Everything in MODERATION … Including MODERATION ITSELF!

It's not personal, it's just business

Great article, A. Mac! Something we all need to bear in mind during those 'heated' discussions! Thanks for posting this!

Good article Mac. I have to agree with Mickey and his analysis of it. And Neetu as well...''unruly children''...prozac time for them.

Ditto.

I do believe it all just comes down to mannerly behavior.

((((((((((((((Tex)))))))))))))))

I agree with you! Also, you, in particular, have such a nice sense of humor about everything... Reading your posts, even when you politely disagree, are a hoot and quite pleasurable! To me, at least!

Dowser!

Why thank you kindly. My ears are burning.

Aw, Tex, much love to you!

Great article.

Igot the joys of experiencing a month suspension on the "other" site for *toting the line* (the mods exact words). She flat out admitted I hadn't violated the CoH, but that she had received "a number of complaints".

That's not moderating. That's babysitting.

So as a result, I'm a big fan of "moderate" moderation. AndNT seems to have it down pretty well.

I just got into a discussion about this with another member in another thread. The discussion used a joke comment about MSNBC as an example. It was the other members contention that joked like that don't add anything to the discussion and may actually make someone mad and cause them to leave the site. That we should 'practice the golden rule'.

That's where the problem lies, IMO.

There is no way for us to know the sensitivity levels of others or what THEY consider the 'golden rule'. And if we're going to take that so far as jokes about a cable network, then I have a problem with that.

For example, I just heard on the TV that two Dems are proposing that anyone who wants to buy ammunition for a firearm, has to take an anger management class.

Naturally, given my pro 2A stance, my reaction to that is that it's ridiculous for many reasons. And if someone put up an article on it, my reaction would be "That's crazy talk!" and I would then go on to explain why I think it's nonsense.

Am I not practicing the golden rule? Sure I am. Because I WANT someone to tell ME if they think my opinion is ridiculous or why what I'm saying is crazy talk. That's what makes for robust debate. I UNDERSTAND that if someone tells me my comment is ridiculous, they are talking about my comment. Not me.

Yet others would view it as "rude" or "mean". Because they prefer a "gentler" debate style. It's fine to tell someone to 'practice the golden rule', as long as you realize their definition of it may be different that theirs.

Now...if someone says I am ridiculous or crazy...that crosses into the realm of personal attack. However, if they tell me it's obvious that I'm uneducated or misinformed on something, that's not an attack, as long as they can back it up.

Just my 2 cents.

We have a great group of mods here and the site has exploded with new membership. I hope like hell they aren't being pressured into being babysitters instead of moderators.

recognize that nearly ALL comments are personal. And all responses are personal. Because they are. We are not machines talking to other machines, in digital code.

One can make a personal comment or response without being disrespectful or insulting; while much of dialogue is subjective, most individuals recognize or sense intent.

I have no problem with strong criticism, objection or rebuttal I have a big problem when any/all are leveled without anything of substance to justify them such as a counter-point that leads to the criticism of a another point rather than person who made that point.

All comments are personal, and received as such. All comments SHOULD be personal, or they have no value. What you want is the AFFIRMING version of personal.

All comments originate from a personal level, no argument, but one can state a fact or reach a conclusion that is in opposition to personal preferences solely to advance what is factual. One can be biased and still omit any suggestion of bias by dialoguing objectively.

OBJECTIVE - not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing

Conversations may well be more colorful and interesting when made personal; but if one party in a conversation, especially if it's the originator, clearly posts facts, or, even pure opinion, and is in no way condescending nor insulting, those who insult or demean the initiator for having such an opinion WITHOUT SUBSTANTIVELY REBUTTING THE OPINION ITSELF, detract from the conversation and potentially drive away members.

On the other hand, if a conversation is, in its initial form, belligerent, insulting, demeaning, stupid, etc., that's another story.

But other than my own comments, complete objectivity is very rare. I think you would agree.

I agree with part of that, see if you are objective enough to know which part.

You're part of the way there.

C'mon. A PERSON made the comment. There should be a presumption that the comment reflects the person's "self."

I also made an afghan. It truly is the ugliest afghan I've ever seen. If someone said: "That afghan is ugly", I certainly wouldn't take it to mean that I am ugly.

I also see a vast difference between: "That's the dumbest thing ever written" and "you are an idiot". They are two totally different things. If I say: "Elephants are normal sized. The rest of us are just tiny". That is indeed, a dumb thing to write. And if someone tells me so, I certainly don't interpret that as them calling ME an idiot.

But our difference of opinion on this is a really good example of why we can't expect the other person to have a demeanor or level od sensitivity that is equal to our own. At the very core of it all, we see and interpret the typed words differently.

Another example: John Russell and I have gotten into some heated gun control debates. Those usually end with him telling me that my head only swivels in one direction or some other such nonsense. He is talking about me personally with that comment. Do I view it as a personal attack? Not really. IMO, it's just filler on a page that indicates he's gotten frustrated with the debate. I usually chuckle to myself and take it as a cue to move on.

However, someone else may view the comment as a blatant personal attack.

That's why I think having set guidelines for everyone is the way to go. Otherwise, we are left walking on eggshells, worrying about the fragile psyche of everyone else.

When participating in a blog, there are certain responsabilities that go with it from BOTH parties. Each party shouldn't intentionally attack, but by the same token, if the other person's style is too abrasive for you, you have the obligation to disengage rather than demand the other person change their posting style.

Criticism of a point IS criticism of the person.

So wait a minute. Since you believe that we should not be critical of others...and you ALSO believe, per your above comment, that being critical of a point IS being critical of a person, does this mean that we should not be critical of others points? Simply "play it safe" and agree with everyone?

I honestly don't view it that way.

For example, you mention this:

"A person repeatedly says..."what is it about "X" that you don't understand?" Followed by.."you stupid bastard." Not in print, but obvious to anyone with an IQ."

And that's what I don't get. If the person isn't actually WRITING "you stupid bastard"....then *no*. It's not obvious (either that, or I have no IQ), In fact...assuming they ARE saying that is what leads to many a flame-war, IMO. The person who "thinks" they are being called a *stupid bastard* (but wasn't) will generally respond with an incediary comment because he PERCEIVES he was slighted.

So. If you believe that if I say: "What part of *shall not be infringed* don't you get?"...means I am really saying "Robert, you are such a stupid bastard"....when that's not what I'm saying at all, how do we resolve the issue? Would it be better for me to walk on eggshells when I discuss something with you? Or would it be better if you read the actual words I wrote instead of trying to read between them?

Agree with everyone above.

It is better to debate the ISSUE rather than a position or the other person's mental capacity. May not get to YES but it forwards the discussion better.

Your head is swiveling in one direction right now. You think Pat, that you have never "personally insulted" anyone on that level?

If I have, it wasn't intentional. And isn't that really what we're taling about here? INTENTIONALLY personally insulting people? You were in the thread where another member said that making a joke about MSNBC (or FOX News, for the matter) was over the top, may hurt someone's feelings because they like MSNBC and they might silently stew or leave the site. That we shouldn't "be allowed" to make such jokes because they contribute nothing to a topic and might make someone mad.

If that's what this forum is, then I've wandered into the wrong forum.

I personally don't think that's what it is. At least I hope not. I enjoy bickering with you and some others. And I can honestly say I have never taken anything you have said to me a "personal attack". Mostly just noise that is borne of your deep frustration with my views on some issues. I hope you view my statements the same way.

Then there are times like the Catholic Church thread that you put up when we will agree.

Stuff like that is all part of a blog.

Pat.. knock it off... you're toting the line there!

Justice is about societal agreement.

I totally agree, Robert. Here is the way that I view it. I don't say anything here, that I wouldn't say to someone face to face. It really is just that simple.

Yesterday, Peter made his point to me, that he didn't like the idea of flamers off the front page in a very unique, Peter way, that I have grown used to. I could have chosen to be offended, but instead I laughed. He would have said that in real life, too. Part of being an adult is knowing the difference between telling a friend, BS and telling a store clerk BS and most of us know the difference.

Excellent post Tink. I wish so many people would just read what they wrote before they hit reply, and think... would I say that, if that person was standing in front of me. My guess is, if they were being honest with themselves, the answer would be no.

Mike,

I think you are a robot sent back from the year 2237 to ensure our mutual destruction. And I like your pic with the blond better.....

But seriously, if one only wants to interact on that level (flaming), what is the use?

Seeing your real face in a picture and/or knowing your real name does not impress me one way or another.

I think what Mike is saying (and I tend to concur), is that if a person is using their real face and real name, that's about as close as you can get to "saying it to someone's face" when you're on an internet forum. It shows that the person isn't ashamed of their opinion or hiding behind the anonimity of a computer screen.

It's not about "impressing" anyone. It's about courage of conviction. Even in business, a person could go to my Linked-In profile reccommendations from others and find the descriptors: "ever vigilant", "tenatious", "recruiting buzzsaw".

As Popeye said...I yam what I yam.

I think what Mike is saying (and I tend to concur), is that if a person is using their real face and real name, that's about as close as you can get to "saying it to someone's face" when you're on an internet forum. It shows that the person isn't ashamed of their opinion or hiding behind the anonimity of a computer screen.

Using a screen name and an avatar other than one's actual name and face is most likely a measure to assure some degree of privacy; fair enough, but it's disingenuous (at best) to try and have something both ways. If it's privacy one desires, then hiding behind it while taking cheap, personal shots is cowardly whether done consciously or otherwise.

If one reveals his or her name and/or face, that is, at least one actual piece of identity, that alone is a way of saying, "I own and own up to my opinion.

Excellent outlook.

As I have commented at times, if thepoint must be made via vitriol, bias or the like, it is most likely a position not worth having. If the discussion becomes that heated, then step back and take a deep breath prior to diving back in, that is usually what most adults do.

If one reveals his or her name and/or face, that is, at least one actual piece of identity, that alone is a way of saying, "I own and own up to my opinion.

Well said, AMac.

I grow instantly suspicious of people who say (for example)..."I don't use my real name or picture because of my professional life and the possibility my boss or customers could easily find my posts".

That makes me want to instantly pose the question: "Oh? Are you planning on saying something that either (a), your boss or customer would find offensive or (b) doesn't reflect the true nature of the personality you've led your boss or customer to believe you have?"

No. People REALLY live their corporate personnas.

Wait a minute. So thereare actually people out there who put on a different persona just to appease their boss? They spend 8-10 hours a day, 5 days a week, "character acting" and being someone they're not?

Good lord. That must be exhausting.

Ed Smith from Chicago is real, uses his name on line, and he remains anonymous.

And I think that people who post a lot of personal information regret it, unless they are doing it to promote themselves or a business, and that leads to a lot of resentment toward people who do not post personal information to their satisfaction.

Not relevant to this discussion; assuming a given identity is legitimate (certainly a given "real" identity is potentially more credible than one that is clearly void of information), the motivation of the individual disclosing it matters not; what matters in this discussion's context is that comments can be attributed to someone who de facto declares, "Yes, I said it and I stand by it."

Any chicken shit can slap someone on the back of the head and then jump back into the bushes so as not to deal with resultant consequences. Cyberspace or real space, if one chooses the safety of anonymity, one is not entitled to any benefits the otherwise come from showing integrity and character.

I meant the blond beer...

Kudos, nonetheless.

0110111001101001011000110110010100100000011000100110110001101111011011100110010000100000011010010111001100100000011101000110100001100001011101000010000001111001011011110111010101110010001000000111011101101001011001100110010100111111

Do you think they are being deceptive?

I think that if they are so uncomfortable in their own convictions and ideology that they feel the need to post under a false identity online, then it's exactly as AMac said....

if one chooses the safety of anonymity, one is not entitled to any benefits the otherwise come from showing integrity and character.

I think there is enough craziness evident in just a few posts that proves the wisdom of anonymity.

Not following you. If a person is knowingly and intentionally posting "craziness"...then you might have a point.

If they aren't, then why do they want to hide behind their computer screen under the cover of a pseudonym and act as though they are ashamed of their position?

They just don't go up and put their opinions on affirmative action, gay marriage, the Pope, the president, Obamacare, the moon, etc, on the bulletin board outside the personnel department.

Do you think they are being deceptive?

That has nothing to do with hiding behind anonymity; that's a matter of discretion and propriety. The workplace is implicitly not the place to voice personal opinions on potentially controversial subjects. Even as an advocate of the working person and workers' rights, I'd be the first to explain to an employee who seemed no to understand, than an employer has the right to admonish, warn and take sanctions against disruptive workplace behaviors.

NewsTalkers is intended as a forum in which subjects like those you cited are to be broached. Your analogy is really not analogous.

And by the way, who are you?

According to Pat N, unless you are open about everything at work, you are living a lie. What you say on line should be no different than what you say on line. Or...living a lie.

No dear. According to Pat N...it must be exhausting to put on an entirely different persona at work and be so ashamed of your ideals that you feel a need to hide from them during off duty hours.

Have I made myself clear?

Where I just don't want to be bothered with the clean up.

Translation: You just don't want to have to be accountable for who you actually are.

Some people shouldn't be moderators.

A point you've made countless times. Possibly a manifestation that goes with hiding behind anonymity. Fear of failure, fear of being found out.

They envy the freedom that the rest of us enjoy. They are most reactive to perceived insults, because they have made sure that they attach their every thought, to (for example) ME, Amac.

Thank you Dr. Freud.

Perhaps the one perceiving is the one creating the perception.

So much so, that they sit here arguing with someone who they describe as too anonymous to bother with, and one totally lacking in character, because the set of letters isn't in the right order.

Again, a perception on your part; I said nothing remotely close to anyone being "too anonymous to bother with." I did certainly imply that taking shots from under cover at people with whom one disagrees, reveals a character deficiency.

In the real world, by virtue of its disingenuous nature, people are required in situations of trust, to vouch for their trustworthiness by signing their names, verifying their identifications and owning their responsibilities, debts, obligations and points-of-view.

How can a discussion be "PERSONAL," when one of the persons hides who he is? That's NOT A PERSONAL DIALOGUE, that's the metaphorical "Man-Behind-the-Curtain."

How many times have you made reference to MY PERSONAL DETAILS my city, my career and not as context but as a way to imply that my comments came from some prejudicial agenda? Those cheap shots were made possible because I let it be known who I am and you, from a place of hiding see no disparity nor issue of character?

I think so. You work in a place where all the people agree with you, philosophically, and you don't have to avoid controversial subjects.

On the contrary. I work in a place where conservatives are actually in the minority. We have a guy that worked on Obama's 2008 campaign, a guy from Scotland that is a proud Socialist, several people who are avowed progressives (one of my peers daughter even writes for motherjones.com) and several who are either apolitical or old school dems. We have 4 consevatives that I know of.

Each and everyone of us (who is interested in politics) can post on FB or in these forums without fear of retribution from anyone. I work for a company that bases the worth of our employment on what we produce and our skillset. Not our political ideology.

And I am a solid contributor.

If you fear your boss so much and believe you will be fired for a post you make on a blog, I guess you have two options. (1) Ask yourself why you are working for an oppressive employer or (2) Ask yourself why you are so insecure in your skillset and your contribution to your organization that you think your boss will shitcan you and put more weight on your political beliefs than they will, your contribution to their organization.

As AMac said...if you NEED the security of posting as an imaginary person, that's fine. Post as an imaginary person. But you can't have it both ways and expect the people you are posting to, to view your opinions with the same level of integrity of ownership that they would view the comments of those made by someone who posts under their true identity.

The very party accusing others of voter fraud are the ones committing it. The so-called "voter ID" laws put in place after a black man moved into a white house sought to disenfranchise people, many of whom had long ago verified their identification, in some instances who had voted in the same polling places for decades.

But since you have now implied that you're in favor of the voter ID's, perhaps you'll tell us who the fuck you are.

FYI: Even the dickheads at Fox know the deal.

After a five-year hunt for voter fraud, the Bush administration's Justice Department came up with little widespread fraud, finding mostly cases of people mistakenly filling out voter registration forms or voting when they didn't know they were ineligible, The New York Times reported in 2007. But none of the cases involved a person voting as someone else.

Read more: foxnews...

The benefits, to me, of filling your scrapbook with details about my life are about the same as a fly NOT landing on my house. I choose when I think it matters, and when I think it is someone elses business.

So, your business is sacrosanct but pissing on and demeaning the stated opinions of those who state their business and their identities are fair game?

That helps me to understand why you choose to remain anonymous.

You haven't answered how Pat N is less anonymous than Npat. Or Beepop. Or John Smith. I'm not keeping a scrapbook, so I don't even care to know any more than "Pat N" about you.

And you, Robert G, who chooses to tell us nothing, implies that those who tell us something may by lying about what they tell.

Keep digging the hole.

Who's with me?

I like the idea, but my posting style is a dead giveaway.

I think you are confirming that which if hold as a certainty. That the opinion of a person IS personal, and contradiction IS personal. Always.

I responded earlier to this contention that indeed all opinions are personal yet they can be stated objectively if supported by facts and absent personal attacks and rancor.

Those who are more forthcoming about their life take contradiction as more of an affront.

Not exactly; those who dialogue from a position of openness about themselves, when opposed by those who play in the shadows, are thus more vulnerable. But the affront is not taken with regard to how they may be regarded personally, rather the affront is in regard to the willingness of the person-in-hiding to exploit the tilted playing field.

To me, and in my interests, you are nothing more than what you write. You develop "shape" based on what you write. It doesn't matter what you call yourself.

Understood. But if I speak while wearing a mask, what I have to say may be heard with a degree of suspicion, and why? For the same reason that people who fail to make eye contact in live conversations are regarded with suspicion. For whatever reason, we are wired in such a way so as to prefer at least the appearance of sincerity.

I don't work for others, anymore.

Then what are you so freaked out about?

I CHOOSE to tell you what I feel like telling you about myself, to you and everyone else. I control that.

That's not what this is about. In truth, I doubt there are too many people here who give a happy crap about "you". Or me, for that matter. What this is about is a higher level of integrity of people willing to take OWNERSHIP of their comments and ideology if they are posting under their real identity

It's like this...Say you have two guys saying the exact same thing about a controversial topic on TV. One insists on doing the interview with his voice altered and his identity hidden. The other doesn't hide either one. Which one has more credibility?

You haven't answered how Pat N is less anonymous than Npat. Or Beepop. Or John Smith. I'm not keeping a scrapbook, so I don't even care to know any more than "Pat N" about you.

I am easy to find on the internet. The picture I use is mine. I believe even my profile page on this site lists my full name. If that's not enough, I would have no qualms about changing my handle to "Patricia Nicklaus". I went with Pat N because that's who I was on the Vine.

But then....I have nothing to fear from my posts and have courage of conviction.

Oh, I don't know, Robert. I have agreed and disagreed with you on strictly your ideas, since you have only become bi-colored recently.

I haven't reached the top of the mountain of civility but I'm steadily approaching it. My father was born on the top of the same mountain and never descended it. He set the examples I'm still striving to emulate.

That's so touching that you still think of your dad that way. It's the most that a parent can hope for.

And it would kill some people to think that they might be judged on their ideas, and nothing else. And finish them off to think that others aren't helping them with their baggage.

Dr. Freud speaks from his self-exalted position in the land of Oz

And struts while sitting.

Actually Robert G, the anonymity is of little significance if the individual it conceals does not engage in mockery, condescension and personal innuendos. But to be simultaneously doing those things and anonymous is a different animal.

If you were truly erudite, you might want to be known for being thus; but, Dr. Freud, if you suffered from say, "imposter syndrome," you might fear being found out and not take the risk.

I think I clearly explained my point of people using handles to hide behind to viciously attack others as the cowards they are.

Being anonymous and innocuous raises no issue of character; being anonymous and obnoxious raises many.

But, the factthat people use their own name and picture doesnotguaranteethey are not in fact cowards.

As long as such people do not treat others disrespectfully, it matters not since being respectful is not hurtful.

When one's behavior warrants adverse action, and the perpetrator has chosen from the onset to be both aggressive and inaccessible, ironically, he has revealed himself but in a cowardly way.

mmm...I would say clonepin or xanax

Tink -

With all due respect, are you aware of how many times you used "I", "me", and "my"in that post? In a post where I clearly stated "people" and not you personally?

Kinda hard to have a discussion with someone who is being so defensive.

And I'm not asking you to care what I think of you. You are a nameless, faceless stranger on the internet. And you are that nameless, faceless stranger by your own choice. Hence, you reduce your own credibility by choice.

And as I said, that is fine. As long as people understand that it's much easier to have respect for someone...even when I don't agree with them...if they are willing to place their name or face with their comments than it is to respect someone who appears to be hiding and makes the same offensive comments.

It's like the TV interview analogy I used earlier. If two guys are both giving interviews on the same topic, but one insists on altering his voice and hiding his identity, which one is going to have more credibility, in your opinion?

I was gonna post an article: "Who is cuter, puppies or kittens?"

I think you should. It's my understanding that posting anything more controversial than that will rile some feathers and "shouldn't be allowed", because it may make others stew silently.

I wanna be 9

On the other hand, I think anyone who gets pissed off at seeing the word "Philadelphia" is going to see more of it. Just for the fun of it, if for no other reason.

Yes, the very point and example of how "anonymous" + "obnoxious" = cowardice.

And if he continuously cites his union credentials, and his union experience, and his union positions, he is going to find that some people will mention "union" in his presence.

But I mention those things in a context, you throw them out as a taunt a taunt from an anonymous individual who lacks the character to say, "This s who I am."

Talk to a neutral observer about this. He will explain it to you. But for our purposes, it is part of the picture that you drew.

The picture I have drawn is contextual; the pissing by you on that picture is for the amusement of a child-like mentality.

Taunt - a remark made in order to anger, wound, or provoke someone.

Interestingly

By Definition INTERNET TROLL

Internet poster who takes oppositional views to any advocacy site, regardless of the actual strength of his chosen position, for the pure purpose of stirring up debates, generating anonymously , and triggering hatred.

Goal of Trolling- The feelings of superiority and laughs that come from generating hatred, bad feeling, or confusion on the target of trolling, and attention generated from getting targets to respond.

Tools of Trolling-

1. Ad hominem insults of posters mental status, looks, intellect, or typing skills.

2. Disregard of any fact that does not back the troll's advocacy position, and excessive focus of any debunker information, regardless of the motives of the debunker.

3. Endless verbosity when arguing any position, regardless of logic or reasoning or actual facts, but a lot of use of "facts" discussed generally, but never quoted or sourced. Example- Thousands of scientists say I am right.

Payoff of trolling-

1. Making other people feel bad, without the risk of getting one's face punched in, for being rude, cruel, or socially uncaring.

2. Bullying without the mess and fuss and muss of actually answering for bad behavior.

I had more respect for you, Mike, when you were drinking the guiness....

kittens...with puppy chasers

See "taunt"

Then there's the kid in school who smacks me on the back of the head, and before I can turn around to see who hit me, he disappears into a hallway full of other kids until one day I turn quickly enough to ID him, grab him and stuff his ass in an open locker

after which he runs to the principal's office and demands that I be disciplined or at the very least, told the error of my ways.

When I am called to the principal's office and read the riot act, I ask if I may know the name of my accuser; I am told that my accuser wishes to remain anonymous.

awwww.....

Puppies with kittens and little squirrels!

I am furball, here me roar

I love the smell of Meta in the morning.

Not.

You've got to face the killer instinct!

I'm an olfactory kind of person myself.

I'm an Old Factory person... or just Old. Still trying to play nice with the kiddos...

Then I must ask who scent you.

I shall aroma round until you tell.

Only a Nostrildamus could have sniffed out the direction this conversation has taken.

Who nose what's next?

Snot I.

you're a nut

Thaank you Very much!