PRP Issues

[Wolf]

Haha, Edric just got a wee taste of the stuff. Believe me, man, it gets better.

This is a lot of talk, and that's good, because if nothing else it's the most action this place has seen in a while. I want to clarify, since I think Flibble brings up a good point, that this isn't just about Eras, it's about reviewing the way we all treat and use PRP. Now, let me clarify further that I think that Eras represents something like 90% of the problem, right now (simply because Ath is gone, driving Eras' share up from 45%). That doesn't mean this should turn into the "Talk Shit About Eras" thread, but, to be fair (and I think that Flibble might have erred too far on the side of playing devil's advocate), I don't think it has. At all. I think Dragoon's post, while charged, was completely on-point, and I think his "tentative welcome" of Curt is evidence of that. Sure, we're being dicks right now, but that doesn't mean we're doing it for the sake of dickery. We believe that we have legitimate grievances that have gone unanswered for a very long time. I think posts by the "unaligned" contingent support that.

Now, before I get to those grievances, I want to address two things Edric said. The first is that I never proposed that Eras be barred from posting in our threads. I have no idea where that idea came from, and that's never been my goal. I will only support a ban if it is clear that Eras cannot or will not change his behavior, and moderation has failed to bring that behavior into compliance with common norms of constructive discourse. I don't think we're at that point yet. I'll address Edric's second comment by first thanking him for agreeing to hear us out. I know he and I haven't always seen eye to eye, and I've said some things to Edric that I would take back if I could, and as a result, I appreciate that respect. Essentially, reconciliation is a two-way street. I have tried to converse with Eras using a variety of tactics--I won't speak for Dante or Dragoon, but I feel they've tried their hand at talking to him as well--and he has consistently refused to budge on the one point that we really need him to.

Issue dropping. Reconciliation can't occur until Eras actually addresses the issues raised by other posters. Virtually all of my "rules" related to this idea.

That's all that this is about, really. Eras isn't the only one who drops issues, but he is the one that does it the most consistently. Hwi did it, too, and Ath did it so blatantly that even Andrew gave him a temp-ban out of instinct. Ultimately, off-topic debate was always against the rules. Why? Because if debate is off-topic, then no debate can occur. The very notion of a forum becomes pointless. Issue dropping isn't any different, and the meat of Dragoon's post addresses just this issue. Now, I talked about reviewing the way we treated PRP, and by that I meant that Edric is right that the norms of discourse on PRP, in particular, have improved as the core of regular forum posters have aged and matured. That's a good thing, I call that progress, and I think that progress needs to be encouraged. Incidentally, I spoke to Andrew about this phenomenon, Edric, and I told him that I felt that not only were we getting more sophisticated in our debates, but, back in the old days, the crowd was also large enough that it could instinctively sense issue dropping and shout the offender down when it happened. The days of "just mob rule" are gone in that sense, and the current state of the forum is one where only one or two dedicated issue-droppers can derail entire discussions. They've been derailed so badly that for stretches of entire months no one was posting besides Eras and Ath--the issue droppers. I mean, look at Eras' last responses. Andrew gives us "updates" about Canadian elections? Dante teaches us about "Scottish nationalism"? None of this is on point. Is he trying to assert that posters to this forum have value to add? I think that point is conceded by all parties. Is he trying to allege that myself and others are biased? Yes, but he can't point to anything but our selection of him as an example of bad forum behavior--which, by the way, there would be consensus on if he admitted it--as evidence. And then he brings up personal characteristics of himself and others again... to serve what purpose? I've told him time and time again that I don't care who he is but what he says. That's the point! (I think that fact alone militates against any alleged bias on my part, but, be convinced by what you will). All of this is symptomatic of issue dropping. In the General board, I think this is okay, because General exists precisely to shoot the breeze. PRP is a debate forum, at least, that's how I've always treated it, and debates need to be substantial, otherwise, they're just opinionated breeze-shooting. Hell, as I see it, a board dedicated to clever insult-crafting would be more valuable than that. We don't want that. We want substantive discussion, and we don't care who with or what about. But we care about how that discussion happens.

Basically, I'm asking that PRP be moderated with an awareness of the points being debated. If a point is raised and ignored, and the ignored party complains, the ignorer should be asked by a moderator to respond. If the ignorer doesn't, sanctions follow. That's it. That would have saved us a lot of time if it had been implemented in the past. As I've told Andrew before, I don't think that's anyone's fault, because, for whatever reason, we didn't think such a rule was necessary. I think it is now.

As for Curt... I don't care who you are. I care about what you say. That's the same rule I've always applied to Eras and everyone else on this board (did anyone read what I posted about why it's important not to mention personal characteristics in the course of a PRP debate?!). If you feel treated badly by me, it will be because of something you said or how you said it, not because of your identity or your relationship with any other poster. Eras has never realized that I do not care about who he is or what he does, and keeps bringing the issue up even though I tell him it's irrelevant. He does that, I think, because he refuses to address substantive issues and has nothing else to say. Don't do that. If you are unsure about whether you have addressed a point, or do not know what the point to be addressed is, ask. I am fair. I will tell you in terms that are fair. Eras has never asked. You can have opinions, even ones that I think are offensive, and if you defend them well, I will disagree with you and may even tell you that I think those opinions are damaging to humans on Earth, but I will respect you and your right to them. (Like how I feel about Edric and communism). If you defend them badly, or not at all, and even though you might think they are defended, then I will not respect you, and, pursuant to everything I've said above, I will try to have you sanctioned. This isn't 'Nam, there are rules.

EDIT:

EDIT: Dragoon, I just had the chance to read your long diatribe. What do you hope to accomplish by asking my friend of two decades to see me as a horrible human being? Always jabbing with the sword you are, very sad. I have told you that I am most likely not ever going to discuss homosexuality again. It is a lose-lose for me. As far as all of your points of advice for me, once again 'no thanks'. As a perfectly well-adjusted 47-year old, father of four, living in a nice house, married to a beautiful successful woman, co-owning a business with her, & spending 90-120 minutes a day on fitness, I can say that I am happy the way that I am. I also like to part-time lecture at the local community college, and volunteer twice a week at homeless shelter. Also in my spare time, I like to post about religion and philosophy on science-fiction and political forums.

Really? I mean, really? Excuse me for my language, but this is a fucking biography coming right after I explained, in painful detail, why such "discussion" is wholly irrelevant to any debate that could be occurring on this forum! This isn't just issue dropping; this is an affirmative, nay, spiteful refusal to address the issues being discussed. If Eras wanted to participate in this conversation legitimately--which, I'll grant, is stacked heavily against him--the least he could do is ask for examples of issue dropping on his part (Dragoon has offered to do the legwork in confirming that), or perhaps ask how he might have addressed past issues differently. We've seen none of that. Even if Eras felt the discussion was "too biased" to participate in, then he could ignore it. The problem is the pretense of participation that does not advance the debate (a "façade" to use Dragoon's term).

[TheCurtOne]

As a perfectly well-adjusted 47-year old, father of four, living in a nice house, married to a beautiful successful woman, co-owning a business with her, & spending 90-120 minutes a day on fitness, I can say that I am happy the way that I am. I also like to part-time lecture at the local community college, and volunteer twice a week at homeless shelter.

Dude, that is a bit much. Gonna call you out on this publicly cause it reminds me of you in 2007 in the other forum. No one gives one rat's a$$ about how you think you have it all together. Plus you forgot to mention that your mother in law has controlling interest in the bizness, and if she says "JUMP" then you say "HOW HIGH?" Also, what's with you and posting stuff about Britney Spears in the other forum? Don't tell me your infatuation with blond chicks is coming back.

Back to the issue at hand. Anyhew, this is the way I see it, and I know I'm jumping in to the pile o'sh<>t. Dante, Dragoon, and Wolf are for gay rights, evolution, and other lib stuff. EO comes along and offers some constructs about the issues, but he thinks he's going to win you three over by being who he is, a nice guy. Doesn't work. So he shares some life stories, and believe me this guy has seen and lived it all, and the whole thing goes nuke because everyone is caught in their habits. Not the first time, happens at church all the time. Wolf, it doesn't surprise me that he's talking Canada with a Canadian, or Scotland with a Scotsman, even if there's bad blood. Cause he's a nice guy.

But you people have called him some pretty crappy names. Read D & D's story about EO from last year in Fencepost. Little sketchy, no one mentioned anyone by name, but...Not pretty. Nothing from the mods ever about calling people insults until last week. Too bad.

How's it gonna be with me? I tend towards Deistic Evolution. God made it, evolution and God guides it. Gonna flame me? DON'T. Personal Sex Behavior. I don't really care about your personal life, or what you do to yourself. I don't care. You see, I don't care about you pesonally. You live how you want, but don't ask for special treatment and throw upside down the apple cart that's beeen rolling for thousands of years either. So what, now I'm fair game for flaming? Hope not.

I've said my say, now I'm gonna post.

[Lord J]

Well... I basically just wanted to post and say that I'm (silently) backing Dante, DK, and Wolf in this debate.

This has really very little to do with the fact that Eras's views are personally offensive and intellectually underdeveloped, but I feel compelled to write a little on it. I cannot abide a concept that describes people that I care for in the ways he stated in previous posts (I think that's one thing you and he are missing, Curt, in your anger at Dante and DK's thread in fanfic, the descriptions (that are basically a joke at his expense) are no different than the descriptions that he was giving of homosexual behavior on this board) because they speak of a deep-seated hatred that slows civil rights progress. I disagree with even you, Wolf, that people should be allowed to voice opinions like his. This is hate-speech caused by some abnormal brain state, and should be treated as such. There is no rational defense of homophobia. It is a mental illness.

That being said, it's interesting to me how, if we use the placeholder "mental illness" in consideration of the various complaints brought against Eras in this thread, a... pattern emerges. Essentially, I feel that the pattern indicates that Eras' behavior is that of a virus, replicating itself and building on hospitable ground (Ath's threads) while the immune system (moderation) disappears and the functionality of the organism (posts by people that really give a crap about this board) dies slowly. In an earlier thread I attempted to isolate a symptom of the problem, but clearly that was a failure. At least we have a bit of... penicillin(?) in the form of Andrew ;)

[Wolf]

Curt: you have to understand that the FanFic post regarding Eras was a response to Eras' tasteless use of very much the same language. In short, it was a joke. They were mocking Eras for being so over-the-top in his condemnation of homosexuals. If you doubt it, Dragoon can probably provide you with examples of Eras' work, and you can cross-check the dates of those with the fenceposts threads. Do some research. I know he's your friend, I guess, or whatever.

This isn't a doublestandard: Eras use the language unprompted, and in earnest. D.K. and Dante used it jest. There's a distinction.

[ErasOmnius]

Lord J, if you feel that I personally attacked your parents in any way, I am sorry. Now everyone, except for Dante, having said what they want to say about me, to me, etc -- I would like to say, 'Let's move on'. I have read all of the advice and will take great deal of it. Dante, as you know, I especially would like for you say what you want to say so that you feel comfortable, and onward we go.

[MrFlibble]

[colour=#005FFF]Now Flibble; have you gone back and read any of the threads, like I asked you to? It's all well and good trying to be objective, but there's a difference between objectivity and being completely disconnected. Someone who reads through the threads we've participated in over the last year might not develop the same level of utter disgust towards Eras that I have, but they would certainly pick up on the key failures mentioned so very many times before. He is incapable of having a rational debate on a matter.

As of right now, no counter-measures suggested by anyone on this board have been implemented, so yes, you seem to have missed something. But even if we had suggested something and failed, it would still be moot, because we've also tried ignoring him. Saying "well your plan didn't work and neither does mine" isn't constructive.[/colour]

Look, I have read the posts. I did that back when those discussions were in full motion, as they progressed. By the only merit of me not having participated myself, you can't say I'm "disconnected" from the situation.

My sole argument here is that in fact, you can't force a person to participate in an argument if they don't want to. Imagine it were a real-world scientific discussion (many discussions here touched on various scientific topics like biology, evolutionary theory, genetics, etc. etc.). What do people in the scientific community do if someone who tries to argue with them fails to adhere to the rules and standards of scientific discussion? Do they force that person to stick to the rules? Do they complain to the academic society in general that this person does not follow the rules? Or do they just ignore that person and exclude them from further discussion (probably in some polite way, if possible)? I think the latter is the case, usually. Wolf's points are great guidelines for a proper discussion in any field, but there's absolutely no way you can enforce strict adherence to those (except for points 7. and 8., which are standard in many forum rules, including ours).

On the other hand, there were plentiful posts by ErasOmnius in homosexuality-related topics that were clearly offensive on so many levels. I haven't found the one that had prompted me to Google "Nazi persecution of homosexuals" (which had lead me to this article), but it was that close. But ErasOmnius finally apologized for that, and I doubt you can expect more.

All in all, I think the whole issue has attracted a lot more attention than it deserves. If some users have problematic personal relations between each other, it does not necessarily entail that the whole forum should have that headache. So, instead of complaining about how difficult it has become to have PRP discussions, why not start some serious discussion and see where it leads you?

Oh, and sorry for the Godwin's Law stuff. I just recounted my past reaction as it was.

[Wolf]

I just want to reiterate: this wasn't supposed to be a "talk shit about Eras" thread--it was supposed to be a thread talking about the issus that, in some ways, have always faced PRP. I think you've rephrased the problem quite nicely, Flibble, by talking about how one can't make someone participate in a debate if they don't want to.

Exactly. They don't want to. Even though they constantly purport to be participating--with whatever self-effacing language they decide to use, "promoting traditional values" or "EXPOSING THE TRUTH"--the refusal of certain parties to address issues, do research, honestly evaluate arguments and counterarguments really is simply the expression of the desire to participate without actually doing the work of participating. It's laziness. Hypocrisy. My proposal is that the forum not tolerate this, and that the people who do want to debate not be forced to suffer periodic explosions of nonsense from parties who make a show of participating but refuse to do so in fact. Suggesting that people be warned and eventually penalized by moderation for issue dropping is not novel nor radical: it's essentially an outrgrowth of the "no off-topic posts" rule. In PRP, the issues are the topics, and if you fail to address the issue that people bring up, well, then you're off-topic. Debating requires you to address all of the issues; if you don't, you aren't debating, and, frankly, you shouldn't be debating.

Does this seem sensible? I think it does. Now, one final point:

Lord J, if you feel that I personally attacked your parents in any way, I am sorry.

The reason that this became a "talk shit about Eras" thread was because he so consistently violates the norms that we're discussing while we're discussing them. I mean, what. The. Hell? And, I mean, haha, seriously! He was just warned not to shove his head up the asses of other users' private lives any further. Like, two posts ago. It's off-topic, it's irrelevant, and it's only fanning the flames of existing anger against him. He literally doesn't get it, and it hurts the board. Now, I think that's nefarity (I really do believe that he's just a super-dedicated troll, which, in its own way, is kind of awesome), but others think it's disability. Either way, if those are the only two ways we can explain his behavior, then clearly that's an example of the sort of discussion that should be regulated. Am I wrong?

[ErasOmnius]

Wolf, why aren't you posting in my "Upper House" thread? Lord J, how about you, as well? The whole concept of the Senate makes me puke, when I think that Delaware gets the same 'say' as California. You both live in the USA, so drop on over there and give it a whirl.

This thread isn't about me? Thank God! Whew! I was beginning to think that since almost each and every paragraph mentioned me, that it was. Well, Wolf, how do you suppose we tie this baby down, and move onward? It's probably served its' purpose - everyone's vented, had their say. I've learned some 'life lessons', and more fully understand the society in which I live.

[Wolf]

Don't be patronizing; they're not "life lessons" in any sense, they're merely the common conventions of productive discourse. Will you conform to them or not? That means supporting your points with evidence, honestly answering the objections against you or conceding your opponent's point, and, when necessary, doing research. For many of us this is easy; from what I've seen of your behavior here, it may not be so for you. Regardless, you must try, or go away.

EDIT: Also... I'll post in your thread if I feel like it or if you raise an interesting argument that compels me to respond. Neither has occurred thus far.

[Gruntlord6]

Personally, Eras doesn't come across as someone who contributes anything to the board, its seems like he just enflames people and drives them away. I have no idea why the moderators think he should be kept around when all he does is stir up trouble. I myself have popped into prp a few times, but was driven away by exactly the stuff people are going on about here. Seems like we would all be better off without him.

Just my 2 cents.

[TheCurtOne]

Once again I have to defend my friend. Hey, it doesn't say anything on Pg 1 that one has to be a lib to be a part of this group. When I signed in last week for the 1st time, there wasn't anything there bout having to adhere to a set constructs of beliefs. Reading all of the posts that EO put up in '10. Would I put 'em up? No, I wouldn't. Look, I'm not going to get into what was done last summer, cause I'm not crazy about what my friend did, the way he put words on this forum.

But I also read way past into '09. You all had a little thing going here. Lot's of, if you'll excuse my french, pissing on people you didn't agree with. Probably some of you are getting mad again, probably now at me. Ask yourself why. Don't want to be the historian, cause I'm just a newbie. But mods, the way that Hwi, is she called chatfish now?, was treated, and she was a lady. Dudes, we ought to be hangin our heads in shame. Look, I'll say it again. Not crazy about my friend resorting to 'the description of the act' to fight a battle against what someone does in the privacy of their own bedroom. Cause I could care less what people do, just don't shove it down my throat. But don't put my friend to a double standard.

As far as the beginning of the world goes. I'm the most right of any of you. EO tries to live by to the 6000 yrs old thing. Lots of people try to to fit evolution into the box, when the evidence simply isn't totally there. Read some of the stuff that got everybody into twists about this issue. EO has a point about complex organs evolving, especially sex organs, and evolution has a mighty crappy and silent answer as far as I know. So I put it together like most people do, God intervened in evolution.

Anyway, lots of things have been said, there's been a lot of talking done. Need to pull my friend aside, and ask him "what's up?". Need to ask him why in the h#ll he's spending an hr a day posting when he's got 4 kids and business to run. He likes to think he's helping the younger generation, but some of those posts, they're way overboard. Likewise, so are some of the insults in return. I need to take my friend fishing, or hiking. Get him away from a computer, the office, the shelter, the college, from it all.

[Andrew]

Anyway, lots of things have been said, there's been a lot of talking done. Need to pull my friend aside, and ask him "what's up?". Need to ask him why in the h#ll he's spending an hr a day posting when he's got 4 kids and business to run.

Probably this which everyone goes through at some point in time.

Eras I wouldn't waste time saying you've changed and that people who don't like you should give you a second chance. Just leave them alone and prove it with good threads/posts. Not everyone has to like each other or respond to each others threads/posts.

[MrFlibble]

Exactly. They don't want to. Even though they constantly purport to be participating--with whatever self-effacing language they decide to use, "promoting traditional values" or "EXPOSING THE TRUTH"--the refusal of certain parties to address issues, do research, honestly evaluate arguments and counterarguments really is simply the expression of the desire to participate without actually doing the work of participating. It's laziness. Hypocrisy. My proposal is that the forum not tolerate this, and that the people who do want to debate not be forced to suffer periodic explosions of nonsense from parties who make a show of participating but refuse to do so in fact. Suggesting that people be warned and eventually penalized by moderation for issue dropping is not novel nor radical: it's essentially an outrgrowth of the "no off-topic posts" rule. In PRP, the issues are the topics, and if you fail to address the issue that people bring up, well, then you're off-topic. Debating requires you to address all of the issues; if you don't, you aren't debating, and, frankly, you shouldn't be debating.

Does this seem sensible? I think it does. Now, one final point:

[...]

Now, I think that's nefarity (I really do believe that he's just a super-dedicated troll, which, in its own way, is kind of awesome), but others think it's disability. Either way, if those are the only two ways we can explain his behavior, then clearly that's an example of the sort of discussion that should be regulated. Am I wrong?

Basically, I agree with what you say, and you've put it all very well together in a brief summary of the problem, but I also think that a lot of "irrelevant discussion explosions" could have been averted if the other members had reacted less vehemently to them. Unlike an oral discussion when someone can really hinder others by simply interrupting them all the time, the discussion on the forum board isn't as easy to disrupt. People can just skip posts they don't want to read or reply to, and that's all. And frankly I'm not inclined to take Dante's counter-argument seriously (given that I understood it correctly) that some offside observers might be confused if the distraction posts (let's call them that) are not tended to by the rest of the participants. Anyone should be allowed to make their own judgements, although on the other hand, I cannot but agree that a flow of rather uninteresting topics that result in no discussion, or outright wacky stuff occupying most of the first page of each forum board (as it was not long ago here) doesn't exactly contribute to the image of the forum, and should not be left on its own.

If there will be the rules that regulate all this sort of thing, that's nice and good, yet I'm afraid that it's going to be very difficult to maintain those high standards without getting biased at all. Perhaps it's a good idea to at least slow down on this for now, and try to work out some course of action that would lead at least to stability on the forums?

BTW, the new forum software allows for another version of peer control, namely, voting for posts. I think it can be quite efficient if it's enacted consistently.

[ErasOmnius]

Wow. I have thought that I have lived thru it all. I'm waking up to how everyone feels about me. If my best friend feels it is time to take some time off, I guess it must be. Tomorrow will be my last day, then, for a time. I'll post my pic on 'What do you look like?", and go for a while. Curt, you had the opposite effect on me the last week. Not crazy about it, thought I was your older mentor in religion and history. Take care ath--.

To you in Scotland, I wish you well; and your friend, too.

[Wolf]

Eras, just read Andrew's post. You don't need to leave you just need to be better. If you want to leave because you're discovering that people don't think you well, that's fine, but realize that their opinions were formed by how you acted and what you said, not who you are. (Because we don't know who you are: and we don't care).

Curt, I'm assuming that you're not just Eras' sockpuppet (it's a technical term, not an insult, look it up): this might be news to you, but I'm not a liberal. Please stop using the term like it's a magic word that dispells all the extant legitimacy from someone's commentary. Eras made precisely that mistake, numerous times. And even if I was a liberal, that doesn't mean that I share the same beliefs as anyone else on this forum (I don't, there's only about 25% overlap, at best, and that's probably with Edric, ironically enough). You need to understand that "liberalism" and "conservatism" are simply labels that try, but fail, to describe the beliefs of millions of individuals with one concept. And it's even a concept that doesn't apply in every case. For example, what's the "liberal" view of the existence of extraterrestrial life? They are, at best, suggestions of similarity. Someone can be liberal, but not a liberal. Do you see the distinction? Someone can also be liberal and conservative, and that can be entirely consistent. You should not fall so easily into the mental trap that anyone who criticizes you does so only out of political bias. You clearly don't notice it, but everyone here is affording you a great deal of respect simply by not waving your statements away as the bias of friendship. Try to return them the favor. (Oh, also, myself and several other members of the forum are Christians. Some of us also believe in evolution that arises from natural selection and the fact that gays can go to heaven. If (when) you do want to argue with us about these things, try to argue with the points and try not to say that the other parties aren't "real" Christians. Real Christians wouldn't do that).

Also, why should Hwi receive preferential treatment because of her gender? Isn't that sexist? Isn't it also hypocritical when you consider that she was actively derogatory toward homosexuals? I mean, these are just my initial impressions. We can argue about it in full in another thread.

Flibble: Yeah, there are problems. I admit that. I'm basically trusting the mods to be unbiased toward arguments but evaluate them for their substance nonetheless. I think that's possible, but, of course, everyone who is sanctioned will always cry bias. But, that has always been the case. So far as I see this, these rules are no different in principle than "no off topic" rules. I don't think it presents any new problems aside from the additional time commitment on the part of moderators.

I also think your argument regarding "explosions" of irrelevant discussion--basically insult-fests--cuts both ways. On the one hand, it is better to ignore them, but, on the other, there are so few posters and so few posts that ignoring them basically cedes the forum to the "wacky" discussions! Your solution--ignore the lunatics--would probably be the best one if we had 20-30 active posters. We don't. We have, at most, half that number. I still think regulation is the key.

As for utilizing the new forum technology... I'm not sure how it would play out, but you've clearly given it some thought. I'd be happy to hear what you have in mind.

[ErasOmnius]

Doesn't contribute anything...side against Eras...why don't you just die...idiot...nit-wit...racist...ErAss...lickspittle...dunce...putrescent drivel...moron...mental illness, and on and on and on and on.

See you for a while. I hope that the forum recovers to be exactly what you want it to be. Allegedly it will if I just go away for awhile. Obviously not, You will all have to become more open-minded to people believe in traditional mores. Just as I am open-minded. You know, all of the people that have been driven away over the past 3 years.

[Lord J]

And now, the drama queen part.

Like a raaainbow....

[Gruntlord6]

And now, the drama queen part.

What the hell, I 'll give you one serious bit of advice: if you indeed value the others' posts as much as you claim, just be quiet and read.

provided he actually leaves or stops posting like he says he will.

[Wolf]

He's doing it out of spite. He might not post for a while, but he'll check back constantly. I know it's out of spite because, if everything he said was true, he'd stick around and actually reform his behavior. I think Andrew, Spec, Lord J and Grunt are all right about this. As a group, we're not asking him to change his views (even though some of us are, individually*), we're just asking him to be productive in his posting. And the views that some of us are asking him to change have to do with basic decency: e.g., racism and homophobia. Those are, and have always been, longstanding forum rules. Is that so much to ask? Evidently it is. Evidently, Eras would rather leave than try to improve the quality of his posts. I think that's intentional: I think he knows that a lot of what he was saying was unsupported garbage (some of his ramblings on religion, everything he had to say about evolution, to name two), and since the forum is becoming one where more and more people want on-point, meaningful discussion, he'd rather leave than fess up that he had no reasonable basis for his opinions other than that they were his opinions. In short, that he was lying. I gave him that nickname for a reason, you know.

Oh, one more thing. It's true, he was called a lot of names. But namecalling is just... namecalling. It's childish, but it's not the greatest insult there is in the world of online posting. The greatest insult in this context, to my mind, is to ignore someone's points. We take time out of our busy days to read what we all have to say, we bring up issues that we think are important, and we engage in discussions about them for their sake, not ours. That involves calling people out and being called out. It involves actually reading what people have to say and addressing it honestly. Eras was frequently, but not always called names. On the other hand, Eras never afforded anyone the basic courtesy of being listened to (not even Ath, "Yes-manning" is just as bad because it ignores the substance of the conversation just as much, it's only in the positive as opposed to the negative**).

To put it bluntly, if he can't learn to listen, then he can't learn to talk. I'd rather he act better than leave, but if he leaves, we lose nothing.

*It all comes down to Skokie. Are Nazis allowed to talk? Well, yes--if you're the state. Privately, however, we can limit whatever conversation we find offensive. Since we also represent a private interest (nominally), this is a reasonable point of disagreement.

**Wasn't it also an old forum rule that you couldn't post just to signal your agreement with someone? That you had to add to the conversation in some, limited form? None of what I'm proposing is new in principle, people.

[MrFlibble]

Flibble: Yeah, there are problems. I admit that. I'm basically trusting the mods to be unbiased toward arguments but evaluate them for their substance nonetheless. I think that's possible, but, of course, everyone who is sanctioned will always cry bias. But, that has always been the case. So far as I see this, these rules are no different in principle than "no off topic" rules. I don't think it presents any new problems aside from the additional time commitment on the part of moderators.

I also think your argument regarding "explosions" of irrelevant discussion--basically insult-fests--cuts both ways. On the one hand, it is better to ignore them, but, on the other, there are so few posters and so few posts that ignoring them basically cedes the forum to the "wacky" discussions! Your solution--ignore the lunatics--would probably be the best one if we had 20-30 active posters. We don't. We have, at most, half that number. I still think regulation is the key.

As for utilizing the new forum technology... I'm not sure how it would play out, but you've clearly given it some thought. I'd be happy to hear what you have in mind.

Regarding the new technology, it's just that I think it's possible (but not necessarily so) that the forum user's reaction to individual posts in the form of votes could actually affect people's behaviour. In a different forum that I visit, there used to be two buttons, one that says "Thank you!" and another "Eww!" (the "Eww!" button had been removed recently though, I suppose it had been abused by some members, and only positive voting is allowed now), and everyone can see how many people voted positively (or negatively) for any post: there's a list of individual, non-anonymous votes under each post. There's also a statistic for each member of how many positive or negative votes they have received and dispensed themselves in the user profiles. In the current form, it's a nice way to approve of the post or to agree with another user without posting messages like "I agree" or "Right you are" yourself, and it gives a pretty good idea of the forum users' reaction to any particular post in the forum.

In this respect, I think it is better to show all positive and negative votes, rather than the sum of all votes as we have here currently, and it would be also nice if it were possible to make votes non-anonymous, and maybe also add the option of withdrawing your vote, if possible. As far as I know, the voting and reputation systems in modern forum software allow for a considerable degree of customization, so maybe Gob can do that :)

Another thought that had just occurred to me is that the "Report" button can be put to good use, as it could help get the moderators more involved in what's going on by showing that the users are concerned. If you've never used the "Report" function, there's a field for text input where you can state why exactly a post deserved attention from the moderators, and I assume that this function can be used effectively without abusing it too (remember how Andrew once said in response to another discussion of the situation in PRP that there were no complaints about ErasOmnius posts, that were the subject of discussion back then, via the post reporting system?).

[Dante]

Some of the material here may be considered moot now... and I am repeating a few points that others have already made. But whatever, I'll say it's for emphasis.

Ok CurtOne, I'll address you first because you're new here and, if I'm honest, acting with more decorum than I really expected. Like Dragoon, I'm prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt. My first impression is that you're a reasonable person, which is nice. A bit naive perhaps, but having only heard eras' one-sided account, that's to be expected. Let me see if I can clear up a few issues.

I should first point out that eras' contention that only certain points of view are allowed on this forum is largely false. While it's an amusing thought to picture Wolf, Dragoon and I as some sort of content-policing troika, there are enough disagreements just between the three of us to make that impossible. Just off the top of my head, Wolf is a theist and I'm an atheist. I believe Dragoon is agnostic. Even if that wasn't the case, there are well respected members of the forum with opinions that differ widely from our own. Our objection to eras, which has been stated time and time again, is not that he posts objectionable material (though he does, that's a seperate issue), it is that he acts objectionably. More on this later.

Ah, you read Fenceposts? All of it? Yes, eras seems strangely obsessed with it. It's a good piece of work, we're very proud of it.

But I'd like to clarify something very important for you. Wolf already explained exactly what was going on there, but I'll reiterate what he said for the sake of elucidation:

The language used in Fenceposts was a mockery of language used by others in seriousness. Language that was not only ridiculous, but also idiotic and frankly foul. When faced with a combination like that, we had to ridicule it. We had to satirise it. There is no other appropriate response except to reduce it to the base inhumanity it is and then mock the quivering substance of it.

But I digress. Here's an example of what I mean. In post 348 of this thread eras said, and I quote:

I think that the debate is always lowered when you want to focus on the one or two homosexual murders, for example;, and not the rampancy of gay porno, for example.

Yeah. I'm going to skip over the rank content of the words themselves (and the godawful syntax) in order to focus on my point. You may recognise this passage from Fenceposts:

YOU'RE LOWERING THE TONE OF THE DEBATE BY NOT TALKING ABOUT PORNOGRAPHY.

Post 134, page 7. See, what was said there was basically a paraphrasing of exactly what eras said. We didn't make this crap up, he actually said most of those things. Additionally, in the original argument, he didn't read the article that the point was referencing. I linked a news article about a straight man in New York who was murdered because he was drunk, leaning on his brother, and was mistaken for being gay. eras responded by saying that a few murders of gay people in California aren't as important as 'discussing pornography.'

This is not the behaviour of a decent human being. Which prompted our response:

That you find it appropriate to gloss over the murder of a man who was killed for leaning against his brother while drunk in favour of discussing the sexual elements of naked men well, that says a lot about you.

Also we coined the term Californiyork, which I personally find very amusing.

See, here's the thing about Fenceposts. It's a satire. And satire can be cruel. But it's a form of humour that doesn't work if it strays too far from its source material. Every joke in there is partly a tragedy (which is what makes it so brilliant, if I do say so myself) because you know that he actually believes it.

Moving on

You are, of course, welcome to your own opinions and I'm not inclined to flame you for them at all. Deistic evolution? Fine, if that's what you want. It always seemed like a good compromise to me. Let science deal with the how of the matter and leave the why to religion (regarding the whole 'intervention' thing though: the scientific consensus does actually have answers to a lot of your questions, and if you want to debate them in another thread I would be happy to do so. The reason eras thinks otherwise is that he just doesn't understand evolution, and after failing to educate him I just gave up trying).

Your opinion on sexuality, while nebulous, appears to boil down to "live and let live," which is a fine standard to live by.

Regarding Hwi. Ah, Hwi. She went by chatfsh when she first signed up, and returned to that name just before she left.

The thing you need to know about Hwi was that she was crazy. She behaved rationally (if selfishly) on the board until one day she cracked and started stalking one of us. She crossed the Atlantic twice to see him. Her ex husband sent abusive emails, which she later claimed were sent by her. Her formerly sensible behaviour degenerated into knee-jerk disagreement and a bizarre kind of anti-intellectual solipsism. What you have to understand is that by the end she was acting so deranged that nobody took her seriously anymore.

Being a woman does not excuse one from also being a lunatic.

Dragoon has offered to find a summary of things that eras has said that we object to. If you wish to take him up on his offer, feel free. It's not like it would take us long to find objectionable material. Though I can't speak for Dragoon, I will say that I'm not trying to persuade you that eras is a horrible person. I'm just saying that we can provide some compelling evidence to illustrate that he is not, as you said, "a nice guy."

Edric:

I don't like the idea of people not posting in each others' topics. As mentioned by Dragoon, it doesn't solve the problem, it just sweeps it under the rug. I'd favour the "make eras follow these rules" approach, but then that's hardly surprising. In order to be fair, one could always say that everyone has to follow said rules. Wolf said (and I agree) that this isn't strictly another "eras is a dick" thread, it's more about PRP as a whole, what we want from it and how it should be conducted. If eras actually is leaving, then this becomes all the more pertinant. The establishment of a new set of PRP rules for everyone might be a fair start.

Alternatively, as Dragoon has been suggesting, appoint some kind of arbiter. Moderator/chairperson thing. Not easy to find one, I'll grant you (might be mest to make it two, so that one can participate while the other moderates), but if you aren't around to do it then someone else will have to.

As for the unreasonably high standards of conduct, well perhaps they emerged accidentally, but that doesn't mean we should let them slip back into bad old habits. Yes, we had people worse than eras, I'm more than aware of that, but as Wolf has pointed out, we also had a much more active community to shout them down. Times have changed. Those of us who grew used to the civilised atmosphere would prefer to keep it.

(Arguably, the same thing happened in Fanfiction. Before it lapsed, it was moving very much in the direction of long, high-quality posts as opposed to the old one-paragraph competition replies)

Flibble:

I was saying that visitors to PRP might see one person acting nuttier than a fruitbat and judge us all to be cut from the same cloth (huzzah for mixed metaphors!). Yes, it may take them a while to work out the factions at play here, but for everyone who stays to make the effort, someone is completely turned off and leaves.

Also, read my posts already. I've already said that my enacted countermeasures don't have any sensible effect, they just make me feel better about a hopeless situation.

Also 2, your metaphor about the scientific community: when someone doesn't adhere to the standards set, they are ignored, yes. They also lose their position, funding, status, publishing credibility and invitations to seminars and the like. In short, by 'excluding them from discussion,' they are banned from participating. Unless you're actually pushing for eras to be banned, your example is flawed.

Also the third, what you're suggesting with post voting is basically a laborious version of Facebook's "like" feature. That's a terrible idea, not least because it requires more than seven active people and bizarrely does away with anonymity, not to mention being incredably vulnerable to tyranny of the majority.

Addendum: Wolf's post here... That was inspired. I agree with everything he said.

[Wolf]

I appreciate that, Dante. Really, I think this entire saga--from last summer until now--has been about dealing with PRP's identity crisis. And, look, I'm not arrogant enough to think that people are going to come in droves just because we try to talk pretty. I just know that they're not going come at all if you have two lunatics saying really awkward things about race, gender, sexual orientation, etc., constantly and in the worst possible terms. Would you want to participate in that? I certainly didn't. And, look, since I've started this, not only has this particular topic seen a wide range of pretty serious discussion from a bunch of parties, but people are starting to post in other PRP threads again. It isn't just a litany of "athanasios--athanasios--ErasOmnius--athanasios--ErasOmnius--athanasios--athanasios" over and over again on the last posts list. It would have been great if they were just really active people, responding quickly to a lot of points from other people, but that was most certainly not the case. For the record, I think this particular thread has gotten so much attention because us old-timers came to really care about the board. I know, it's disgusting, but it's true.

They're gone now. But, I want to point out that we actually didn't ban them: despite my best efforts, both of these... individuals... left of their own accord. Ath's temp-ban has been up for a day or two now, and I don't see the mad Greek rushing in to post with (hopefully) remediated behavior. Eras was told explicitly by several people--both inside and out of the Evil Lupine Cabal--that he could stay, that he just had to act better. Both of them could have done that. Neither chose to. Ultimately, for those of us who got upset because we really did care about the board, this was the greatest insult of all. It was like they'd rather die than treat the board with even a modicum of the respect we asked for. "Oh, dude, I'd totally stay if you kept letting me shit all over the place, but, you want me to clean up after myself? No way, bro." Seriously. Dante, Dragoon and I got a lot of criticism for this, but really take a look at how we treated them. It was harsh, sometimes unjustifiably so, but we took them seriously. We afforded them even that respect, and it was the one thing they never showed to a single user of this forum. No, I'm sorry. They treated every user of this forum as if we were beneath them in a way that we never even contemplated doing to them--and we contemplated a lot.

Sure, at times, I wanted them banned--but that was for specific behavior, and only temporarily, in the hopes that it could be fixed. But, now that that last thought has occurred to me? Good. I hope they never come back.

[TheCurtOne]

Dante and Wolf, I obviously don't want to draw this whole thing out, cause I'm new around here. I just don't see it, why things had to get so bad tween you 2 and EO. And here "we go", do I not see it because cause I am not a moral liberal? Dont' want to dwell on it. But hey, I'm not you Dante, and you have a different point of view from me. But I have a different POV from you. Yes, I read it all. Took me the btter part of a week. So, the specific quote you posted, is one that I question myself about gay murder, but I also question the gay porn industry. So if I post on what you quoted, am I gonna get flamed for responding in a way that you don't like? Cause I hope not. I don't want to fall into what I think may be some noobie trap. You see, I think part of the problem here is that you guys all know each other for so long, and you kow each other's beliefs. So if I post my beliefs, as someone who is moral-right (on the spectrum), should I just leave? And if that's the case, just say so. I'm not like EO, I don't have the stomach for it, and I didn't marry in to money, so I don't have the time. Quite frankly, I don't want to start posting on a forum that is just moral left. So if I post something that is moral right and you don't like just one time, am I on your 2's sh!t list? Andrew, somewhere along the line someone who is a mod is going to have to clarify some rules. Cause if this forum is a lost cause for "economic left"/"moral right" people, let me know now.

[Dragoon Knight]

[colour=#005FFF]Curt, for someone who claims to be different from Eras, you certainly sound a lot like him, both in your tone of posting and your views. Hell, some of what you type could easily be mistaken for his own special brand of posting.

Prove me wrong. Go into detail about what you think about Eras' posting and our responses, since you've "read it all". Give us something substansive to go on that will help us distinguish you from someone who (for all intents and purposes) looks like Eras posting under a different username.

As for what this forum is? It's a place where opinions are respected when they aren't just unsubstantiated, barely-concealed hate and intolerance. Your views can be left, right, center, up, down, diagonal; anything, so long as you can back them up. If you can't, expect to be called out on them. If your views are controversial, then expect to take some flak over them. The only time you're going to be "flamed" is if you start acting (more) like Eras. If you end up on someone's "sh!t list", it'll be of your own doing.[/colour]

[Dante]

There are conservatives on this board (though I use the term very broadly). Indeed, Wolf is somewhat more right wing than I am and considerably more right wing than Edric.

I am curious though, why if you don't want to "draw it out," "dwell on it," you continue to post at all. That's not a veiled criticism either, it's a genuine question. If you're not interested in the discussion, why discuss? Further, what exactly do you mean by terms like "moral liberal?" As Wolf has said already, the word 'liberal' has multiple definitions. And why use 'moral' as criticism?

...Anyway. To answer your question, the forum has no official political bias (it would be rather ridiculous if it did). You seem to have rather missed my point about the whole Fenceposts thing ("gay murder?" is that a thing now? And... what exactly is there to question?), so allow me to quote an earlier post of Wolf's for you:

You can have opinions, even ones that I think are offensive, and if you defend them well, I will disagree with you and may even tell you that I think those opinions are damaging to humans on Earth, but I will respect you and your right to them. (Like how I feel about Edric and communism). If you defend them badly, or not at all, and even though you might think they are defended, then I will not respect you, and, pursuant to everything I've said above, I will try to have you sanctioned. This isn't 'Nam, there are rules.

Please, read this carefully, because it answers your question: we do not censor opinions, we censor behaviour.

eras spewed the most hateful bile he could for months and he was allowed to. Partly through lax moderation, but mostly because we believe in free speech here. My immolation of his posts was borne not of disagreement, but disgust. He cannot argue, he cannot research, he cannot debate, he cannot think. How am I supposed to engage in reasonable debate when the enemy is incapable? Notice in the last few posts, people were attempting, through truly awe-inspiring patience, to engage with eras and show him how his behaviour could be improved. Nobody was saying "change your mind," they were saying "change how you act."

Having said that, asking questions isn't the best way to get to know the atmosphere around here. Best way would be to jump in and experience it. So, if you're interested in PRP on this forum at all (if not, I'm not sure why you'd want to keep posting here), start a thread about something, put forward a hypothesis, and we'll contribute. Unless it's boring, in which case we probably won't.

And if you are eras posting under another name... Well, we'll find out rather quickly.