Request for active moderation (Page 5 of 8)

I've moderated boards before, and it's a thicket to be sure. Personally, I think you do a fine job, Montalk, and your consideration of all the possibilities reveals a respect for the community that is nourishing.

Just cuz it was mentioned, I'll also comment that though I don't post a whole lot and haven't been an active member a whole long time, I don't get a feel of clannishness here. To the contrary, actually.

There's a welcoming of newcomers with relish and openness, and there's a healthy level of discussion between old and new that may even sometimes include respectful disagreement without favoritism or exclusion. Once in a while there's a burp in the flow, but even that is addressed with a respectful air of understanding, compassion and wisdom, for the most part. And where it may sometimes be lacking, there's valid cause that is also discussed.

As far as online communities go, especially considering the material discussed here, what more could one ask for?

Thanks!
Sowelu

Haven, taking this post as well as previous posts of your into consideration, what I gather is that you're simply not happy with the way NR runs or how it is in general.   You're always free to leave if you're unhappy.   You complain about things enough I don't know why you haven't already left.   IMO, you over dramatize and make mountains out of molehills.  Some of your statements are just so out in left field, and like I've said to you before.......are you even talking about the same forum that the rest of us belong to? Seriously, what forum are you referring to?   Because what you describe, and what others are seeing seem to be two totally different forums.   

??   Case in point.   

You've done it here in this thread, and you did it during "Energy:  Round 1" where you and I went head to head and you proceeded to describe some drama that frankly, I had no idea what the hell you were even talking about.   Dramatic stuff like, "....until somebody who was high enough in the hierarchy finally was brave enough to step forward and say something....!"  Blah blah blah.   You know what I'm talking about.   And when I called you out on it, asking you point plant, "Who???   Said what??  To whom??   What hierarchy??"  You conveniently never answered.  Dodged THAT question.  There was more to that situation such as stating that I, lyra, "always" go around saying I "hate Jesus."   Total lie.   

But with that in mind, my thoughts when I read your perspective on NR is a big and "CONSIDER THE SOURCE."    This is coming from somebody who claims that lyra "ALWAYS" goes around saying she "HATES JESUS."   umm.  yeah.  As well as other "skewed" perspectives on things, to put it lightly.

We're all free to have our opinion, but when someone has already proven that sometimes, their "perspectives" are outright lies and skewed distortions, then ya know.....consider the source.

Oh, yes, and on a PS sidenote Haven -  To say that if someone "doesn't conform to the resonation" then they're in "trouble of being banned" is to basically say that montalk is this overbearing dictator who goes around pressing or threatening to press the figuritive BANNED button at every other turn.   That's how it sounds to me, anyway.   Seriously, what forum are you even talking about?   And why haven't you left already if you're so unhappy with things??  If "resonation conformation" bothers you so much, why are you here?  That's what I'm left wondering.

Messageboards have to have standards.  And it sounds to me like you might be advocating the elimination of standards...?   Saying that to have such standards is akin to what you call "resonation conformation"  ?     

The people who've been banned from NR, as most anybody can tell you, were done so with good reason.   And if you're not aware of why they were banned, please, do the research and refresh your memory before making exaggerated claims that try to paint NR as some fascist overbearing messageboard.

Like I said, you lied about me, and, you have a tendancy to complain about all the supposed injustices going on with NR, but yet you're still here.   ?   Which is very weird.   At any rate, our "exchange" over in Energy's Critique thread speaks for itself.

Haven, what I'm reading in this thread tells me that your opinion is not one shared by others;  you're in a small minority, possibly a minority of one.  You yourself are not "conforming to the resonation," as you put it.  If there is "clan behavior" at work here, I'd venture to say that you're definitely not part of that clan at the moment.  Notice that no one is suggesting any action be taken against you as a result.  Even if you're not getting along with certain other people.   That is because other people realize that you just have a different opinion and are trying to stick up for what you think is right, and that's valued here.

Anyway can you and Lyra take the personal debate to the Battle Arena section?    Oh, right.  Take it the Icke forum!

I acknowledge your opinion, Haven, yet differ with your views on the matter.

But functionally, that is how they behave when exploited by those with less-than-sincere intentions. Do you understand the difference between opinion and action/intent? Opinions are respected here, but malicious intents and reckless stupidity is not. If you are colorblind, you will see red and green as the same shade of gray.

If what you see as a shade of gray is called red by one and green by another, sure it seems subjective.

Same here, that's why most members will agree I'm pretty easy going. But if your experience with other forums is limited, then I understand your sensitivity.

Yet if you were the one with skewed perceptions, then your subjectivity would make you see more subjectivity in others than there actually is. How would you know whether you were the one being subjective? Obviously by considering all the facts and having a higher order sense of perception. By higher order I mean not only seeing what is apparent, but reading between the lines and framing it in an accurate context.

Yes, and an agnostic approach without consideration of context would take this fact as the sole thing to go on. Ever wonder why some posters don't like other posters?  What you have yet to stop and ponder is the following:  How can two posters with totally contradictory opinions still respect each other and get along in good spirits, and yet another two posters can dislike each other even when one mirrors the opinions of the other? The answers is that in both of these cases, the deeper level context/intent is what decides whether one likes another or not. That is where I stand.

But for those who only perceive superficially, the first case would be cause for dislike and the second for an immediate liking. And thus they reject those who are good at heart and sit in the laps of those who validate their insecurities. If your position and perceptions are limited to this superficiality, then you will interpret other's motives and actions through the same distorted filter. It reminds me of judges who, upon listening to the story of a liar and the story of an honest man, decides for the sake if impartiality to assume that each is telling 50% of the truth. In this case, the virtue of impartiality serves the vice of ignorance.

You will notice that there are multiple clusters of resonance on this board, and these clusters have very blurred boundaries. That contradicts the accusation of clans. Secondly, no one has ever been banned strictly due to lack of resonance, unlike other boards like the Cass forums where lack of colinearity is cause for getting kicked out. At NR, it is action, effect, and intent that determine if someone needs to be banned. Action is easy to see. Effect is a bit harder. Intent is hardest of all. Those who are oblivious to effect and blind to intent will object to decisions based upon those, saying these decisions are knee-jerk, baseless, bias reactions.  Why? Because they can't see an adequate reason why the decision was made...but which in some cases is more reflective of their limited perceptions.

The only thing that determines my moderation policy is the logical validity, feasability, and long-term impact of what people have to say. And people can be as outspoken as they want. I don't have a problem with negativity if it's sincere form of dissatisfaction. But I do have a problem with malice, whether overt or covert, as once again that resides on the level of intent. So far no one has been malicious on this thread.

The context of this example does not match the context of our situation. Also, I would like to cite a more fitting example: Jesus kicking the moneychangers out of the Temple. The worth of a sacrifice, or the worth of taking action, depends on its context and long-term consequence. Mix up the context and you'll feed the Devil while spitting at the Lord.

Right, but the catch is that the goodness of goodness and kindness of kindness depends on the context of the situation. Sometimes one must be firm to be good, cruel to be kind, when there is no other way.

Also, let's say you heard all opinions, arrived at a resonable truth on the matter, and stated what you concluded. Then what if someone said you were jumping to conclusions because you concluding in one week what would take them ten years to figure out? A similar situation happens to those who are good at reading people, reading between the lines, seeing the intent and context, etc... as soon as they speak their observations, others who do not see it yet are quick to label them as being reactive and making rash and subjective conclusions. If they truly are being subjective, then you could always offer evidence and observations to the contrary... but if it is your perceptions which are limited, then all you have is empty accusations.

I agree, tempers can flare especially during sensitive times. Hopefully each of us with emotions can strive to be more coolheaded without sacrificing the point one is trying to make. If another is being irrational, then one can respond with counterpoints of a more rational nature. Yet in many instances exposing the flaws in another's irrationality gets one accused of "not respecting the opinion of another" and for being a bully. But that's just a defensive form of whining by hypocrites.

If they qualify as opinions, then absolutely. But sometimes what seem like opinions are just empty filler wrapped around a venomous payload. Covert hostility, opinions as a superficial device to accomplish ill intent. Those who don't see the subtle difference between real and counterfeit opinions will rabidly defend the latter and thereby bodyguard the payload for delivery.

Truth is more important than friends, but if you only befriend those who side with truth then you don't have to choose between one or the other. And if that makes a clan, then call it the Clan of the Friends of Truth.

I hope so too. Group consensus does not guarantee truth, yet that an idea is popular does not guarantee it is false either. Perhaps it is just common sense.

We do the best we can, because if we don't at least strive for wisdom we will not even set foot on the path to enlightenment.

Personally, I'd be very interested to hear what specific instances you're apparantly citing about posters calling for the banning of other posters.   

Other than morningsun76 himself who requested "moderation" of Energy, (a polite way of saying "banning" I guess )  what other posters are you talking about, Haven?

And please answer the question.  You make so many outlandish sounding claims about what supposedly goes on here at NR that I truly am curious to get actual factual evidence to back up what appears to be subjective opinions founded on a distorted perspective.

I could be wrong though, which is why "facts are good."  If you could please provide them.

If the question doesn't get answered then I can only assume that there just may not be actual support to back the claim.....

Well, since Montalk did away with the (admittedly gruesome) physical penalties and the official "black death" NR enforcement squads, we don't really have that many other ways left to deal with offending users.  Honestly, the old days were much more fun.