A Possible Change In The Rules - RatSkep tangent

[charlou]

schism

It's not about any single event, Starr. It's about the differing philosophies of how things ought to be. That's the ongoing thing here. That's what is being criticised and discussed. That's why some people come here to raise their issues when they don't feel they can do so there. A culture that describes one of its members as a malcontent (or a troll) and makes that person feel like a pariah for having and wanting to discuss a differing view is not nurturing a diverse community or conversation.

[maiforpeace]

I am not responding to issues about RatSkep moderation here at Rationalia because I respond to issues about RatSkep moderation at RatSkep.

If you have no wish to address the issues, then why are you here? There is nothing for you to contribute to a thread created about problems with RatSkep moderation if you have no desire to talk about problems with ratskep moderation.

Tell me - if someone is banned from RS, how exactly does that discussion about moderation issues take place?

Why is it so hard for you to understand, Starr, that the reason why this thread was started, and ratified by a couple of other people's bad experience at RS, is that an ex-mod, and some ex-members have been hurt, angered and humiliated by actions that were taken at RS? This thread was a place for them to gripe, and the rest of us were being sympathetic. Whether or not the RS moderator actions were justified doesn't erase the fact that people are upset enough to start a thread to gripe about it in. You don't have to admit you or the other moderators were wrong to recognize and acknowledge how your actions may have affected these people. Can you not put yourself in their shoes, and try to empathize with how they feel without making it all about you or RS?

Instead, you would rather be the martyr and say "Sorry, I'm not funny", etc. - when you could be a hero and say sorry about something quite different.

Regarding your perception that this is really about bad attitudes stemming from the RD schism - what hat did you pull that from? It has absolutely nothing to do with that, and, for the record, I and others weren't even around for the schism.

[Trolldor]

We were told we weren't a welcome part long ago. Most of us severed ties with RDF before it closed down. I think the better part of two years is a long time to hold a grude over the internet. Anyone still griping on about it needs to calm down and get some nookie or something.

Secondly, whether the 'affronted' were in the wrong or the moderators were is irrelevant to the fact that they felt they could only have their discussion here. Rather than attempt to accomodate them back at RatSkep, you engaged them here.

[Warren Dew]

I and others weren't even around for the schism.

I wasn't very aware of the schism either, but I'd be interested in knowing more about what it was about.

[Trolldor]

The first 'schism' was OT being told they were too dirty, there were a whole bunch of fuckups and misnomers and purportedly deliberate acts going on in the process, and OT was closed down. OT is Off-topic.
Suffice to say, a good deal of the membership were over zealous in their rejection of "us" (and I use that term lightly, as many who left weren't dirty but rather tame, they had just formed close bonds with some of us), and ultimately a new forum was formed - TAF, Thinking Aloud Forum (No relation). More fuckups, an admin who went nuts despite the hypocrisy of position, and here we are.

Someone else could give you a more detailed rundown, but to be honest I've forgotten so much over the years.

[starr]

schism

It's not about any single event, Starr. It's about the differing philosophies of how things ought to be. That's the ongoing thing here. That's what is being criticised and discussed.

OK. I'll accept that's how you are seeing it. You have a perception about how RatSkep is moderated and you think it 'ought' to be moderated in a different way (more of a Rationalia style way). What I don't understand is why there is an 'ought' at all. I don't think there is an 'ought'. There is not one 'right way' to moderate a forum. I completely 'get' that you, personally, don't like how RatSkep is run. I just don't understand how your personal preference about how a forum is run directly transfers into how a forum 'ought' to be run.

That's why some people come here to raise their issues when they don't feel they can do so there. A culture that describes one of its members as a malcontent (or a troll) and makes that person feel like a pariah for having and wanting to discuss a differing view is not nurturing a diverse community or conversation.

I know that is how you are seeing it. With any forum there will be members who become dissatisfied. Some may just leave without a fuss and some, who still want to be part of the community, may try to initiate constructive change. Some, unfortunately, may think that the staff are against them. Some may even conclude that the staff are all authoritarian bastards who are on a massive power and ego trip and couldn't give a stuff about anyone but themselves. Sometimes people who are very passionate about a particular position may think they have not been respected or listened to simply because others did not agree with their position. Emotions can run high in communities like these and that is primarily because we care about the community.

It is important not to extrapolate from a non-representative sample to make a general conclusion. Just keep in mind that the people who complain about RatSkep at Rationalia are a biased sample of the RatSkep membership and you cannot make any fair conclusions about the forum or the community as a whole based on that.

Secondly, whether the 'affronted' were in the wrong or the moderators were is irrelevant to the fact that they felt they could only have their discussion here. Rather than attempt to accomodate them back at RatSkep, you engaged them here.

That is where you are not hearing what I am saying. I have not come here to engage them at all. I am engaging at RatSkep with those RatSkep members who wish to discuss specific issues of RatSkep moderation. I am not engaging anybody about specific aspects of RatSkep moderation here. I am here to engage with Rationalia members about why some of them seem to have such an anti-RatSkep position when they've never really been part of the RatSkep community.



I know that a lot of you have the impression that the staff will not listen to criticism at RatSkep. It is a false impression. We do listen and we do care, even if we may not always agree. I would like to encourage any RatSkep members who have specific grievances about RatSkep moderation to air those grievances at RatSkep (which some of you are already doing ). If you want a response from the RatSkep staff, RatSkep is the appropriate venue for such a discussion . If you are just here to blow off steam and vent because a decision did not go your way then that's your choice too. I am not here to criticise anyone for doing that.

[Trolldor]

I am hearing it. What you don't seem to understand is that you didn't say "If you would like to discuss this issue come to ratskep" and post, say, a link to a topic, or a subforum for concerns and issues.

[irretating]

I am hearing it. What you don't seem to understand is that you didn't say "If you would like to discuss this issue come to ratskep" and post, say, a link to a topic, or a subforum for concerns and issues.

Preferably not a locked one, or one where the OP (or others who would like to discuss the issue) is openly labeled a malcontent, seemingly with impunity.

[Robert_S]

OK. I'll accept that's how you are seeing it. You have a perception about how RatSkep is moderated and you think it 'ought' to be moderated in a different way (more of a Rationalia style way). What I don't understand is why there is an 'ought' at all. I don't think there is an 'ought'. There is not one 'right way' to moderate a forum. I completely 'get' that you, personally, don't like how RatSkep is run. I just don't understand how your personal preference about how a forum is run directly transfers into how a forum 'ought' to be run.

You're saying that there's not an Ideal Way to Run a Forum?!?!?!

You've just made baby Plato cry.

I hope you're happy.

[Tigger]

Only an idiot would think that "The Shadow" had anything to do with anything like Dungeons and Dragons, but, then, idiots think a lot of things.

The Shadow knows...

Not just idiots Lamont - a lot of young people here in the US that are TMH's age wouldn't remember "The Shadow", and TMH is in Australia. I would also say the statement "The Shadow knows..." is a uniquely American idiom.

I would also guess most people here probably didn't know that was the origin of your user name.

Hell no, I thought he was just being a tit! Opinion revised, LaMont.

[starr]

I am hearing it. What you don't seem to understand is that you didn't say "If you would like to discuss this issue come to ratskep" and post, say, a link to a topic, or a subforum for concerns and issues.

I'm not sure I'm following you (not being facetious... genuine question). Are you suggesting that I should have included a link in my previous post where I said

I would like to encourage any RatSkep members who have specific grievances about RatSkep moderation to air those grievances at RatSkep (which some of you are already doing ). If you want a response from the RatSkep staff, RatSkep is the appropriate venue for such a discussion . If you are just here to blow off steam and vent because a decision did not go your way then that's your choice too. I am not here to criticise anyone for doing that.

You're worried that RatSkep members will not know where the RatSkep Feedback forum is?

[starr]

OK. I'll accept that's how you are seeing it. You have a perception about how RatSkep is moderated and you think it 'ought' to be moderated in a different way (more of a Rationalia style way). What I don't understand is why there is an 'ought' at all. I don't think there is an 'ought'. There is not one 'right way' to moderate a forum. I completely 'get' that you, personally, don't like how RatSkep is run. I just don't understand how your personal preference about how a forum is run directly transfers into how a forum 'ought' to be run.

You're saying that there's not an Ideal Way to Run a Forum?!?!?!

You've just made baby Plato cry.

I hope you're happy.

At least I didn't tell you Santa Claus isn't real....

[JimC]

LaMont Cranston wrote:

The Mad Hatter, It really doesn't come as much of a suprise to have you admit that the young'un that you are spends a lot of time playing games and jerking off on the net. It would come as quite a suprise to find that you get laid on anything that approaches a regular basis. It would come as a downright shock to find out that you had a girlfriend.

It comes to me as no surprise just how little you understand about the modern world. When you're done with your prostate exam you may want to take some time to catch up on the recent developments that have occured since the invention of the steam engine.

"Lamont and Mad Hatter, this is a reminder to treat each other with a little more respect. Robust discussion and argument does not need to stray into personal attack, which your posts were in danger of becoming"

[Brian Peacock]

.

[devogue]

It seems that Rationalia Style TM reponses are only viewed as clever and funny and an attempt to diffuse drama when they are employed by clique members.

Obviously I am not in the clique because my posts are being perceived as passive aggressive and there seems to be an opinion by some members that I'm just here to upset people and cause trouble. That is not the intention behind my posts in this thread and I am sorry if I have upset anybody. I was under the impression that Ratz can laugh at themselves and that Ratz encourages free speech ... especially satire... although I'm now wondering whether satire directed towards the Rationalia Style TM is not encouraged.

I'm sure someone said here in this thread that whoever is here is Ratz now. I'm here aren't I? In fact, I've been a member here for over a year now.

I am also a member at RatSkep and it is my preferred forum of the two. That doesn't mean one is better and one is worse. They are just different.

There is a small number of very vocal Ratz members who seem to have not yet recovered from the 2008 RDF schism. This vocal minority of Ratz members seem to foster and encourage dissent about RatSkep here at Rationalia. They seem to want to keep fighting RDF and they see RatSkep as the next best thing.

I have nothing against anyone who felt/feels aggrieved by RatSkep moderation. I am disappointed by the rationalia members who have spent little, if any, time at RatSkep and yet seem to think they know how I operate, how the RatSkep staff operate, and how the forum operates.

You can keep making your snide remarks that 'people have to come here to complain about RatSkep because at RatSkep they do not listen to member complaints about moderation'. Those remarks are unfounded and untrue. I am not responding to issues about RatSkep moderation here at Rationalia because I respond to issues about RatSkep moderation at RatSkep. That is the appropriate venue and, contrary to some of the ill-informed opinions in this thread, the RatSkep staff do listen and we do care about the members and the forum. We also continually reassess our practices and 'take a good hard look at ourselves'. Yes our moderation style is different to the Rationalia style of moderation. You like it your way and we like it our way. My impression is that both styles, although different, are coming from an underlying desire to create and foster a strong community and to be fair to all members.

That was really cool.

It was almost posted in the Devogue Style TM

There is a small number of very vocal Ratz members who seem to have not yet recovered from the 2008 RDF schism.

You weren't there. You think you know what it was like and you think you know how we felt at the time (and subsequently), but you don't - so it's a bit embarrassing to see you try and use it as a hammer with which to beat people here. Charlou, Seraph, Lordpasternack (who hasn't even posted in this thread) and myself continued to post occasionally on RDF about perceived contradictions and irrationalities in the application of the FUA there - especially when they ran counter to the sub-title of the site ("Oasis of clear thinking"). You must understand that when people have strived by themselves over many years, and have been encouraged by people like Dawkins, to think as clearly and freely as possible about everything in life then they are going to speak out when they see blatant hypocrisy and obvious contradictions, especially when applied by Dawkins and his goons.

For the most part I have enjoyed Ratskep. I have over 800 posts there but I honestly think that the "Rational Skepticism" name is extremely misleading for the simple reason that the entire premise of the forum is open to rational skepticism. It is irrational that a person with a controversial point of view, something that perhaps the majority of members find repulsive, can be silenced because others take "offence", or they subjectively recoil because of their own personal sensibilities. What makes it even worse is that certain controversial and irrational opinions like Creationism are permitted, because its a kind of "chew toy" with which the general membership feels comfortable - there is a clear double standard built on subjective thinking. I know this because I used to think that way - I used to think that my sensibilities, my sense of what was "offensive" was precious and deserved special protection above and beyond someone else's freedom to potentially or inadvertently offend. After much vigorous debate here I came to the painful (and it was fucking painful, believe me, having your arse handed to you on a plate by a seventeen year old) realisation that I was wrong. So don't sit in your ivory tower and rip the piss out of a forum that doesn't stuff "bad" shit in to a cupboard, or sweep "distasteful" stuff under a carpet to "protect" its members, don't belittle a forum and its "style" that you abandoned when something better came along, and don't pretend that after dousing this thread with petrol that everyone is out to get you.