Yes, you can set the group to private, along with a few other levels. You want it to have some visibility though, so I don't recommend that. Private posts can't be shared to public to engage others in the topic.
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > -- --- 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.
