Can you approve member requests? Or close the group to invites only? On Sunday, March 29, 2015 at 4:56:04 PM UTC-4, Chris Jenkins wrote: > > 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.
