The Observation Deck

During the recent Advisory Board meetings, the recent political wars came up for discussion more than once. Into the discussion came the words, "delete," "edit," "ban," etc.

These are all words not one person on the Advisory Board wants to use, but it was also pointed out that while we cried for "civic norms of behavior" in the city, we should also be using the Deck as an example.

Since the number thingy, I have noticed that Lakewood seems to be more than a little uptight. This election brought back the fires and the soldiers from that last great civil war. How does this city move on?

What was decided at this point was we all see this project as something that belongs to the city and the members. As such we should all be policing the deck along with the city.

If anyone has any suggestions, please post them at the end of this thread.



.

Is Ashcroft now on the LO Board?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_TIPS

Civic norms as defined by whom?

It would seem to me that some people who use that phrase seem to think that they would define them. If you are going to use restrictions, you are no longer an unmoderated board.

If the board is going to do that, then that is another way for small groups or certain individuals to direct conversation and opposing view points to be stifled.

Not everyone talks in well modulated tones. Many people cloak statements with intellectual diatribes. Is this going to effect some of the pack mentality that goes on here?

I also noticed that the term policing was used. Does this go along with securing our borders, defining a dominant culture and exclusion of minority views?

Is this going to be the Lakewood Buzz? Are there individuals who see themselves as self-appointed "experts" on everything?

These questions should be answered before decisions of this type are made.

Hell, I've been thrown out of better places then this.

If the plan would be to start censoring the 'Deck, or to police it...

Whatever the motivation....

Legal?

Political?

Or?

Then you may as well start by banning this banjo player.

Oh I know, some people here seem to act as if they've had 2 shots and a beer, as far as being uninhibited goes on this old virtual chatterbox.

And sure, if people lie, or threaten someone, or harm someone? Well. there are legal remedies for that sort of thing, of course.

And I for one, have had enough of profanities or discussions of the kind that might be a problem for some young person to read.

But to ban an opinion? Any opinion?

That's a very slippery slope indeed.

I would be very cautious as to what or who, is banned.

But if ban you must, please allow me the honor of being the first to be banned.

Seriously, you can only "build the brand" so much. You can only spread so much icing on a cake of many contrasting flavors. We have many serious and contradictory political, economic and sociological points of view in this city. To simply sugar-coat away our differences would be to invite a serious underpinning of discord to erupt at a far more serious level.

The only thing worse than talking, is silence...

I still believe that outright personal attacks, libel, slander, and obvious attempts to troll should be moderated.

Every good forum has these types of rules of decorum in place. It's no different than what would be expected in the "real world".

I think that a bit of moderation is in order, only to keep the discussion focussed on issues, not personalities. Warnings should be given for personal attacks, to be followed up by banning after a certain number of offenses. If you cannot discuss the content of another's post without calling names, best not to post at all.

Moderation should never be used to censor unpopular ideas, or stifle strident language. As has been mentioned here, the use of real names allows people to define themselves positively or negatively by what they write.

Editing posts or deleting them altogether should be reserved solely for spam (which doesn't appear much on this board), corrections to blatant misinformation, correcting bad links or deleting duplicate posts/threads.

The problem as I see it, is simple.

Once our Board starts a moderation process, the party who would be somehow censured or banned would then have a "grievance".

Is there, or does there have to be a system of "due process", or a grievance procedure in place, or would the censure be purely arbitrary?

Would there be an appellate process? A reinstatement process?

How much time and expense would be involved fighting those aggrieved?

This type of thing has to be looked at from all sides carefully.

Rules need to be fair and consistent, and those can be difficult terms to apply at times.

Brian Pedaci wrote:I think that a bit of moderation is in order, only to keep the discussion focussed on issues, not personalities. Warnings should be given for personal attacks, to be followed up by banning after a certain number of offenses. If you cannot discuss the content of another's post without calling names, best not to post at all.

Moderation should never be used to censor unpopular ideas, or stifle strident language. As has been mentioned here, the use of real names allows people to define themselves positively or negatively by what they write.

Editing posts or deleting them altogether should be reserved solely for spam (which doesn't appear much on this board), corrections to blatant misinformation, correcting bad links or deleting duplicate posts/threads.

I agree 100%!

Rather than resort to censorship, I mean moderation, why not consider adding a feature called "ignore." Many boards have this feature which allows a member to "block" posts from one or more users. This does not block the post from public view, but allows an individual to control what posts they see.
This allows you to avoid posts from people that you know raise your blood pressure.

My concern over "moderation" is that what I've seen on moderated boards is posters who continually skirt the boundaries of moderation and are more of a PITA than those posters who may, on occasion, make an emotional or pugnacious post. I get just as tired of posters who make inane, repetitive posts or those who love to post links. How do you propose to moderate that behavior?

Most worthwhile boards and forums have some degree of moderation, if only to keep the slander and personal attacks to a minimum. Forum moderation is starting to be recognized as a skill in itself I think, sort of like sports referees.

Since there is no age requirement, I would like to see the profanity filtered (although I dont see much of that here). Links dont bother me, pasting long passages does. If there isnt some mechanism to filter out slander and libel, the board itself could be sued out of existence.

Im also not a fan of the back-and-forth messaging between any two individual posters, the sum total being "Youre an idiot." "No, YOURE an idiot." Most decent forums dont allow that type of stuff, only because it reduces the "signal to noise" ratio (just provin an old broad can talk hep lingo)
In any case remember that no one has a RIGHT to post ANYTHING here. Its still a private enterprise and the only way to insure that you can post anything is to start your own site.

But if ban you must, please allow me the honor of being the first to be banned.

Don't ban Gary, just his banjo!

Seriously, I think this site is already pretty well moderated. If a thread gets too much out of line, it usually dries up.

At the meeting I spoke in opposition to the idea of a moderator for the the LO Deck.

Despite the agonies and animosities of the LO Deck, freedom, sharp tongues, clear ideas, common decency, real names, a commitment to truth still seem best to me.

In an open civic communication channel that aspires, as I believe the LO does, to build the community's capacity for common learning, understanding, judgment and commitment, the best moderation is self-moderation.

So I will propose an order of self-moderation rooted in a common commitment to understanding, along with consideration, fairness and respect for another person.

Such self-moderation involves speaking to issues, to differences in views, to differences in relationships, to differences in content.

Self-moderation avoids labeling other people and making personal attacks.

Self-moderation might possibly reduce the levels of communication directed to a person with the intention to annoy, disqualify, humiliate, infuriate, intimidate, mislead, offend, or vilify.

But you never know how messages are given and how messages are received.

Kenneth Warren

Dee/Grace/The rest

This was one of many topics that came out of the endless meeetings between last issue and this up coming issue. Let me assure you that the Advisory Board knows we can do everything better, and we are taking steps. The one touchy issue is moderation.

I had always been proud of the fact that we had never edited a sngle post, and do not see us editing any in the future. However there has to be a way to get back to the positve move the city forward that this Deck was famous for.

The very real fact is, this board will be hear for a long time, as will the paper. Let's talk about this as we talk about so many things.

Hopefully, no rules will be put in place and we can resort to gentle reminders, as Joe Ott did to me about keeping on topic.

As for libel and slander, evryone is protected as we use real names. As for the rest, we need to sort this out in the open together.

If there is one thing I can assure you is that NO ONE feels they own this Deck or project.

peace.

In the end, if the board chooses to not be moderated, I agree with Ken's idea of self-moderation.

However, I would like to see the board implement the tools to allow the members to do that such as the "ignore" function noted above. Most forum software has this ability, it would be great to be able to ignore the posters you feel you'd like to be able to ignore.

Or if you prefer, you can call it what it was called in the old Gravity NNTP reader..."The Bozo Bin".