You should add a spoiler warning.

But to address your point, what is it? That we should have a public "Trouble threads/posts/posters" discussion? I suppose we could, but then how many members will feel comfortable expressing their grievances publicly? I don't know about @jamalrob, @Baden, or the other mods, but I won't delete such a discussion if you posted one. Although I'm certain it'll turn into a game of insult tennis and so a lot of offending posts will end up in the trash.

Your moral injunction is my command, master.

My thought is that Kevin ought be banned. Whether others ought be offered an opportunity to publicly lambast him seems a pretty silly question in light of the fact that we have a murderer in our midst who needs removal.

I take offence to this thread. It is obviously a thinly veiled attempt to have me ousted. ;)

My thought is that Kevin ought be banned. Whether others ought be offered an opportunity to publicly lambast him seems a pretty silly question in light of the fact that we have a murderer in our midst who needs removal. — Hanover

By hypothesis, that is everyone's thought. The question is though, are you allowed to say so in public, remembering that Kevin is reading this thread, as you can see by the response below yours. (All that hyperbole wasted. :( )

But to address your point, what is it? That we should have a public "Trouble threads/posts/posters" discussion? — Michael

God, no. I am alas pointing to a problem, not to a solution. I'm hoping that if we look at the problem carefully, from the pov of members and admin alike, and without leaping to a policy conclusion on page one, then that may lead to an improved understanding all round of how to deal with things. For instance, it should be noted at once that there is not a lot of point in an ordinary member remonstrating with Kevin, but there is possibly some point in remonstrating with moderators about Kevin. "Dear moderator, you seem not to have noticed, but several of us are quietly bleeding to death." There might be some way to make this a bit easier than it is. The ideal would be to have a thread that we peasants could post to but not read in which we could have a long and detailed rant about all the many Kevin's that are infesting the site and ruining our insightful discussions. That way it would be clear - assuming it was used by many, occasionally, and not just me, all the time - who was a Kevin in the fevered imagination of another Kevin, and who was a real bloody Kevin.

There is also a direct question there as to what the rules of the feedback forum are. My inclination would be that it is a place to moan about moderators, but not about ordinary members. That's fair isn't it, considering they have a place to moan about us? Mind you, the standard complaint is likely to be that you deleted my harmless and amusing comment while ignoring Kevin's mass slaughter of the members, so there would have to be some flexibility. But this does not anyway solve the problem of Kevin.

The ideal would be to have a thread that we peasants could post to but not read in which we could have a long and detailed rant about all the many Kevin's that are infesting the site and ruining our insightful discussions. — unenlightened

Unfortunately the software doesn't allow for that. The closest we can do is PMs.

It's a difficult problem, not because it's unique to this type of forum, but because (in my experience) there is only one solution: site administration must "police" infringements of policy reported by site users. However, this is very time-consuming.

Online forums of every type attract large numbers of detractors wearing rings of Gyges. There is a scenario which is worse than losing members: a dog-eat-dog environment which reduces all members to the lowest common denominator in terms of behaviour.

In my opinion, given the nature of the problem, a public complaint thread would be counter-productive.

I have no objection.

I have no objection. — Baden

To anything? That's problematic. :D

It would be were it the case. ;)

Knowing others takes intelligence, knowing oneself requires wisdom.
Overcoming others requires strength, overcoming oneself takes greatness.
- Tao Te Ching

If I (for whatever my part-time contributions are worth) am reading between the lines correctly (no small feat, if successful), then I'm still a bit puzzled. Is there too little freedom of expression on this site, from its ownership? Or is there too much expression (of potentially dubious nature) allowed by moderators and taken by certain members? Or perhaps both? Not being sarcastic here. Just asking questions. And perhaps they are rhetorical questions because to answer them might be too blunt or accusatory. Which I would understand, if that were the case. (BTW and FWIW... I do wish to commend unenlightened for his transparency, and surrendering the post of moderator.)

Kevin is a very naughty boy indeed, and everyone except Kevin agrees the he must be banned. But most posters, even the naughtiest, are not as bad as Kevin, and not everyone will see the need for discipline. — unenlightened

The ideal would be to have a thread that we peasants could post to but not read in which we could have a long and detailed rant about all the many Kevin's that are infesting the site and ruining our insightful discussions. That way it would be clear - assuming it was used by many, occasionally, and not just me, all the time - who was a Kevin in the fevered imagination of another Kevin, and who was a real bloody Kevin. — unenlightened

My thought is that Kevin ought be banned. Whether others ought be offered an opportunity to publicly lambast him seems a pretty silly question in light of the fact that we have a murderer in our midst who needs removal. — Hanover

So I am assuming that "Kevin" refers to at least one actual flesh and blood member (if not more), in addition to being a composite of undesirable qualities similar to those I described here recently. And if there were a scenario where EVERYONE was in favor of banning said person then I suppose the outcome would be clear. But I can't recall any recent thread or issue of any significance that had complete agreement, fortunately or unfortunately. And banning is permanent. Now, "correction" or "reproval" by moderator(s) would be a different thing, of course. How does one person tell another not to act like a douchehead WITHOUT acting like a douchehead themselves? Tricky question (pardon the vulgarity).

To put it bluntly, the concern in banning an outspoken, offensive, and perhaps longtime member is that it will make a fecking martyr of that person. So we will all endure long winded speeches before the fact, and stern judgments after the fact. His or her name will be brought up reverently by supporters as some kind of hero who gave their all to the cause of truth and philosophy. This is based on past occurrences, and would undoubtedly be worse this time if it occurred. At that point, I would probably lose interest in this site, despite my wishes otherwise.

Before this site becomes a virtual version of the battle at Charlottesville, those with an excess of attitude (who have no time or respect for whomever they deem "fools") best get off their high imperial fat horses before they fall off and shatter like Humpty Dumpty. Let's talk like different (and differing) equals, rather than fighting like high-minded superhero warriors. Hopefully, it is not too late for that.

Is there evidence that Kevin has driven away a significant number of valued members?

Let's talk like different (and differing) equals, rather than fighting like high-minded superhero warriors. Hopefully, it is not too late for that. — 0 thru 9

This.

I don't see any reason not to talk about Kevin, provided it's a discussion with a minimum of substance - i.e. no boorish name calling and insult throwing. If Kevin is so obviously naughty, then there should be plenty of content to demonstrate said naughtiness. Note too that if Kevin kicks up a fuss, it is perfectly easy to simply ignore Kevin. At some point one simply realizes that most of what a Kevin says is simply beneath one's need to reply. Especially if it's quite obvious to everyone else that said Kevin is a troglodyte. Don't feed the Kevin, as they say.

Think about some examples of grievous demoralization. There's no whining there. Where morale is very low, people don't do a lot of complaining because they don't think it will make any difference.

Whining is actually a sign that the most important ingredient to good morale is on the scene: people care. They have some hope. They have expectations that the universal arc is aimed toward goodness (to mangle MLK's saying).

My experience is also that good morale isn't something you can engineer. If the stars are right, it's there. On the other hand, good morale is fairly easy to destroy. Just treat people like things you can engineer.. that's usually the first good step toward demoralization and apathy.

So let's go to the person who's preaching apathy. Tell him wrong. It's likely that his apathy is a coping mechanism. You're telling him to make himself vulnerable. And what's the carrot supposed to be?

I realize now I'm not talking about this forum. I don't give a fuck about this forum. I'm talking about the United States.

So let's go to the person who's preaching apathy. Tell him wrong. It's likely that his apathy is a coping mechanism. You're telling him to make himself vulnerable. And what's the carrot supposed to be? — Mongrel

Telling someone not to make a mountain out of a molehill is not preaching apathy; it's preaching perspective. I'm not suggesting that you were wrong in your anger about certain posts, and I'm certainly not suggesting your response to others during that discussion was at all appropriate, I'm only disagreeing with you to the general proposition that the appropriate response to every wrong is to file a protest. Some things actually don't matter all that much.

I'm only disagreeing with you to the general proposition that the appropriate response to every wrong is to file a protest. — Hanover

That's true. I spontaneously intuited that as a youngster working in a man's world. I asked my father what to do. He told me to laugh and tell a funny joke about men. I followed that guideline with quite a bit of success. To some degree you can shape the world. I can cast you as the latest in the long line of sexist men, or i can have it that we're just telling silly jokes.

There's one case where deflecting through joking doesn't work and your best bet is to start acting like a man so you fall off the offender's radar. Do you know what I'm talking about? Do give me some more hints on how to deal with sexism. How do you think I should factor in my intensively sexist upbringing? If I become a massage therapist (which I did), how should I handle it when men want to check and see if I'm a prostitute? What would you do? I'm sure that after working and living in this world for several decades as a woman, you must have all sorts of fascinating tidbits.

The starting point for all of this was a comment I was making about the Lee statue. The effects of apathy.

Do give me some more hints on how to deal with sexism. — Mongrel

I never provided you the first hint, so I don't know why you ask that I provide you more. What I said was: "I'm only disagreeing with you to the general proposition that the appropriate response to every wrong is to file a protest." Of course, had I said, "I'm only disagreeing with you to the specific proposition that the appropriate response to sexism is to file a protest," then your comment would have made sense. Instead, it's a troll, designed to inflame the conversation and designate me as an attackable sexist.

How do you think I should factor in my intensively sexist upbringing? — Mongrel

I really don't know how you should best deal with the unfortunate issues you have faced growing up, but I don't think expressing hostility toward me will serve any purpose. It won't offend me, change my behavior, or change my opinions. I'll just think to myself, "Wow, she's hostile."

"I'm only disagreeing with you to the general proposition that the appropriate response to every wrong is to file a protest." — Hanover

I don't think the appropriate response to every wrong is to file a protest. And I didn't file any protests. I mentioned in the thread about Lee's statue that the effects of apathy about Confederate statues is like the impact it has on me that the moderators don't do anything about Agustino's sexist remarks. My point is that it effects the way I look at the whole forum.

Baden happened to see that comment and told me I should have notified a moderator earlier and that if I had anything else to say I should start a thread in the feedback forum.

I started the Sexism thread merely to tell him that I had talked to unenlightened and that nothing happened.

Subsequently BitterCrank dropped by to let me know I was wasting my time trying get anything done and that I should grow thicker skin. I told him that I wasn't trying to get anything done. I was just responding to Baden in the way he told me to.

You actually could have read all this.. if you were interested. The point is, I was surprised that a crowd of offended men showed up to make it into a mountain. I'm not even slightly surprised that you condescend to me like you think I'm a 19 year old spring chicken.

You are actually part of the problem with this forum.

I have no objection. — Baden

Enter the "too much of nothing" problem mentioned by Dylan.

Subsequently BitterCrank dropped by to let me know I was wasting my time trying get anything done and that I should grow thicker skin. I told him that I wasn't trying to get anything done. — Mongrel

That is in part what BitterCrank said to you. That is not what you said to BitterCrank.

The point is, I was surprised that a crowd of offended men showed up to make it into a mountain. — Mongrel

You and Agustino seemed to have been offended, maybe Un, but I'll let him speak for himself. The rest seemed to just be weighing in like philosophically minded folks (men or women) tend to do.

I'm not even slightly surprised that you condescend to me like you think I'm a 19 year old spring chicken. — Mongrel

Disagreeing with you isn't condescending. You're reading something into my comments that isn't there. You can say I'm condescending, but I'm not.

You are actually part of the problem with this forum. — Mongrel

It takes little for you to launch into a personal attack.

I can sympathise with the trouble of the moderators. They have been put in an impossible situation. If they ban Kevin it will be a disaster. If they don't ban Kevin, it will be an equally big disaster.

So they have chosen the wisest move, undertaken by the wisest among them, who of course claims to lack wisdom (how else could he be the wisest?).

To step down, because stepping down should be taken as a major action - a way to attract attention and to portray oneself as a martyr. This is required to create a fictional character who "everybody wants to see banned", for if we were to deal with the reality, it would be an entirely different story. But at least in fiction it is possible to consider whatsoever we want, for if anyone will accuse us, we will pretend it's not who we're talking about!

Of course, the claim being that if we discussed without any mask, there would be big fights, and naturally! For the truth is quite the contrary to the fiction - not everyone wants to see Kevin banned. For if the name of Kevin was Thanatos Sand or John Harris, he would've already been banned. In fact, that's why Harris is no longer around @Noble Dust. But that is not the name...

First this fiction of a common interest is necessary. Otherwise, how to get rid of Kevin? He has shown that he is in fact very dangerous. That is why it is now necessary to get rid of him. All his life on the forum he has fought against oppression, against the imposition of our views and for openness and justice. He has fought for the minority - at the time, he was fighting alone. But now, many have joined him! In fact, he was just about to change the guidelines or cause us to lose all authority and respect for not obeying the will of the community. That's why we had to close the vote by force. We had to put an end to the thread. It was absolutely necessary. It had to be locked.

Harris wasn't an enemy. He was a great tool to us. If it weren't for the intervention of people like him, we could never have closed it. Through his sacrifice (we did have to ban him), he has provided the necessary path for escape. For this voting is truly a scary thing. Today it is the guidelines, tomorrow it will be the moderators - and soon we will lose all control. Who knows who will become moderator, and what they will ask to do?! We will no longer be able to impose our own policies, made in the image of our own will - we will have to accept the will of the community, or else have no legitimacy. Do you want us to become like old PF?! Everyone will move away! It will be just us putting out rules that we ourselves follow and no one else!

But my God! How can we get rid of Kevin? He has asked us publicly to delete all his posts and remove any trace of him if we ban him! Can you imagine? Removing his thousands of posts, not to mention all the replies addressed to him and all the people who have quoted him? My God - half of our forum and reputation we have built with the search engines! Not to mention the work required! And we cannot deny him even this right, poor person, we ban him without reason, and not even his last wish we don't grant?

And not to mention that if we get rid of him, the people who appreciate him are still around. My God! What will they do? Either they will leave, never to come back! Can you imagine? We will lose so many members... not to mention that if they were to remain, they will cause even more problems. At least now, it is a little bit controlled, but if we give them this reason, what will they do?

At least, let us try to keep the members, and keep them civilised. First we have to create a fiction, this is the only way. The wisest amongst us knows we cannot talk openly about it. First it is required to create a false consensus and deceive the people... We must invent the reason - that imaginary ghosts are being driven away, in fact, so many of them, that they outnumber the people who remain! As it even says - who knows how many? We can pick whatever number it fits!

And my God! If we don't get rid of him, how shall we sleep? For he has already earned the respect of some of our members, and he is day by day winning the respect of more and more. And his ideas are very radical - we have to get rid of him! Soon the voting will not be about guidelines anymore - we'll be asked to vote on our own chairs - I mean can you imagine? To live in a community where we're not here by divine fiat, but we're actually here because we represent our members, and they want to be moderated by us? That is a horrible thought! To be at the mercy of the electorate! How low have we fallen?

Now we're all trembling around the ban button, not knowing what to do... To press or not to press? And who will take responsibility?! There is a crazy one amongst us, but we cannot let him press, regardless of how willing he is. For it will be truly disastrous! He does not understand our great difficulty... He is like a bull ready to jump over the cliff.

That is not what you said to BitterCrank. — Hanover

It most certainly is. I have no further comments.

The thing is about the fallen, unfinished world is that there are people who insist on having annoying opinions (way too conservative, way too liberal, way too radical, way too lackadaisical, way too etc.) and they won't just disappear, damn them.

I generally don't like right wing fascist types, judgmental reactionary Roman Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Islamic, or Hindu fanatics, and so on. I've had some very unpleasant run-ins with these people. However, people become reactionaries for a reason. There are factors, causes, predisposing factors, strengths and weaknesses, and so on -- just like there for people who become contemplative monks, social justice warriors, or double plus liberal politically correct nit-pickers extraordinaire.

There's nothing about my life that a right wing racist type would like--or if they were in power would tolerate. Still, I think I have some sense about what makes them tick. Some of it is quite understandable. Most of these right wing types are not members of the 1%, the haute (or even petite) bourgeoisie, the ruling class, or anything like that. They are mostly disappointed white working class men who can not fulfill the role that they expect of themselves and that a good share of society expects of them. Do they have anything to be disappointed about? Sure they do. Does that make it OK to be neo-nazi, reconstructed KKK, or white supremacist? No.

A better response to the "alt-right" or whatever one wants to call it, has to be found by the left. Just tangling in the streets isn't going to result in anything better over the long run. Shutting the opposition off is a short-term feel-good event -- not a good long range policy.

My experience is also that good morale isn't something you can engineer. If the stars are right, it's there. On the other hand, good morale is fairly easy to destroy. — Mongrel

This is very true. I've worked in a few places with great morale. Sometimes one can name some factors: new urgent cause to work on, new place to work, all sorts of psychic income, etc. But then, one can also see why morale drops: psychic income falls; the new urgent cause goes stale; the new place to work starts resembling every other work place. The race for a cure is replaced by a treadmill of same old same old.

One sees recurrent good morale in the United States -- not universally, by any stretch. Immigrant morale is up, displaced worker morale is down. Economic expansion beneficiaries are happy, economic expansion (or contraction) victims are not happy. The minority who are financially secure have good morale, a lot of those hanging on to solvency by their fingernails are not doing well in the morale department.

Shutting the opposition off is a short-term feel-good event -- not a good long range policy. — Bitter Crank

I used to think that too. The statue says "Feel defeated." It just doesn't say that to everybody. The ones who can't hear it... just every blue moon a Sojourner Truth will come along with the ability to open up some ears.

Anyway... I'm done with this forum. I actually wish you the best, dude. That was an awesome science fiction book you advised. I've since passed it on to my multitude of brothers. They liked it too.

Bye.

The topic appears to be self defeating.

Well some stuff has happened; John Harris has been banned. Lots of comments, and most of them caring and careful. I can't respond to everything, except to say that I'm interested in what you and I can do better, more than what we have done wrong. It looks like we are losing one of the very few women, who could tolerate this forum, and I hope that is a cause for far more consternation and regret than attended my resignation. I take it as a serious defeat, and shame on this community.

My experience is also that good morale isn't something you can engineer. If the stars are right, it's there. On the other hand, good morale is fairly easy to destroy.
— Mongrel

This is very true. I've worked in a few places with great morale. Sometimes one can name some factors: new urgent cause to work on, new place to work, all sorts of psychic income, etc. But then, one can also see why morale drops: psychic income falls; the new urgent cause goes stale; the new place to work starts resembling every other work place. The race for a cure is replaced by a treadmill of same old same old. — Bitter Crank

Morale is a fragile and curious affair, and nothing is more damaging to morale than an attempt to manipulate it. I hope I am not doing that, but on the contrary attempting to contribute to morale by trying to face our difficulties and find a way of communicating about them. I do not experience this forum, or the old forum as a treadmill, but rather as a learning centre, where I have learned, not only a great deal of philosophy and new understandings of what I already knew, but also about myself and how I can survive, and thrive and contribute to a community of the willing.

Excuse me, I'll have to come back to this later.

I'm done with this forum. — Mongrel

I'm so sorry. For you, for the ignoramuses of the forum, including myself. I'm crying.

Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone?

Someone was asking for evidence.

I used to think that too. The statue says "Feel defeated." It just doesn't say that to everybody. — Mongrel

This is true. The Confederate memorials were generally erected well after the civil war during times when the erectors felt like change agents needed to be reminded who was in charge (i.e., white folks in the big house).

The statue may represent Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, John C. Calhoun, or scores of other Confederates. Whatever the virtues of the individuals (and they did have virtues) erecting a statue of Jefferson Davis shortly after the SCOTUS Brown Vs. The Board of Education decision was clearly not about Davis, and was about segregation vs. integration.

OK, just to make it clear, please note that I'm moving leftward not he monuments and statuary problem, at least partly because of opinions expressed here I earlier disagreed with.

about all the many Kevin's that are infesting the site — unenlightened

Kevins, no apostrophe.

we need to talk about Kevin — unenlightened

No, apparently you need to talk about Kevin and are so desperate to talk about him that you have created a thread nine miles long expressing your thinly veiled contempt for him, a contempt so unquenchable that you have requested a thread be made solely in order to bitterly complain about him. You aren't fooling anyone.

You could and ought to just ignore him, as someone else in this thread suggested, but that would require giving up the pleasure of unearned moral superiority.