Hi,

What are some good guidelines for us non-moderator Forgies to express diapproval regarding politeness?

Chris

Silence is golden.

PM a mod.

Violence against a plush toy also helps, but isn't entirely helpful.

What are we talking here? Minor disapproval or full out toys-out-the-pram tantrum?

For minor infractions I believe it is the responsibility of a community to maintain it's own high standards - we should not leave this all to Ron. For full on toy-flinging, yup, leave it to the mods.

Hi Jack,

I think there are several levels to it. Obviously, we have the really nice, "Hey, we don't do that here, but here's what we DO instead" that usually gets applied to newbies to the out and out, "Ok, you've been told, and you know better" sort of situations.

I'm with you on not leaving it all to Ron, first because he's just one person, but two, because he catches a lot of flak for being an active defender of our community standards, when we all need to make it clear that some behavior isn't welcome, although all forms of disagreement are.

I'm asking the question for my clarification, but also to allow Ron and Clinton to lay down some guidelines for everyone overall.

Chris

I thought the policy was pretty clear:

The 'Ettiquette at the Forge' sticky wrote: B. Reporting a belligerent poster

If you have a problem with someone that is posting here because of issues on The Forge, please let Ron or Clinton know privately. Do not engage the poster yourself, and do not reprimand him, no matter how long you have been on The Forge.

That's my stance, too, Walt. No matter how annoyed I get at a temper-tantrum post, I leave it to Ron & Clinton to deal with as they see fit.

I think it's also good to remember that Forge threads are never deleted, Forge threads are rarely locked, & Forge posters are not banned. Calling for Ron or Clinton to delete or lock a thread are, at best, pointless. Calling for Ron or Clinton to "go ahead & ban me" is juvenile & equally pointless.

Hi all,

I think the issue then becomes this.... If you're a new guy or gal, and it's Ron, say, you're frustrated with, letting Ron know might feel like appealing to Castro when you've been accused of trying to flee the country. I know Clinton is there, too, but a) Clinton has less visibility here, so it's not clear to newer folks what his role/stand is in relation to, say, Ron and b) it's still PMing one of two people who are, at one level or not, joined at the hip -- or can assumed to be.

I think this might be where the appeal to the "public" comes in.

Now, my guess is, anyone PMailing Ron for a while under such circumstances will probably work it out. Therefore, it might be simply a matter of having the phrase in the guidelines re-written "...even if its Ron or Clinton. or somesuch. After all, this is implied, but its not clear if you suddenly find yourself feeling threatened by Ron or Clinton and getting ready to go into fight or flight mode.

I have no idea if this is a valid solution. But I do see this issue as being a true bump in the road of the Pax Forge ideal -- no matter how infrequently the matter comes up.

Christopher

Good call, Christopher.

It all comes down to whether people can trust me & Clinton to wear different hats.

Hat 1: fellow Forge member, in which the discourse is the top priority.

Hat 2: Forge content moderator, in which enforcing Hat #1 for everyone is the top priority.

Hat 3: publisher representing and promoting the interests of Adept Press.

Is it possible always to keep these separate? 'Course not. But the question is not whether I (for instance) can be perfect, but whether Clinton and I can be trusted within the bounds of accident, integrity, and provocation to keep them from actually unfairly backing up one another.

If we can't, then there's nothing to be done. The Forge would in that case be flawed from the ground up, and any justifications or explanations on my or Clinton's part are deceptive and toxic. No one with any sense should post here. It would indeed be a totalitarian and exploitative exercise.

If we can, then everyone works with the limitations imposed by reality, and use the various phrases and behaviors that have evolved here (or were brought by many) to get through the tough parts. Disagreements can still serve the common agenda.

Everyone has to choose for himself or herself which of those two paragraphs is real.

Best,
Ron

Hi Ron,

Good answer. And because I think its so good, I think you and Clinton should think about putting those words, or something very much like them, in the Forge Site Guidelines -- as a little sidebar, or adendenum -- or something. Because its up front, direct, and clears up a sticky-looking issue -- that to me, really isn't very sticky at all, but can look that way.

I know such things explinations may seem obvious, but this site simply is run differently than most others. And saying all of it up front, would, I think, be a good move for the long run.

Christopher

On the issue of Hats, I was tempted to write a "Ron Edwards *could* fuck off!" (clever title?), in which I do NOT malign Ron, but instead point out that as Forge member I can vehemently, brutally, strong-armedly contest any and all of Ron's beliefs (if I wanted) so long as I didn't breach Ettiquette; in short, a reality check, that I can go full-force against Ron-qua-Forgite without worrying about Ron-qua-Moderator.

(And lo, I've sort of written it.)

I wanted to chime in here with Ron, primarily because I've been quiet through this whole bit of melodrama. He's on the mark: if we can't be trusted to moderate and criticize each other (albeit privately), then the forum would not stand.

Ron Edwards wrote: But the question is not whether I (for instance) can be perfect, but whether Clinton and I can be trusted within the bounds of accident, integrity, and provocation to keep them from actually unfairly backing up one another.

If we can't, then there's nothing to be done. The Forge would in that case be flawed from the ground up, and any justifications or explanations on my or Clinton's part are deceptive and toxic. No one with any sense should post here. It would indeed be a totalitarian and exploitative exercise.

If we can, then everyone works with the limitations imposed by reality, and use the various phrases and behaviors that have evolved here (or were brought by many) to get through the tough parts. Disagreements can still serve the common agenda.

Hi folks,

So far, I haven't seen anything to break my trust of Ron or Clinton's ability to moderate. I do, however, feel that just as a community that we welcome new folks, help folks understand some of the common ideas or terminology here, that also, as a community, we have the ability to express disapproval.

I understand that PM is a clear message to the person, and perhaps that might just be the way to go. But the thing to also be aware of is that when other folks come along later, all they see is some heat build up and the thread get shut down. They don't necessarily see that perhaps several people, even folks who may be in agreement with the offending party, are not pleased with the means of communication used.

Chris

John, Ron's not saying that either paragraph 1 is true or paragraph 2 is true.

He's saying either paragraph 1 or paragraph 2 is true for you, the individual human being here on the Forge. You (that is, all of us) must figure out where you (we) stand in regards to that issue, and participate in this community or not accordlingly.

Which one is real for you? In that case, on an individual basis, it really is a binary case. Why? Because the community will not put up with anyone's bullshit if they think the second paragraph is real. They exhibit behaviors that are not acceptable here. So you can't have it both ways, and the moderators will let you know it. I find that entirely appropriate.

For me, I'm very glad Ron posted that message above. I tried to make exactly the same point in the recent thread in Publishing -- that we've got to use our brains and be able to parse out Ron the Moderator from Ron the Contributor, or we're screwed (and, boy, so is Ron).

In other words, we have to grant him enough trust, which he's by God earned in spades from where I'm sitting. Ron has proven again and again and again that he's a very sharp thinker, considerate, and exceptionally skilled at assessing social situations, whether they're in games or here on the Forge. On the rare occasions he's made mistakes, he makes good publicly and privately as well as he can. I have witnessed this in my own discourse with Ron and dozens of times as an observer on these discussion groups.

...we've got to use our brains and be able to parse out Ron the Moderator from Ron the Contributor, or we're screwed (and, boy, so is Ron).

Chris (Bankuei) wrote: So far, I haven't seen anything to break my trust of Ron or Clinton's ability to moderate. I do, however, feel that just as a community that we welcome new folks, help folks understand some of the common ideas or terminology here, that also, as a community, we have the ability to express disapproval.

Hunter,

How many times has Ron as moderator said something like "My way or the highway." The answer, from my points of observation, is several times. He does that frequently. If you, as a Forge poster, do not adhere to the Forge's socially enforced rules (specifically and most often enforced by Ron), you should hit the road OR rethink and try again (and usually it's the latter that Ron encourages).

Now, how many times has Ron as thinker or writer said something like "My way or the highway." I have never seen this happen. I have seen Ron debate rigorously with people. I have seen him come off abrasively. I have never seen him say, "You disagree with my ideas -- hit the road." To the contrary, I have seen precisely the opposite happen. When Ron disagrees with someone (or vice versa), he's usually happy to explain himself. He's usually patient. Never, in literally hundreds of such interactions I've read, have I ever seen him tell someone to hit the "highway" for any substantive disagreement.

This is a common sense distinction. Describing Ron with aphorisms like "My way or the highway" diminshes both his ability and role to moderate and to participate here. It clouds the precise reason we need to trust Ron to particpate here ourselves.

Once again, there is a profound difference in Ron policing someone for how they say something and Ron policing with someone with what they're saying. Ron does not bar people from saying useful or interesting things, even when he disagrees, so long as they're not being abusive or ignorning the forum's rules.


P.S. I think it's pretty fair to read any and all of my posts with Clinton interchangable with where I've said Ron's name. I emphasized Ron's role because he's the main content moderator, and because the topic is obviously inspired by Ron's activity in another thread.

Matt,

I acknowledge your intent, but our mileage varies more than you probably know. BTW: Your apparent thesis is incorrect. As I read it, we must accept that Ron behaves differently depending on which hat he wears in order to trust him. This is wrong. I think we can trust him because we think/know that he does his best to act in good faith with respect to whatever it is we're talking about. To that end, nothing I say will impact on Ron's ability to do anything. And if Ron has a problem with anything I've said, you can bet a testicle he'll let me know. So, that is really all I can say about this topic. I suspect you won't be satisfied, but it will have to be enough.

Hi Walt,

Excellent point, I stand corrected. I'll go practice meditation or something and calm down my frustration factor elsewhere.

Chris

To respond directly to the original post:

I tend to believe that the vast majority of people here are sincerely trying to post productively. Sometimes people get a little ahead of themselves and post more emotionally than maybe they intended to. I've found that a gently worded PM that simply calls attention to what could be a problematic post will get the poster to clarify.

The whole idea here is to indicate that you're out to help (which you are), not to reprimand or to punish.

I've disagreed wtih Ron quite vocally a time or two, but he's never attacked me. In fact, he's stuck up for my right to have my own opinion even though it was in opposition to his opinion. THAT is why Ron can and should be trusted.

The perceived "problem" lies in the fact that the Forge really is different. It takes people a little while to realize that an attack on your opinion is not the same as a personal attack. And you will have your opinions attacked, in much the same way as Greek philosophers attacked their peers' opinions during debates. It's not personal; it's a style of discourse that results in serious and often fruitful discussions.

The Forge is not a place just to post for the sake of posting. You'd better have something valuable to say or you'll be called on it. That's why I lurk so often -- I'm learning. Thank you all.

Roy