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 ... 1920212223(24)2526272829... 35

 
 
Quantum
12:31 / 06.07.07
Not as bored at work as me, I'm afraid.

HAH! You are both puny bored folk, my boredom is unstoppable! The more bored I am the more powerful I become, AND I'VE NEVER BEEN THIS BORED BEFORE!
 
 
Quantum
12:34 / 06.07.07
Archabyss, we need you! He's coming for us one by one!
 
 
Katherine
12:47 / 06.07.07
It is done.
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
12:59 / 06.07.07
It is undone!
 
 
Katherine
13:05 / 06.07.07
GL you were saying about taking things personally? The words pot and kettle spring to mind here.....

Of course boredom is probably playing a big part in it as well! :P
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
13:32 / 06.07.07
KEG does not understand what puny Arch Abyss is talking about.

Puny Gypsy Lantern is not typing this. He types puny words about puny magics. KEG types smash puny Barbeliths. RAAAAAGGHHH!
 
 
Katherine
13:38 / 06.07.07
puny magics? PUNY MAGICS? Says something made from people lazily posting in the vain hope of something happening like a magical placebo?

Ha! And Triple Ha! You are the puny one KEG!
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
13:44 / 06.07.07
Puny Gek made from lazy magical placebo effects. KEG made from puny barbelith suffering! KEG made from horror! KEG made from WIN!
 
 
Ticker
23:16 / 23.09.07
I think eworm/emonk was completely on target presenting his
Temple mod response here and I'd like to request some more Temple mod coverage with non mod community responses.


If need be I think we can pull enough examples of the prior hate speech and threats from threads we've happily let sink.
 
 
illmatic
07:06 / 24.09.07
Would it not be better to lock that thread and let it sink? I can't see anything happening there but people venting at BiaS in his absence.

*Thinking aloud* Myabe not, perhaps people could use the space for a public rebuttal of BiaS's shit?

BTW most of the hatespeech on Barbelith came from Epop, not BiaS, though he's made plenty of horrible statements elsewhere.

Bit sad for me, as he's a former friend and magical colleague. Personally, I think it unlikely he will add anything productive to Barbelith in the near future.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
07:13 / 24.09.07
While I agree that Epop was responsible for the worst of the hatespeech, Jason said some pretty unpleasant things himself and fully supported Epop in what he wrote.

Anyhow, I've put in for the lock + delete. As you say, nothing is likely to happen in that thread except a re-hash of a very ugly situation. It is very sad, but there's not much else to be done except hope he gets a bit better in time.
 
 
illmatic
07:33 / 24.09.07
While I agree that Epop was responsible for the worst of the hatespeech, Jason said some pretty unpleasant things himself and fully supported Epop in what he wrote.

Agreed. It occured to me that maybe, Barbelith being googleable and all, it might be useful to have a "dump" which brings up some of his opinions but, in truth, I can't see it being much other than a rehash.

I think there may be a good case for banning Jason from the site on the grounds of expressing active and hostile prejudice towards other people's religions, if anyone wants to start the thread?
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
07:38 / 24.09.07
Oh God. If he's going to try and post around here I suppose we have to, don't we, if only for consistancy's sake.
 
 
Quantum
07:38 / 24.09.07
I don't think it's worth it, he only turns up to plug his stuff now, and probably won't anymore. 'Enjoy academia, kids'. Wanker.

He used to be a nice guy.
 
 
Katherine
07:39 / 24.09.07
Personally I'm leaning towards the lock the thread and ignore him. Why has he come back here after what he did? Probably because nobody cares about him and he wants more kind of attention. Basically his thread was all about self-promotion in a place where there could be an argument and thus fueling the self-ego thing.

Ignore him folks and concentrate on the Temple being the place we all want with good quality discussions and of course...our wonderful book.
 
 
Quantum
07:39 / 24.09.07
BTW I agreed the lock but not the thread deletion, because I want to keep it as reference. Evidential, and all that.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
07:56 / 24.09.07
Okay, Quants, but you do realise that since deletion merely ghosts the thread it would still remain as evidence? Not that it matters too much, since it'll just drop down the page now.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
08:04 / 24.09.07
archabyss: Basically his thread was all about self-promotion in a place where there could be an argument and thus fueling the self-ego thing.

I think you're probably right there. In a weak moment I went back to the UC Google group and there's been virtually no activity there in a month, with the last post being Jason himself plugging that vid. Hmm.
 
 
jentacular dreams
08:35 / 24.09.07
Come on, own up! Who closed their connectorz?
 
 
Tryphena Absent
11:44 / 24.09.07
Can we leave it for a while before we start trying to ban Jason? He was a poster here for a long time and it's pretty obvious that he's gone over the edge but he's not been spamming a huge amount and there's always the chance he'll come back to himself and issue an apology in the future. I know what he did is hurtful but I can't help but feel more worried about him than anything else. Can we deal with very occasional insults and offensive madness when we know someone's basically lost their reason? If he started spamming constantly we'd have cause but I'm not sure we do right now. It's not like he's always been a troll, he just lost it and I think that's a really sad thing and I'd like to think in a year's time he could access BiaS and come back and tell us what happened.
 
 
The Falcon
12:12 / 24.09.07
You make a good point, TS, inasmuch as when formerly Sensitive came back and apologised for his then dreadful behaviour it was really, well, uplifting. I honestly had thought he'd been banned, but am very glad he had not.

However, the offchance a poster might return after a good long think to tell us about it could be extensible to most mooted bans.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
12:32 / 24.09.07
Yes but I think there has to be an impression that they are coming back or some proof of sustained spamming/trolling. Jason has a long history in the community, if he does it again I think banning has to come up as a suggestion but perhaps we should wait until he does do something rather than do it now.

Sorry, this really does just make me feel sad.
 
 
Quantum
12:54 / 24.09.07
Right, as it takes eight Temple mods to agree a ban, I'm favouring locking and deleting as a strategy.
We want the Temple to be a place where you can find high quality discussion on magic and spirituality, and it can't be that if people spam it with fnord.
Someone pointed out to me that if we're going to open up the board we need to decide what we want the temple to be and how to help make it that. I think when someone posts a rubbish thread we should lock & delete it, PM them explaining why and telling them what we do want, and if they continue to dribble drivel think about a ban. It's going to become more important if we get an influx of people.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
13:11 / 24.09.07
Why do you want to delete it?

It makes it more difficult to find if you need it later but if there's a specific reason...
 
 
Alex's Grandma
16:47 / 24.09.07
Given that Darkmatter only seems to post in the Temple, is he necessarily going to know that people are talking about banning him now his thread's been deleted? Wouldn't best practice been to have locked it, if that was felt to be neceassry, with a link to the Policy at the bottom?

As it is, he's arguably not being given much of a chance to defend himself.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
17:28 / 24.09.07
I kind of agree- if a thread's to be locked, it should have a final post from the mod locking it explaining why, or pointing to a Policy thread explaining why. Not only for situations like these, but so we don't get "why was the wonderful thread of lists locked" enquiries too.
 
 
Olulabelle
19:26 / 24.09.07
I second that. We should definitey have a 'this tread has been locked because' post at the end of a locked thread.

But ideally I prefer deletion because what's the point of holding onto rubbish you're never going to read or use again? If you did that in your house it would be full of old tat.

I have proposed deletion again on the BiaS thread because of this.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
19:34 / 24.09.07
Actually, though it's a lot more work for everyone involved so I can see why people wouldn't like it, in cases like that BOTH would be good- a final post saying why it was locked so those following it will see it, staying for maybe 48 or 72 hours, then deletion.

Given that we can't automate that, though, I'll admit it's asking a bit much. As a mod in other fora I think I'd find it hard to keep track of the time, so I wouldn't expect anyone else to.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
19:35 / 24.09.07
what's the point of holding onto rubbish you're never going to read or use again? If you did that in your house it would be full of old tat.

You clearly haven't seen my house. It's like that. Only more so.
 
 
jentacular dreams
19:42 / 24.09.07
Not a temple mod but I think I'd agree. With merchant links and self promotion, deletion is the only way to discourage people from doing it again in six months. If for any reason we do keep the threads I'd strongly recommend removing the links and scrambling the promotional material before locking, as well as PMing the 'spammer' about why said deletion took place (unless, as in this case they've been taken up on it in thread and have given some indication that the reply has been recieved).

For deleted threads I'd recommend just keeping a thread of deleted threads, listing titles and why they were deleted. This could be pointed to both in cases of repeated spamming and in cases of similarity ('look, we've deleted X threads by other posters for Y reason, why would we make an exception in your case... etc.)

In this case, again I'm no temple mod, but I can't see many reasons for keeping it. BiaS (oh the acronymical irony) has read the replies and made it clear that the differences between barbelith's outlook and his own are still running strong. Hopefully those differences will be reconciled one day, but today is obviously not that day.

Ironically, I might feel a bit different if Jason had made his post in Creation with a bit of discussion as well as a link, but c'est la vie.
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
13:40 / 25.09.07
From the darkmatter banning thread:

Petey Shaftoe: "I don't think we should start somehow expecting there to be lower standards for what's acceptable in the Temple."

Haus: " I certainly don't think the Temple should have different standards from the rest of the board on what's acceptable. However, I also think that it quite frequently has. Correcting that is one of the things it might be worth trying to do with threads like this."

Aunt Beast: "One reason I increasingly find myself having to really fight not to lose it completely with these guys is partly because I do not see why the Temple should have the kind of low or shoddy standards that would allow them to post unhindered. If "Meta-Rape" turned up as a topic anywhere else on the board, I really fucking hope there'd be a hue and cry."


Can we sort this out now? Here?

I propose that a collective decision is made that, whatever its checkered history since the days of the Nexus, the Temple is not a place where a lower standard of debate is at all tolerated. Certain fairly prolific long-term posters to the Temple, myself included, have spent years putting loads of energy into trying to make the temple into a space where this sort of stuff is both unwelcome and mercilessly unpacked wherever it rears its head. It kind of fucks me off that there is still the perception floating around that the temple is some sort of kiddies playpen where its OK to bang on about meta-rape, the protocols of zion or any other stupid, offensive shit. It is not. At least not in my perception of it.

If membership is going to be opened up, I really think a decision needs to be made about what sort of place we collectively want the temple to be. I have always seen it as a place where the same kind of rigour you might find in the headshop (at its best) is applied to matters of religion and spirituality. Where any unsupported statements about these areas will be unpacked and interrogated, and where people are expected to contribute either from their own honest personal experience or from solid academic research. As well as obviously being a space where racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, etc are not tolerated for one moment, as per the rest of barbelith.

If anyone takes issue with this particular vision, and wants it to be a space where your darkmatters and your fetches can have free reign to post whatever they want - then I think we should have that discussion here and now. Because I strongly think temple moderators and anyone invested in the temple as a space for intelligent discourse on magic and spirituality, ought to think about setting down some loose guidelines for the sort of space we want the temple to be, how we would like to see it develop, what we want to get out of it, what we want to encourage and what we want to discourage.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
17:39 / 25.09.07
As someone who reads the Temple but rarely posts there, I can't see anything wrong with the above take on the place. If board members do want to post their lunatic theories (and I'd maintain that as long as said theories aren't wilfully in breach of the board's guidelines then they ought to be able to do so, though I appreciate others highly disagree) then they could be steered in the general direction of Conversation.

Although having said that, I suppose the culture of playing with the Konspiracy types rather than just yelling at them them is on the way out at the moment. So it might be kinder to just ban them altogether.
 
 
Papess
18:21 / 25.09.07
I have always seen it as a place where the same kind of rigour you might find in the headshop (at its best) is applied to matters of religion and spirituality. Where any unsupported statements about these areas will be unpacked and interrogated, and where people are expected to contribute either from their own honest personal experience or from solid academic research. As well as obviously being a space where racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, etc are not tolerated for one moment, as per the rest of barbelith.

I am completely in support of this statement, Gypsy. There probably needs to be more details added, but it is a good foundation for expectations in the Temple.

Also, I am unsure what "Meta-rape" is all about but, provided that a topic is not condoning a harmful behaviour, I see no reason why it should not be able to be discussed, if approached in the right manner.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
18:53 / 25.09.07
What I'm thinking we need, then, is some kind of locked sticky topic at the top end of the Temple index page that explains exactly what the forum is there for and what it's not. This should be something that Tom can do with a click of his fingers - just a standard topic, linked to in the bit directly underneath the list of moderators.

Penned by Gypsy, Roy and Aunt Beast.

I've also been wanting to propose something similar for G&G, and it might be worth thinking about it for Headshop, too, if not *all* fora. Although it might be a bit of a stretch for some.
 
 
HCE
19:14 / 25.09.07
Where any unsupported statements about these areas will be unpacked and interrogated, and where people are expected to contribute either from their own honest personal experience or from solid academic research.

How do you intend to determine whether somebody's personal experience is honest or not, and how do you support a statement about the supernatural? I am thinking of moneyshot's description of his encounters with dusky SexBratz. What happens when somebody feels they are giving an honest description of something they believe has happened to them, and it just so happens it involves what sounds rather like female beings of color being sexualized in an unpleasantly familiar way? I'm curious to hear how we'll distinguish between honest and dishonest, and supported and unsupported.
 
  

Page: 1 ... 1920212223(24)2526272829... 35

 
  
Add Your Reply