Just to throw my 2 cents in here. The short version: if you want to improve the list, look to yourself. Don't rely on moderation.
If you have something worth posting, post it without fear of rude responses. If people are rude, don't be rude back. Resist the urge to fire off the quick reply and score points (I often write the inflammatory reply and then delete it, just to get it out of my system). Don't feed the trolls. Thicken your skin: see personal attacks for what they are - refuge for someone without a reasonable rebuttal. I've been participating in online forums of various sorts basically since the internet began in earnest and there is nothing unique about the behavior here. People are rude. The anonymity and discorporate nature of virtual communication lowers inhibitions in a big way. Moderation for anything but clear-cut violations of established rules is almost never helpful because it either stifles discussion or the forum devolves into trials about the fairness of the moderation. Moderation based on subjective quality of content is a terrible idea, imo. I would never agree to moderate a forum based on anything but etiquette or on-topic-ness. Assuming the rules are spelled out and warnings are given and behavior is enforced fairly and consistently, moderation can help. But it takes a fairly proactive moderator to do all that. Terren --- On Sun, 8/3/08, Harry Chesley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Harry Chesley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [agi] META: do we need a stronger "politeness code" on this list? > To: [email protected] > Date: Sunday, August 3, 2008, 12:52 PM > I have never posted to the list before for exactly the > reasons under > discussion. It seems to me that the list is dominated, in > terms of > volume, not, I think, in terms of people, by two types of > posts: 1) You > don't understand theory x, which explains why your idea > or approach is > unworkable; you need to spend hours (perhaps days) reading > about that > (my) theory. Or 2) You're an idiot and your ideas are > trash. > > I am pursuing a line of research that I believe has > potential. It would > be useful to have a place I could float ideas and get some > feedback. > While I'm not particularly thin skinned, I don't > have the time to deal > with excursions into entirely different theories or to deal > with the > distractive emotional baggage that's so common here. I > would also be > happy to provide feedback to posts by others, but I > don't want to get > dragged into heated and often content-sparse threads of > discussion. > > I have seen very good and productive threads on this list, > but they tend > to be the exception. Hence I mostly just delete the items > from the list, > and follow the occasional thread that looks interesting or > involves > people who have posted more reasonable items in the past. > As with most > lists, 90% of the content is generated by 10% of the > members. In this > case, that involves much unnecessary distraction and > unpleasantness. > > Giving posters "time out"s for personal attacks > might go a long way > toward calming the list down and encouraging some of the > people like me > to become more involved. Also, a list FAQ that includes > pointers to some > of the theories that get repeated endlessly, together with > encouragement > to the posters to just post the FAQ's URL rather than > repeating the > entire theory, might reduce the repetition. (Wasn't > there a wiki area > exactly for that started a while ago?) > > Anyway, that's my two cents. > > On 8/3/2008 6:13 AM, Ben Goertzel wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > Here are a couple random responses to suggestions by > others within > > this thread... > > > > Nesov wrote, and Mark Waser concurred: > > > > " > > I don't notice rudeness so much, but content-free > posts (and posters > > who don't learn) are a problem on this list. Low > signal-to-noise > > ratio. I'd say you are too tolerant in avoiding > moderation, but > > moderation is needed for content, not just > "politeness". > > " > > > > My response is that > > > > -- Moderation for politeness, and for *form* of posts, > is fairly easy > > to do in an objective way > > > > -- Moderation for content is a lot more subjective, > and I don't want > > to be perceived as imposing my own particular views on > AGI on this > > mailing list. So I'm a bit wary of this. > > > > Hector suggested > > > > " > > What about also some minimal credentials (not > necessarily academical > > achievements but a minimal proof of knowledge and > logical thought) as > > it is required at other mailing lists... > > " > > > > However, it seems to me that the most boring, > repetitive and > > irritating conversations on this list generally > involve individuals > > who *do* have "above minimal credentials" in > AGI. > > > > The only exception I can think of would be some of the > repetitive > > conversations involving Mike Tintner, who isn't > professionally > > experienced in AGI or directly related fields of > science so far as I > > know (though I could be wrong) > > > > I do think that this list has recently become > dominated by long, > > somewhat repetitive arguments between a relatively > small number of > > people. I myself have stopped reading or posting very > much partly > > because of this, even though I'm the list > administrator... > > > > > > Ben > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 8:41 AM, Mark Waser > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > > > I don't notice rudeness so much, but > content-free posts (and > > posters > > who don't learn) are a problem on this > list. Low signal-to-noise > > ratio. I'd say you are too tolerant in > avoiding moderation, but > > moderation is needed for content, not just > "politeness". > > > > > > Normally I try to avoid "me too" posts > -- but for those who felt > > my last e-mail was too long, this is the essence > of my argument > > (and very well expressed). > > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Vladimir > Nesov" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > > > > To: <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > > Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2008 8:25 AM > > Subject: Re: [agi] META: do we need a stronger > "politeness code" > > on this list? > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 7:47 AM, Ben Goertzel > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > > > > > I think Ed's email was a bit harsh, > but not as harsh as > > many of Richard's > > (which are frequently full of language > like "fools", > > "rubbish" and so forth > > ...). > > > > Some of your emails have been pretty harsh > in the past too. > > > > I would be willing to enforce a stronger > code of > > politeness on this list if > > that is what the membership wants. I have > been told > > before, in other > > contexts, that I tend to be overly > tolerant of rude behavior. > > > > Anyone else have an opinion on this? > > > > > > I don't notice rudeness so much, but > content-free posts (and > > posters > > who don't learn) are a problem on this > list. Low signal-to-noise > > ratio. I'd say you are too tolerant in > avoiding moderation, but > > moderation is needed for content, not just > "politeness". > > > > -- > > Vladimir Nesov > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > http://causalityrelay.wordpress.com/ > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > > agi > > Archives: > https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > > RSS Feed: > https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ > > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > > <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> > > > > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > > agi > > Archives: > https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > > RSS Feed: > https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ > > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > > <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> > > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Ben Goertzel, PhD > > CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC > > Director of Research, SIAI > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > "Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible > objections must be > > first overcome " - Dr Samuel Johnson > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *agi* | Archives > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > > > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | > Modify > > <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> > > Your Subscription [Powered by Listbox] > <http://www.listbox.com> > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > agi > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
