Moderation works pretty well. You can remove, ban, and block. It's not bad at all. Slap a nice graphic in there, share the posts in the community out with your larger audience, and you start getting some traffic through.
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > We are looking for alternatives. I know there was a google+ minds eye > group for awhile and a few regulars were part of it. It may work better > now. Is there anyway to moderate or are the groups open to all? > > > On Sunday, March 29, 2015 at 3:34:22 PM UTC-4, Chris Jenkins wrote: >> >> I know we talked about it, but I can't find that any community was >> created, and it's much larger than when we last talked. Hard to say. I know >> that my threads there spawn robust conversations with many different >> voices. >> >> On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> thought that was tried and failed already, Chris. >>> >>> >>> On Sunday, March 29, 2015 at 3:08:07 PM UTC-4, Chris Jenkins wrote: >>>> >>>> *laughing* Yes, "Feminazi" is one of many disaparagements I could do >>>> without. I was really only referring to those bastions of protection >>>> against dissenting thought so prevalent in American academia now. >>>> "Neofeminism" and "Neomarxism" can generally be used interchangeably there, >>>> although they're ironically quite different from the "New Feminism" of the >>>> turn of the century. But I digress. >>>> >>>> When I started reading the threads again, it was in hopes of some new >>>> thought, being sorely lacking in such myself under the load of work >>>> responsibilities. Alas, there seems to be little of that among the endless >>>> tittering and tattering; without an influx of new blood, and with a slow >>>> hemorrhaging of the remaining members, the threads get shorter and shorter. >>>> >>>> Maybe Gabby was right about platform. Moving the conversation to a >>>> community on G+ would expose it to more outside members, and bring in some >>>> new thought. >>>> >>>> On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 2:56 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> One could put up with the moderating thing if you were the beer butler >>>>> Chris. It's a great old world in which you discover the FemiNazis are >>>>> actually not as bad as the people using the term! I have often wondered >>>>> how rational conversation is possible with someone who makes it plain, as >>>>> one utters the word fuck, that one could only have learned be be that evil >>>>> at the feet of Hitler and the Devil. They manage this with a look of >>>>> disgust, yet if asked how many have died in wars since the war to end all >>>>> wars and the one spawned by that, would think the answer a few dozen. I >>>>> mean WTF does disgust these "people"? >>>>> >>>>> I'm trying to think of a good contributory in here (there have been >>>>> many) without a sense of humour or that psycho-giveaway of only laughing >>>>> at >>>>> their own re-explained jokes. Gabby used to make some exceptional >>>>> contributions on the humour front in her joint roles as the Wit Sisters >>>>> (Half and Fuck). Interestingly, statements such as this rarely brought >>>>> stinging reply, but more bother-boot tactics against some old guy living >>>>> in >>>>> the woods outside Amsterdam and his graffiti art. I have some kiss and >>>>> make up emails, if anyone is interested, though 'RP' is coming on stronger >>>>> than Gabby. A few drinks and I'll be inviting her back Moll! But then >>>>> I'm >>>>> not drinking ... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sunday, March 29, 2015 at 6:25:26 PM UTC+1, Chris Jenkins wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> "This Forum post tastes like mud!" >>>>>> >>>>>> "It should, it was ground this morning!" >>>>>> >>>>>> "HAHAHAHAHAH" >>>>>> >>>>>> Ah Fran, you took me back to my "Muppet Show" days. >>>>>> >>>>>> In facilitating conversation online, moderators always walk a fine >>>>>> line between quashing free conversation, and preventing the conversation >>>>>> from devolving into bitter personal attacks or meritless trolling. The >>>>>> role >>>>>> of the moderator does indeed vary across a wide spectrum, from those to >>>>>> simply remove spam, to those (like in the neo-Feminism) where any >>>>>> dissenting thought is considered an "attack on the safe space" and >>>>>> "triggering". >>>>>> >>>>>> Here in Minds Eye, we always tried to keep the moderation hand light, >>>>>> limited mostly to removing spam and calling out blatant ad hominem >>>>>> attacks. >>>>>> Even with that light touch, some rebelled. Would that Germany had such a >>>>>> staunch gadfly during the rise of the Brown shirts; the course of history >>>>>> may have been altered. >>>>>> >>>>>> To a moderator, it's a job, and often a thankless one. To the >>>>>> moderated, it's an authority figure, and a system to be railed against. >>>>>> There's no winning for the good intentioned moderator. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 12:24 PM, frantheman <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Firstly a disclaimer: I am not a Gabby-bot. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As with so many issues, this one is much deeper and more complex >>>>>>> than it seems at first sight. A few points. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As frequently happens in the English-speaking web-world, many of the >>>>>>> cultural parameters implicitly (and usually unquestioningly) accepted >>>>>>> for >>>>>>> discussion are dominated by the US-American experience and world-view. >>>>>>> (This observation is - from my point of view - just that; an >>>>>>> observation, >>>>>>> with no intention to apply any kind of (moral or other) value). In the >>>>>>> US, >>>>>>> freedom of speech is one of those issues dealt with in the First >>>>>>> Amendment >>>>>>> to the Constitution, the so-called "Bill of Rights" (1791). As such, it >>>>>>> is >>>>>>> often automatically accorded a kind of mystical, quasi-religious status. >>>>>>> There's nothing unusual about that: every culture and society needs a >>>>>>> living unifying mythology, the foundations of a shared narrative, in >>>>>>> order >>>>>>> to function. (When such a unifying mythology isn't present, or breaks >>>>>>> down, >>>>>>> a society will tear itself apart. Northern Ireland in the last four >>>>>>> decades >>>>>>> of the past century is a good example: two irreconcilable tribal >>>>>>> mythological narratives colliding.) But just because particular values >>>>>>> have >>>>>>> a constituting mythological significance for a particular group doesn't >>>>>>> give them an automatically sacred or inviolable character - particularly >>>>>>> for people who don't share that particular constitutive group narrative >>>>>>> (i.e. non-Americans). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The idea of universal "rights" has been around for a long time, but >>>>>>> it achieved a central position in the Enlightenment. And the >>>>>>> Enlightenment >>>>>>> - while (in my view) it represented a major positive vector for human >>>>>>> progress - had a number of weaknesses, the most fundamental, perhaps, >>>>>>> being >>>>>>> its emphasis on the primacy of reason in human affairs, underestimating >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> power of other aspects which go to build up human nature, and human >>>>>>> societies (emotion, aggression, fear, greed, etc.). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The Enlightenment idea of "universal rights" defined itself, at >>>>>>> least partly, as a reaction to the older (traditionally Catholic) view >>>>>>> of a >>>>>>> (divinely ordained) natural order. The idea of natural order gives rise >>>>>>> then to a philosophy of "natural law" which regulates that order. If >>>>>>> there >>>>>>> are natural laws, which can be discovered by humans, then these laws are >>>>>>> true and every other view which contradicts them is false. The logical >>>>>>> endpoint of such a position is that of pre-Vatican II Catholicism, often >>>>>>> expressed in the aphorism: Error has no rights. Society should be >>>>>>> organised >>>>>>> according to natural law, any intellectual positions which advocate >>>>>>> views >>>>>>> which are in contradiction to natural law, if put into practice, will >>>>>>> have >>>>>>> negative consequences, since this is not the way things were "meant to >>>>>>> be." >>>>>>> Thus, erroneous positions are damaging - both for individuals and >>>>>>> society - >>>>>>> consequently, individuals and societies must be protected from them. >>>>>>> Of course, this position is based on the conviction that the >>>>>>> fundamental grounds of existence are ontologically certain, and that >>>>>>> humans, either through reason, or revelation, or a combination of both, >>>>>>> can >>>>>>> recognise the laws implied in "being", and their concrete unfolding >>>>>>> consequences in reality. It's not a question of finding the *best* way >>>>>>> to do things, rather finding the (only) *right* way to do things. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The idea of inalienable fundamental "rights" is one of the basic >>>>>>> building blocks of the (western) modern view of human nature and >>>>>>> society, >>>>>>> reaching its apogee perhaps in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights >>>>>>> (1949). Among these basic rights is the right to freedom/liberty and its >>>>>>> consequence, the right to freedom of speech/expression. But the idea of >>>>>>> "rights" is complex and contains many problems. Are rights absolute? If >>>>>>> so, >>>>>>> how do you deal with conflicts of rights? If not, how can you establish >>>>>>> hierarchies of rights? You're faced with a plethora of individual >>>>>>> decisions, which can only be decided within their own specific contexts. >>>>>>> And then, who decides? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Coming down to the particular situation here, one point should be >>>>>>> completely clear. Minds Eye, as a subset of Google Groups, as a subset >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> all the shit available on the web, is *not *a constituent part of >>>>>>> the USA (hard though it may be for some US Americans to conceive of >>>>>>> such a >>>>>>> notion). As a result, the rules governing this group are not subject to >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> US Constitution. Therefore, there is no automatic right to freedom of >>>>>>> speech here. The "rules" which govern the group are laid down in the >>>>>>> guidelines and these include the idea of moderation and the specific >>>>>>> powers >>>>>>> which moderators have. You may not like the rules, but you're not >>>>>>> forced in >>>>>>> any way to be part of the group. This is the basic difference between >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> kind of pocket universe an on-line discussion group forms and the >>>>>>> physical >>>>>>> societies in which we all live. In the "real" world, my right to >>>>>>> freedom of >>>>>>> expression is important to me, because I can't stop the planet and get >>>>>>> off >>>>>>> to join some alternative earth which I like better. Here - despite >>>>>>> howls of >>>>>>> protest by people like Gabby about the blue in the Eye, or being placed >>>>>>> on >>>>>>> moderation, or others being banned - if you don't like the way things >>>>>>> are >>>>>>> organised, you can just piss off somewhere else. An awful lot of what >>>>>>> goes >>>>>>> on at this level reminds me frankly of nothing so much as the antics of >>>>>>> Statler and Waldorf in their balcony at the Muppet Show. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And, of course, even within the web context, there is a conflict of >>>>>>> rights between the right to freedom of speech and the right not to be >>>>>>> gratuitously insulted or flamed. If people were to behave rationally >>>>>>> (in an >>>>>>> Enlightenment sense) then this would not be a problem. But the web - >>>>>>> even >>>>>>> Minds Eye - is a microcosm of human society in general. Unfortunately, >>>>>>> people will continue to troll, flame, insult and injure. And as long as >>>>>>> that is the case, moderators are necessary - necessary evils like cops, >>>>>>> dentists, speed-limits and revenue collectors. I've nothing but >>>>>>> admiration >>>>>>> for Neil and Molly for taking the nasty task on, particularly as I >>>>>>> regard >>>>>>> neither of them as being remotely megalomaniac. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In his parting post Andrew stated, "Freedom, in order for it to have >>>>>>> meaning has to be unconditional." I find this view hard to understand. >>>>>>> Freedom is not an on-off switch. Absolute freedom (does it even exist?) >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> total servitude are two ends of a sliding scale, and we nearly always >>>>>>> find >>>>>>> ourselves somewhere between the two. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Am Samstag, 28. März 2015 14:57:02 UTC+1 schrieb Molly: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Here is part of what Wikipedia (usually my last choice for >>>>>>>> citation) has to say about the protection of free speech under the US >>>>>>>> constitution: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Criticism of the government and advocacy of unpopular ideas that >>>>>>>> people may find distasteful or against public policy are almost always >>>>>>>> permitted. There are exceptions to these general protections >>>>>>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions>, >>>>>>>> including the Miller test >>>>>>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test> for obscenity >>>>>>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_obscenity_law>, child >>>>>>>> pornography laws, speech that incites imminent lawless action >>>>>>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action>, and >>>>>>>> regulation of commercial speech such as advertising. Within these >>>>>>>> limited >>>>>>>> areas, other limitations on free speech >>>>>>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech> balance rights to >>>>>>>> free speech and other rights, such as rights for authors over their >>>>>>>> works ( >>>>>>>> copyright <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright>), protection >>>>>>>> from imminent or potential violence against particular persons >>>>>>>> (restrictions on fighting words >>>>>>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words>), or the use of >>>>>>>> untruths to harm others (slander >>>>>>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander>). Distinctions are often >>>>>>>> made between speech and other acts which may have symbolic >>>>>>>> significance. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Now, debate on where things said fall into the loose structure is >>>>>>>> certainly an option. Can someone tell me I should be ashamed of >>>>>>>> myself. I >>>>>>>> guess so, although it is certainly uncomfortable for me to see that in >>>>>>>> writing, all caps, and know it is repeated in RSS blogs across the >>>>>>>> internet. Is it slanderous? Calling someone a paranoid schizophrenic in >>>>>>>> public may be slanderous but worse is done every day all across the >>>>>>>> globe, >>>>>>>> unfortunately. Law is in place to be argued in court, and who wants to >>>>>>>> do >>>>>>>> that except lawyers and those that have lost much because their rights >>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>> violated. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But I think in groups there is a social contract that shapes the >>>>>>>> perimeters of civility, one that all members contribute and define by >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> coming and going of the group. Internet groups are complicated because >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> the anonymity of identity and lack of accountability possible. What >>>>>>>> members >>>>>>>> are left with is the choice to leave the group, as demonstrated here >>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>> our dwindling numbers. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't have an answer but believe in free speech and the group. >>>>>>>> And I must say I am enjoying the fact that every thread does not >>>>>>>> disintegrate into the same old flame war. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>> Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>> send an email to [email protected]. >>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>> >>> --- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> >> -- > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > ""Minds Eye"" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
