate. Is that the gist of it?

What I don't get is any specific example of it. You seem to have tried to remedy this in your second post, but frankly I was completely unable to follow what you were driving at.

I'm posting here without my (very junior) mod hat on, out of curiosity as to what you are driving at. Could you offer a very specific example of what you mean. That would be helpful.

 

Yeah that is the general idea. Consider that perhaps most people in a forum like this (or any where else) may have developed some of their beliefs somewhat socially and they do not deviate from the majority extensively. Also consider that most people (at least subconsiously) may value beliefs and behavior socially meaning the more people that would agree with a behavior the more tolerant they will be of it. Because this makes up most people, alot of moderators are going to be like this.

 

Now consider that you have either A) someone who does not develop beliefs or behave in this manner because they have been conditioned otherwise or :D someone who comes from a different social group (that is perhaps not respected by the social group dominating a given forum) with different ideas. (there is a connection between these btw)

 

How can a moderator that can be described by the first paragraph going to be able to simultaneously moderate and participate in a discussion using rules like "Don't be stubborn" or "Don't annoy other members". Wouldn't it simply be the case that if 5 people disagreed with a person outlined in the second paragraph those people and the moderator both would declare themselves annoyed? The posters and the moderators will subconsiously believe the arguments are flawed because they are in disagreement with the majority, AND they will not feel the need to be tolerant for the same reason. They will label themselves annoyed for no other reason than that they feel they can in the situation.

 

Perhaps not many people will admit to fitting the model outlined in the first paragraph, but most people do as you can see by reasoning deductively based on typical behavior. For example - if you believe in something but do not have a counter argument to someone who tries to question your belief and instead refer them to other people who you think can deal with their argument. Perhaps these other people are members of a group that you are a member in and this group has impacted you greatly (examples: the military, a church, the academic community) and you scoff at the idea that someone who is not even known in this circle would possibly have something to say to your mighty group.

 

This is proof that you are modeled by the first paragraph. At any point in time that you do not have a counter argument to something that someone has said, logically you have no reason to believe that what they say is false. It can happen that the person's counter argument is true, and you do not know any potential response might be. Yet you still argue- your actions are irrational and motivated by the need to see other people to submit to the social group (entity of power) that you did.

[Tormod]

A discussion forum regarding science and philosophy may not have "Freedom of speech" in the sense that you can use curse words etc, but there is certainly implied a freedom of speech

 

I own this site, and I have never promised anyone free speech. When you come to visit my house, you are not allowed to **** on the floor. The same applies here. Verbal abuse is not welcome, and your arrogant, selfish rants are faaaar too long, annoying, and I have finally had enough of them.

 

Goodbye.

[Pyrotex]

Oh, and Krim, dear. If you happen to be reading this thread, do go and find out what passive-aggressive actually means. It might help avoid you getting banned from the next site.

 

Nah!!!

[Lancaster]

Oh, and Krim, dear. If you happen to be reading this thread, do go and find out what passive-aggressive actually means. It might help avoid you getting banned from the next site.

 

Nah!!!

 

That wasn't funny at all.

 

 

NOT!!!

[pgrmdave]

It's like throwing a party. Yeah it's your house, but the people who came to the party didn't do it so you could be a nazi about it and tell you what you could do or say or who they could meet by preventing certain people or groups from joining (Like throwing a party and only inviting girls) etc. They came because you gave the impression that you were hosting a place where people could meet each other and have a good time.

 

It's our house, and our party. If one person is being an ***, we don't need to put up with it. In fact, we can even throw them out of our house. If I come to your house, I'll play by your rules. If you're here, you play by our rules.