PnQ'ers

" Yknow, there are annoying hormones too when one grows old."

lol lol lol

I am itching to know what the debates will be about.

FIGHT CLUB.

That's actually a sweet idea. It could even grow into a way to let out harsh criticisms of poetry without springing them at random on people's comment feeds.

I'm undecided about this. I mean, I'm for giving it a try, but I don't know how well it would turn out.

I would be fine if I never had to penalize someone again. To me, it's a last resort. I'm still trying to figure out how allow the most freedom while still, as a mod, conforming to site rules. Usually, my natural inclination is to let threads go and let people have at it. I personally wish they wouldn't, but my modly feeling is that they can handle themselves. The problem, and I wish I could put this in bold, is that EVERYONE WANTS COMPLETE FREEDOM UNTIL THEY FEEL PERSONALLY INSULTED. There. Caps lock. People want the freedom to say what they want, but the second they get offended, most folks turn around and say that they are being personally attacked or harassed, and that "such things shouldn't be allowed on the site." Well, they either are or they aren't. People have to decide if they prefer unbridled discussion, or if they want things "cleaner and nicer." We really can't have it both ways. I still haven't figured out how to deal with it.

-The "no teenagers" thing doesn't hold water with me. I've seen plenty of 40-year-olds on this site act less mature than 18-year-olds.

So, jury's still out for me. I'll come back to this later.

Sibs: The voice of comprehension.

I agree with your post, especially those words written in ALL CAPS.

It makes me laugh when someone thinks they can act like a complete dick, then it comes back around (go figure), and suddenly they're crying wolf. Unfortunately, most people are unable to view themselves realistically. They make up self-serving excuses for their behavior, justifying it, while making sure not to justify the behavior of others.
There's this thing called "cognitive dissonance" that we experience, and we have a motivational drive to reduce it. The key is to be aware of when you're trying to reduce it, and how.

Bleh. Never mind.

Let me just say, as a student of Psychology, it is interesting to watch how predictable and unaware of Self some of you can be.
Everyone should study Psych. We'd never have problems ever again because we'd be too busy understanding each other :)

What cracks me up is that the mods seem to be the only ones who see it that way.

Hmmm, we're the ones who get the complaints about PMs from the very people who publicly complain when other people go crying to the mods.

Yes. Well, I don't think we're the only ones who see it, but maybe it's easier, because we get to watch from kind of a removed space. It's clear to everyone, when we're not included in it.
Anyway, it's something that we're all inclined to do, to some extent, but it makes for a messier time. People would just need to realize that if they want the freedom to say anything, that means that we're not going to step in when it gets turned around on them.

This is wild dreaming, but I was thinking maybe it would be cool if the site were "community moderated." Think youtube comments. (While those comments seem to attract all the idiots of the world, the system isn't a bad one.) Lots of other forums do this as well: Everyone has the ability to "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" a post. Enough negative feedback, and the post gets hidden. It's a way of registering disapproval while still letting people say what they want.

In any case, I still feel that moderators should have the power to step in in extreme situations. Those situations wouldn't be "Jane is making me feel bad," or maybe even for direct insults. We'd step in in cases like spamming, editing personal information like addresses, inappropriate contact with underage users, threatening language, stalking/harassment, or outright hate speech against a person's race, religion, sexuality, whatever. To me (and I think to Janis) those things cross the line. They might be allowable under "free speech," but when it comes down to it, this is a privately owned site, and the site owner literally and legally gets to decide what's allowable.

I wish there was an anatomical test to check for the inhibitory/analytic cross-connections that moderate the tourette within the teen. Then they could debate. Fascinating stuff you have right there.

The mods are awesome, debates are awesome, but our debating skills are not always awesome. I don't feel there is an actual need for this idea because we no longer have overbearing mods... but I see no harm in trialling it anyway (it's the experimentalist in me). I don't suspect, in the long run, it will be too different to what we normally have now.

I'm not sure about letting the OP have calling-out rights, though. I think when any thread is opened, there should be an understanding the OP does not possess the topic - it belongs to everyone. If someone is "called out", the moderators should always use their own excellent discretion instead of blindly following the OP's requests.

Sibs, those are all very good points. Although they're talking a trial of 1 thread a week, not the whole site, but changing the entire site with public moderation in mind is a fantastic idea. To be honest, I'd absolutely love to see this site undergo a complete overhaul to incorporate a modern-style social networking interface. The site would be nicer in general if we were to do that.

Holy crap that's all I can think about now.

"This is not the first time for such to happen anyway, as I recall we had even "attack a mod" threads, for example, which weren't moderated at all before."

Let's do it. I want an attack a mod day. Guaranteed no grudges will be held, no penalties given, and no responses allowed. Just you guys voicing your most honest opinions about us!
Mod squad, what say you?

It's been too long since someone hated on me, haha.

"Before agreeing to allow a test run the mods need to know exactly how the rule 1 is to be changed for this purpose?"

I am for it but I would still like to use the George Carlin Method
youtu.be/3-4S3gUWLkY

Michael:

1 You have way too much time on your hands

2 This is already allowed.

3 "2" is not valid if you have smellevision

LMAO

The mods we have now are good sports, but I admit that I did not always feel that way even when I did not have a lot of time on my hands

Can't believe we're going to have a serious, debating thread every week! Yay, I'm so excited.

Whatsoever, I don't think we need the 'attack a mod' thingy, we rather need an 'attack a member' thread for them, where they can let all the stress out and say what bothers them about us. Has anyone thought that way before? I think not. We're just a bunch of adorably selfish people.

'just comes "naturally" to the Tourette-teen brain at this age, until the inhibitory/analytic cross-connections begin forming'

I'm sorry... Is Wikipidia talking again?
Well, you can think that if you tell a teenager 'f you', they'd be okay with that...but a piece of advice from your loving, PnQ daughter? Don't try it with me.

Attack a mod day sounds fun, I wouldn't mind a new layer of skin!

I haven't responded earlier because I'm undecided on the idea. Abby summed up my initial thoughts; I don't believe this idea will be much different to what we have now. I'm always open to trials but my biggest concern is that some members will participate thinking that they have echidna spikes but once they go up against our WWE debaters they'll suddenly dislike the idea and send a heap of complaints our way. It's interesting watching members debate and then later receive PMs from those same members asking that the thread be locked/deleted and other members be penalized for what they've said.

The attack a member idea is genius!!

Why not start this whole thing off with the mods blowing off some steam about the wonderful people on here, I think members would need to state that they are 'in' so that they then exclude themselves from any moaning about being offended.

If it happens 'I am in'

I'm in if it goes ahead.

Jordan and Darren, you're 2 people I have nothing but good things to say about. You're both fair, level headed, fun, and reasonable when handling others.

I have no desire to attack any members. I wouldn't take part in the thread.

Thanks Jane,

but you forget 'easily bored'

thats my excuse anyway, I think it would be quite humourous.

Aww Jane, ya sweetheart.

Interesting debate whether to have or not a debate with/out mods monitoring.

I feel comfortable with the forums being monitored. Usually, the mods allow everyone to state their opinions without stepping in but when they see that things are heating up too much, they come and handle the situation accordingly before things get burn.

In my opinion, Debates are fun but without anyone moderating them, the debate will go into a not debate.. It will go into another subject just as any conversation.

"Attack a mod" thread is OK with me. We're the so called establishment & need to have our air let out occasionally.

However, I cannot go along with attacking regular members, even if they put their own necks on the block. We've already seen the tip of that iceberg & I have no desire to send this site the way of the Titanic.

EDIT: Perhaps it would have been more appropriate to use "Lord of the Flies" references.

Could it be the Titanic reference was meant to be an icebreaker? I remember the days when so many accounts were suspended I thought P and Q would sink. Somehow there has been enough warmth here to overcome many obsticles . I have forgotten about the days when everyone thought the members that actually attempted to stay in the rules and guidelines looked weak. Drama is not not for the weak at heart and emotional poets often have weaknesses
Mine are quotes
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but it takes words to really screw me up

Michael D Nalley

Humility has always been a virtue hard for me to master , because many masters are often opposed to control

I can see a disaster unfolding without (minimal) moderation and the effect carrying on to regular threads, as people feel more comfortable in getting away by saying their mind. The same people, who have done this repeatedly, will have more chances to show their poorly mannered, uninhibited side.

Moderation is about "personal" attacks on members (condescending, inappropriate, vulgar and offensive words), not topics. The current level of moderation seems OK, though at times weak and is unable to protect members from personal abuses. So, if a religion or political thread went against some people, we see personal retaliatory language against the member, with the mods sitting on the sidelines, instead of intervening with "edit your personal insults" and then say what you have to say.

Most locked threads are because of some brawl, often involving a teen (my def <20) "attacking" or using "bad" language (like it or not...these are the facts that I see lately.) There may have been some 40-year old's but, they are rare exceptions. But, the most disruptive "personal" comments come from a handful of members, who have a high degree of emotional lability and inadequate experience in handling their "tongue" in difficult topics, and have yet to develop subtle mannerisms required for debating politely.

"The "no teenagers" thing doesn't hold water with me. I've seen plenty of 40-year-olds on this site act less mature than 18-year-olds." (Sibs)

^ I didn't say "no teenagers"....please read that again. They can participate, but if the thread gets in the "attack" mode, identify the person's age and you will appreciate what I said. When you have a teen yourself, you will experience it, so just wait a few more years. Meanwhile, simply look back at the locked PnQ threads and you may find many a threads were locked because a teen started a brawl, because of poor handling of his/her expressions. The debating immaturity, quality and improper use of half-baked knowledge in the hands of teens are a fact, not a speculation. It takes a certain degree of maturity/experience to get things straight, and age is a big factor. Teenager's wisdom is lovable, if they can express it with respect and charm. But, this is not what I have seen in the last 1.5 years. A classic example is 10-posts above me....a misinterpretation of an observation stated in my earlier post, without in-depth reading of the sentence, and now is presented in an "offensive" way....no I am not going to pick brickbats if people don't read carefully what was stated. And just so one does not carry this forward, I am not the one who has ever used an "f..." word against a person.

So, though experimentation is good, wait until the gloves come off and you have brick bats flying in all directions from the same members who have done it repeatedly.....this time without holds. No, I think overall it is a real "bad" idea, unless you can give the control to the thread OP to moderate "personal" not "topic" related abusive languages. It may lead to more enmity and bruised ego's than you would normally see.

There was a certain reason why the Greek Philosopher Aristotle founded the theory/principles of a written argument:

Ethos: the source's credibility, the speaker's/author's authority

Logos: the logic used to support a claim (induction and deduction); can also be the facts and statistics used to help support the argument.

Pathos: the emotional or motivational appeals; vivid language, emotional language and numerous sensory details.

So if you wish a Demos, then make sure you have people follow the three cornerstones of an argument...a digression from one can be fatal to the thread and invoke "polemic". Good Luck, I will be on the sidelines watching. :)

Interesting point from Mods' perspective - I guess many of us members don't see that side (since we don't get the pms). Quite off topic but as a student of psychology Jane I wonder were would you place me? with the little you know that is. I always thought psychology to be fascinating. Oh well, back to topic.

I don't think giving the thread owner the right to exclude people from the discussion to be helpful, either. It just does not sit right, especially if the person is being excluded just for stating their opinion which differs from that of the thread owner's.

Perhaps I've been away for so long things changed but I've been of many a heated discussion on here before and the problem seemed more with the way some people's opinions were presented than personal attacks. Something like LP said, for example, about Israel would be it or something Dan said about Muslims.. Etc. yeah, it's harsh and I like many others disagree but I think it is a pov that exists and hence should be presented, challenged..etc. I think our motto in these threads should be to attack the idea (though not to the point of asking for its removal altogether under whatsoever name) and not the person. As I said before members seem to have been lately more of a hinder to these discussions than mods - that's why my first post was directed to members essentially but then the course of the conversation turned.

I'm not with an age limit as well, the 18 plus titling and such was a joke just to say there might be offensive stuff inside since people seem to have turned more sensitive on here. So pardon my ill humor.

I think it's worth a try. I'll be away the next week and half so if someone wants to take the lead and try this (provided we have the green light) be my guest. If not I'll make sure to post something once I'm back. Oh, and the attack a mod thread was just an example not a suggestion.

I hope this answers everyone.

As I said I think the OP of this thread has witnessed a few issues with brotherhoods but is not quick to condemn as we may have all descended from Cain like parents

Philosopher Aristotle founded the theory/principles of a written argument:"

That is a great point . There were several post I made in my thread" Intelligence Versus Wisdom" from a catholic point of view . If protestants and other theist were offended by that they remained silent. Many religious and non religious groups have discovered truth that Aristotle did through his principles of a written argument:

Princess: Just wanted to clarify, re: your comment -"I don't think giving the thread owner the right to exclude people from the discussion to be helpful, either. "

This is not what I said, if it is a response to my comment above. I said :

"One middle ground to the opposite solutions may be to let the OP of the thread determine what is offensive in his/her thread, who in turn requests the mods via PM to exclude/remove the offending person/comment/s from the debate, if they are "personally (not principally) disrespectful" to others. "

By that I meant that when the thread becomes a pure attack thread with "personally" directed condescending/bullying language such as "I pity you for your IQ..., F...k you, or phrases with direct or indirect offensive remarks directed against "a person/group of people", which is not permissible in any legit debate, one really needs someone to intervene, before this kind of stuff hijacks the thread, against the OP's wishes. So, it will be important that at least the OP have a right to report the issue to the mods for deletion of comment/person from the thread without penalties, for keeping the sanity of the people debating, intact, and not letting the thread "rin amok". That's all. :)

I am not sure exactly how larger cyberspaces work. on youtube and such but I think anyone can get a channel and block any unwanted comments from their channels . There are moderators that can be contacted if a member is just trying to assasinate a screen name's charactor

We can have an 'Attack a Mod" and an "Attack a Member" thread.
hehehe
Omg I am going to prepare myself if people like my idea.
Maybe that may save us from an unmoderated thread.

LS: Thanks for pointing that out. I was actually adressing briefly the set of ideas presented. It was this comment that made me think you meant so along with the call out right:

"I don't recommend immediate suspension, but an exclusion of the violator from that thread with a warning that if he/she continues to post on this thread again, he/she may be subject to a stiffer penalty, such as points or suspensions, whichever is applicable"

Perhaps I've mixed things. Long day.

I think a coordination between the OP and the mods would be useful, though not to the extent of totally removing someone from the debate. My only fear about this is the OP misuseing it. According I think the mods should be in agreement with the OP that whatever has been written deserves really its removal (not just act on request). As to the other way round, I rather like the idea of the OP having a say on what's accepted or unaccepted in their thread and whether or not the post or part of it deserves to be excluded before the mods act on it, if that happens that is.

EDIT-- Karla there is quite a difference between a debate thread and an attack a person thread. I don't see why you'd rather be in favour of the latter over the former although both would be kind of unmoderated or less moderated than usual. I guess it's tastes again - I'd much rather a debate thread, though. It's more beneficial (to me apparently) than an attack thread. I would've thought people would want to be "saved" from an attack thread not a debate one. Life is full of surprises.

Obama gets on the offensive in Presidential debate
http://youtu.be/E-2Xe0bY86E

Sometimes moderators get caught in the crossfire

To make it clear:
I am AGAINST any thread whose purpose is to attack any member other than a currently active mod.
If I see one start it will be deleted.

Everything else you guys have described is already going on.

The OP already contacts the mods, either on the thread or by PM or both to maintain the thread on a civil level.

The mods already give plenty of leeway for argument, even skirting around personal attacks if they are not too egregious.

Debates rage on all topics with little interference by the mods.

I repeat: what exactly new do you want to have happen here that is not already going on?
other than, that is,
... personal attacks
... profanity in the title
... the f bomb, especially used offensively in an argument

Well? Enlighten me, cause it sounds like you're arguing to get what you already have.

I don't want anything and I only suggested an attack a member thread because I find this whole thing pretty surreal.

It's OK, it is a bit surreal.

Http://www.poems-and-quotes.com/discussion/topic.html?topic_id=129145

I trust you Larry, but I heard it through the grapevine that I was labeled a trouble maker . I have invested countless amount of time building a reputation as a debater . I have been invited to other forums believe it or not . I try to live by a golden rule "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" In the old days when I was in school when there was an argument it did not matter who started it was finished by a teacher or a principle (sic maybe). I look on the history of folks that used to be very active in discussions . The last time I attempted to assure them it was safe to come back into the forums I was placed in the penalty box for three days while many of the members were screaming for our heads on a platter lol

So Larry if it is OK, it is OK.

You see it is confussing when a debating forum makes up knew rules in the middle of a debate

Anyway everything I learned about trolling I learned it for the real troll in the thread .He could pour fuel on the fire and swear it was the OP

Http://www.poems-and-quotes.com/discussion/topic.html?topic_id=129145

Michael.
That's old stuff that has no bearing on the present.
Let it go.

I have no problem letting it go What is done is done and you are diong a great job now This is the best darn place on the net to wish someone a happy birthday or congratulate someone for winning a weekly contest have a great day
I am done trying to understand PQ rulings. I must be doing something right I still have an account lol

So you think we are too lenient?
I can understand that feeling;
sometimes I think the same thing.

You think we should step in quicker
when a benign thread becomes malignant?

That's a good issue.
At what point
& with what consequences?