Thanks for the info, Chris. We are exploring options, and this is helpful. On Sunday, March 29, 2015 at 5:17:24 PM UTC-4, Chris Jenkins wrote: > > 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.
