BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Moderating the Temple

 
  

Page: 1 ... 1011121314(15)1617181920... 35

 
 
Seth
17:26 / 17.01.07
I'd be more inclined to change they should also agree to to participants can also use Gek by;

1) making an effort to contribute to the Temple forum by starting a new thread or by making a post to an existing thread, and/or
2) experimenting with at least one new magical practice that they find challenging


Trying to put myself in the position of someone who has been using Gek for a while with no issues, encourged to could have the effect of me feeling like I wasn't welcome to carry on as is, because people would prefer that I was doing something else too. But then I'm one one of the people who has no truck with the thread as is. I think there's better ways of reaching the people who use it.
 
 
Quantum
09:08 / 18.01.07
I'm now more inclined toward leaving GEK alone, and starting a Wishing Well thread. If we're not agreed that it should be moved or locked or amended let's leave it, and also leave KEG, the Wishing Well and any other threads like them to prosper and be mocked according to circumstance. I don't want to take away anyone's wishing well or votive biscuit practice, or meddle with GEK himself, nor take away the right of Templars to critique each other's ideas.

More widely, as xk was saying what sort of thing are we wanting to encourage in the Temple? Is there any consensus on what we do and don't tolerate? If someone starts a 23fnord reality-tunnel-smashing thread are we likely to critique it, bump it down the forum, block posting to it?(mock, knock or lock?)
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
10:29 / 18.01.07
Yeah, but if we aren't going to move or lock the Gek thread then people are going to go on using it much as they have been for the past 25 pages, which would seem to obviate the need for a Wishing Well thread.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
10:47 / 18.01.07
More widely, as xk was saying what sort of thing are we wanting to encourage in the Temple? Is there any consensus on what we do and don't tolerate?

Consensus? In the Temple? *Ruffles Quants' hair* Dear naive thing.

I think things have got a lot better than they were in terms of most of the people who post there regularly wanting to see similar things: high-quality discussion with assertions being questioned and backed up, practices being critiqued, etc., but there's always going to be dissent. There always should be dissent IMO because that's a sign of a living and non-stagnant forum rather than a mutual appreciation society, but some of the dissent in the Temple seems to come from people who essentially want to be able to spout off on whatever the hell they want without ever being questioned or having to substantiate their arguments in any way.

If someone starts a 23fnord reality-tunnel-smashing thread are we likely to critique it, bump it down the forum, block posting to it?(mock, knock or lock?)

Some threads, like that "Meta" idiot's from a while back, are a shoo-in for a lock. For threads in the "My friends and I meet on the astral plane and fight crime dressed as Neo, wouldn't that make a good comic?" vein, I think critique is the way to go. Yeah, that means that anyone who actually gives a monkeys about the Temple and its content has to go through the same unspeakably tedious arguments again and again and again, but the alternative is a lock, followed inevitably as night follows day by a new thread either in the Temple or here demanding to know why the first thread was locked, meaning that we have to have the discussion anyway but with added rancour and complaints about teh facist mods. Which, y'know, let's not.
 
 
Seth
11:59 / 18.01.07
The thought experiment in which I am a Gek forum regular continues. I am feeling patronised rather than encouraged and feel like telling people to fuck off. That's the hypothetical me in the thought experiment, by the way, not the real me. The real me just feels aggrieved in sympathy with the hypothetical me.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
12:50 / 18.01.07
Hypothetically, Hypothetical Seth posts something to that effect. The hypothetical me feels uncomfortable about this. After deleting several stroppy posts as both defensive and passive-aggressive, Hypothetical Mordant has a cup of tea and calms down enough to ask Hypothetical Seth in all sincerity what he feels the positive aspects of the Gek thread are?

HMC identifies the following as positive: the servitor and thread were made in a spirit of laudable goodwill; people are evidently getting something out of it; possible gateway drug into more magics.

HMC goes on to point out that whilst the initial intention was champion, the outcome has been maybe a little lacklustre. That whatever people are getting out of the thread is evidently not sufficient to move them to put anything much back. That whilst theoretically the thread offers a gateway into more sophisticated and probably more empowering magical workings, in practice this doesn't really seem to happen as far as we can observe.

Finally, HMC admits that hir exasperation isn't entirely rarional, but it's getting more exasperaty with every bump of the thread.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
13:05 / 18.01.07
HYPOTHETICAL FIGHT!!!

TO THE HYPOTHETICAL ARMOURY FORUM!!!
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
13:21 / 18.01.07
Well, no. I really do want to sort all this out without FITE.
 
 
Seth
13:39 / 18.01.07
Sorry, that wasn't intended as a post whereby I could snipe under the guise of not sniping. It could easily be read that way and I apologise unreservedly if I pissed anyone off.

I've genuinely been trying to approach this as though I were a user of that thread as it has been since the beginning, because that seems to be the under-represented voice in this debate and arguably the one that matters most. If I were in that position I would feel patronised by the word 'encouraged' and inclined to ask, 'What do you know about me or the way I choose to live my life? Why are people who don't even use the thread or the servitor deciding how I should be encouraged to use it?'

Using that as a baseline I feel a lot of sympathy for that person in that position. Hope that's clearer.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
13:43 / 18.01.07
If, as it would appear, one of the problems people have with the thread is that those posting to it don't really post anywhere else in the Temple, I'm guessing they probably don't read the Policy either. This could be why they're under-represented. Not saying this is either an excuse or another reason for condemnation, just that it should probably be borne in mind.
 
 
Quantum
13:45 / 18.01.07
The flying horse?

...which would seem to obviate the need for a Wishing Well thread.

I was intending it as a competitor to the GEK thread, to discover whether the GEK regulars are actually invested in the servitor or just want somewhere to make wishes.

Time for some I Feel statements; I feel sorry for GEK. I feel he has been reduced to the role of drudge and is unappreciated, that like the wishing toad from the story he will eventually pop due to the demands put on him. I feel Gek needs more appreciation and possibly a break. I feel someone should grant Gek's wishes for a while.

I also feel little sympathy for the hypothetical contributors feeling alienated or patronised by our discussion (perhaps I lack empathy) and I feel that they should contribute to the discussion if they have any investment in it at all. I feel it is quite likely the hypothetical unhappy contributors never, ever read the Policy and, unlike the hypothetical Gek-using Seth will never feel patronised because they do not read the Temple but only ever write in that thread. When they want something.

If someone does *actually* feel patronised or alienated I hope they post about it so there can be a discussion, as this is a site for discussion and not blogging. I do have sympathy with lurkers (hello!) but if someone's opinions are not robust enough to be shared then I wonder about their utility. As some have said before, if you can't hack someone on the internet disagreeing with your opinions then you need to assess your interactions with others and possibly your self esteem.
 
 
Quantum
14:01 / 18.01.07
x-post; I meant FITE the flying horse, and missed seth and stoat's posts. The Gek-user is indeed under-represented here, which I think is the problem. If you *were* using the thread seth, I don't think you would be using it in that way. To my mind the casual usage is irreverent, unhealthy, lazy and a bad example of what the Temple is about. That seems just as valid a position as the 'I'll post how I like thanks' that we're assuming the Gek-users adopt.
 
 
Ticker
14:15 / 18.01.07
okso, I think there is a standard floating to the surface here...
We're back to supporting the hands off approach unless specific posts in specific threads require us to take action for what appear to be more board wide content concerns. We're not regulating for taste, inclination, or practice, but rather straight up offensive conduct. What is stupid or useless to some of us may have great value to others.

The a) not-my-cup-of-tea polite avoidence of threads that piss you off is of course everyone's option as is the b) engage-challenge-evolve approach. I support people going into the GEK thread and making suggestions to posters. The KEG thread, while being a bit caustic, is serving a function.

I'd suggest we only consider moving things to Convo when the thread in question is not specificly about a Temple topic ( example might be a thread that goes all movie fanfic happy) rather than it be purely a matter of quality control. We're going to have some threads some folks think are shite because we're all very different people. I think we're looking at a guide of forum appropriate topics and a reasonable level of non offensiveness, not just "we're proud to have it staring us in the eye every time we refresh the page".

What you think?
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
14:21 / 18.01.07
Seth: Nononono, didn't mean to come off as fighting assumed snipeyness with more snipeyness. Was just sort of picking up the thought experiement and playing with it.
 
 
Seth
14:26 / 18.01.07
To my mind the casual usage is irreverent, unhealthy, lazy and a bad example of what the Temple is about.

I think the amount of debate that has gone into the posters and their contributions is of such high standard that it effectively negates people's fears regarding setting a general bad example. That people have been so thoughtful, critical and sometimes spiky both in and out of that thread seems to have already made any necessary points that people feel they need to make without amending the programming, thread or abstract.
 
 
Seth
14:28 / 18.01.07
No worries MC. XX
 
 
Papess
15:28 / 18.01.07
Maybe a suggestion, we could put in the Barbe-Wiki what is the most appropriate approach to Gek, a little background work on Barbelith's beloved servitor, and a link provided in MC's first post in the thread, if MC is willing?

Just a suggestion, as a compromise.
 
 
Quantum
16:46 / 18.01.07
Could do, although I doubt the people it would be meant for read the wiki much.
 
 
iconoplast
17:05 / 18.01.07
I think the amount of debate that has gone into the posters and their contributions is of such high standard that it effectively negates people's fears regarding setting a general bad example. That people have been so thoughtful, critical and sometimes spiky both in and out of that thread seems to have already made any necessary points that people feel they need to make without amending the programming, thread or abstract.

I like this: it's a sneaky and useful way of looking at what's happening, and one I wish I hadn't needed to be led to.
 
 
grant
20:07 / 18.01.07
There's already a page on Gek in the wiki -- in category Barbelith Servitors, I think.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
13:18 / 19.01.07
The Gek-user is indeed under-represented here, which I think is the problem.

Well, yeah. A problem anyway. I mean, we've been having this debate (in its current incarnation) for days now. Where are all the people who regularly post wishes to the Gek thread and nowhere else? Why haven't they showed up to tell us why the anti-Gek-thread faction is wrong? Could it possibly be that, surprise surprise, they really don't give a moneky's about any part of the board apart from that one single thread? And not even the whole thread, since few the regular wishers have responded to, or even acknowledged the existence of, 2HRB's criticisms on page 25. It looks to me like they're only interested in the post they're about to make, and nothing else. Bit gimme-piggish?
 
 
Char Aina
14:14 / 19.01.07
i'm sorta with seth on this. why take away the wishing well?

i may be biased.
the church i go to once a year - on christmas eve, predictably enough - hasnt banned my family from attending, and i doubt they will.
it's often full for that service, and i believe they have lass than half a church in the rest of the year round.

i go for the singing (and because my mum loves the singing), and i have yet to say a prayer in the five or six years it has been an established family tradition.
i don't subscribe to the church newsletter, i don't leave my name in the guestbook, and i certainly don't turn up for any of the meetings they have about church business.

am i the gek thread visitor of that church?
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
14:55 / 19.01.07
And if the people who only post to the Gek thread only posted once a year, I don't think anyone would be talking about moving it.
 
 
iconoplast
17:00 / 19.01.07
Could it possibly be that, surprise surprise, they really don't give a moneky's about any part of the board apart from that one single thread? And not even the whole thread, since few the regular wishers have responded to, or even acknowledged the existence of, 2HRB's criticisms on page 25. It looks to me like they're only interested in the post they're about to make, and nothing else. Bit gimme-piggish?

While I totally barbe-crush you, MC, for your humor & insight in their equal and generous proportions, I have to say this discussion is making me really uncomfortable.

I sort of believe, deep down, that the Temple is in a large part 'run' by posters who share some kind of common frame for discussion of beliefs, for what constitutes good practice, and who all sort of agree about what's useful and worth talking about. I'm not sure this suspicion of mine is really germane to this conversation, but I guess I really just want to ask that you be careful before you start moderating for content.

I mean, I don't understand what is so infuriating about the existance of a thread which serves as certain members' sole interaction with the board. Sure, it'd be better if they were spreading their totally awesome wit and insight throughout the fora, but they don't want to. Should we really try to make them?

I believe there is a sense that the discussions elsewhere in the Temple forum are somehow diminished by the apparently embarassing spectacle that is GEK. I don't however, understand why the other discussions are suffering. The only real problem I see is that, with the GEK thread always at-or-near the top, the forum has one less other thread on the front page.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
17:57 / 19.01.07
I guess I really just want to ask that you be careful before you start moderating for content.

I think we've always moderated for content in the Temple, haven't we? Admittedly things have got a bit tighter over the years; if you look back in the annals of the forum you'll find such gems as the chap who claimed that his waitress gf had served a café full of Cenobites, and recieved little but earnest exhortations to OMG BURN SAGE!1!!, not to mention the dreadful tosh that Modzy used to dole out, but I doubt anyone is really yearning for a return to those halcyon days (except possibly the handful of jerks who flounced off in a flurry of gematria when we banned The Fetch). We've moved, locked and sometimes deleted threads that for one reason or another didn't come up to scratch, not because they were racist or otherwise bigoted; there's also the unofficial moderation action available to any commited poster of tearing the more idiotic topics a new hole or several, which has worked quite well in the past.

At the moment, the only moderation action applied to the Gek thread has been to modify the topic summary, to include an invitation--not an instruction, an invitation--to the casual wisher of wishes to get more involved and generally raise their game. That's it. Personally, I'm not even arguing for more than that--I'll probably go in and alter one or two of my own earlier posts to reflect my changed position, but that's all I'm prepared to do until there's a general consensus that something else needs to be done.

Like I say, I don't hate the Gek thread or anything, but it's started to bug me more and more that people feel okay about swinging by and asking for stuff with no acknowledgement that the rest of the thread exists, let alone the board.

What bothers me about the thread is that it's kind of a dead thread that acts as if it's alive. It's like the Ghost of 2001. All the assumptions behind it--servitor creation, servitor function, how servitors work, if they work, what they do, what they are, how magic works, what magic is, what we need and what we deserve and what's a reasonable offer in exchange--are treated in this one thread as if they are holy writ and not open to question, formulae inscribed in imperishable stone. It's stagnant, and I can't help thinking that the practices of the people who post there and nowhere else must be at least as stagnant. Magic as QVC + someone else's credit card. Is that really what we want to encourage, even in a small way? Is that really what we're about?
 
 
Char Aina
18:13 / 19.01.07
are we encouraging it, though, or alowing it?all the criticism, in thread and out, makes it quite clear to anyone who looks around that it isnt the temple's favourite thread.

back to the candles in church - they don't advertise that service, but they don't forbid it either.

i get why you don't want to encourage the GEKers, but why do you feel we shouldnt allow them?
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
18:40 / 19.01.07
And I say again: I'm not necessarily saying they should be disallowed. That's why I have never moved for the thread to be locked or even moved to a different forum. Unless I'm forgetting something (and it's entirely possible, so fell free to correct me on this) I've never seriously talked about moving to lock or delete the thread. I'm pretty sure that all I've ever done is try to express why the thread is getting to me and look at ways in which one might address those concerns.

Between this and some of the other shit that's been happening in the Temple lately I'm getting fucked off with the whole thing, TBH. I think people need to accept that if it's going to remain a quality discussion forum where you don't get every jerk with a chaostar or pentagram or upside-down cross pendant wanking on completely unchallenged about whatever comes into hir head regardless of provenance or substantiation, then it can't always be nicey nice and wiv milk an cookies. There can't be special little regions where dissent is not allowed. There has to be critique, there has to be challenge. There have to be voices that'll say "hang on, how do you know that?" when someone makes an assertion. Otherwise the Temple will degenerate rapidly into yet another forum full of vacuous ill-considered masturbatory drivel written by people with no fucking clue what they are talking about.

I mean, if that's what people want, fine. Far be it from me to spoil their playtime.
 
 
Char Aina
18:59 / 19.01.07
There can't be special little regions where dissent is not allowed. There has to be critique, there has to be challenge.

as far as i can see there are no such regions, though. there is critique, and there is challenge, and there continues to be. do you feel there is currently encouragement of the mindset you warn against encouraging?
 
 
Quantum
18:59 / 19.01.07
I'm of a mind to utilise the 'mock' option in-thread to express my grievance direct to the posters. That way, no moderation involved, no need for hand wringing in the Policy, and maybe the posters will actually notice what's written.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
19:08 / 19.01.07
as far as i can see there are no such regions, though. there is critique, and there is challenge, and there continues to be. do you feel there is currently encouragement of the mindset you warn against encouraging?

There is critique and there is challenge as long as the same five or six people can be arsed having the same tedious bloody row over and over again. As they inevitably get fed up and leave, the wankomancers will inevitably gain ascendance.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
19:09 / 19.01.07
maybe the posters will actually notice what's written.

Maybe if you replaced every other word with fnord and turned the whole post into an ASCII picture of Bob. Otherwise forget it.
 
 
jentacular dreams
21:54 / 19.01.07
There's a lot here about about how the regular posters haven't contributed to this debate. Now I'm pretty new (as a proper member anyway, I've been reading for quite a while) and not a regular poster in the temple (again I read, but I rarely feel I know enough about such things* to make a positive contribution), but if it's possible I'd like to suggest the following.

It's 2007, GEK has been going for six years now, so why not give him February off? Lock the thread for 28 days, and if possible, have the title redirect to a wiki-summary of the debate, with links to the debate thread. Proceed according to results.

* I only have a vague idea of what a servitor actually is. Some seem to treat it as a sentient creation (/incarnation?), others as a psychosomatic tool. Is either view a minority, or is it a more subjective level of truth than that?
 
 
Char Aina
22:00 / 19.01.07
it's sorta both.

hang on...
googled a moment, and i found that according to sourceryforge:

In Magick, a Servitor is a special form of concentrated energy pre-programmed with the magician's will and created with some form of magical ritual or meditation. Servitors help the magician to accomplish his or her goals.

i think that kinda covers it.
 
 
Unconditional Love
03:03 / 24.01.07
A servitor is a slave. A utilitarian tool.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
08:37 / 24.01.07
It is kind of an interesting ethical question, isn't it? Are you just individuating your intent with the servitor being, in essence, a part of yourself, or are you creating a sentient, independant critter? Which opens up a whole can of worms.
 
  

Page: 1 ... 1011121314(15)1617181920... 35

 
  
Add Your Reply