As I mentioned in the Generational Theory admin thread, I now believe it is necessary to spell out rules for these forums and a process that will allow me to see potentially objectionable posts and act to remove them when necessary.

While these rules are effective immediately, I am open to a conversation about amending them. You should feel free to use this thread for such a conversation.

I am not looking to censor substantive discussions. I am not looking to take sides in any debate. But I fear too many people think insults and threats are acceptable debating techniques. It has reached an unacceptable level.

The proposed new rules are:

Although the administrators and moderators of the Fourth Turning Forums will attempt to keep all objectionable messages off this forum, it is impossible for us to review all messages.

We encourage people who wish to post on the Fourth Turning Forums should strive to keep all commentary civil and courteous. It is not acceptable to post any messages that are hateful, threatening, obscene, or otherwise violate any laws.

If you feel a post violates these rules, please use the "Report bad post" link (which appears in the upper-right corner of every post) instead of insulting the original poster back. If you flame others through personal attacks, even in response to a perceived personal attack, you may lose your posting privileges.

Postings that do not adhere to these rules may be edited or disappear without warning. The owners of the Fourth Turning Forums reserve the right to remove any message for any reason, and violation of the rules will result in action. Possible actions include written warnings, infraction notices, temporary bans from the forum, or permanent banning.

All messages express the views of the author and are not necessarily the views of the owners of the Fourth Turning Forums.

My best,

-- Craig

Thank you, Craig. I'm sorry it became necessary, but a appreciate that you saw it as becoming necessary.

I'll just add that if I am accused of being a member or a totalitarian secret police organization that practiced state sponsored terror, or if I am compared to a totalitarian dictator who practiced state sponsored terror and is responsible for millions of deaths, I will be inclined to consider this a personal attack. This practice has not been as common here as it was a year or so back, but such accusations seem to be routinely tossed about in other highly partisan forums and media sites. I would as soon not see this particular form of ad hominem return to the T4T forums.

Just a pet peeve.

Bob Butler

Dear Mr. Cheslog,

I am sorry that we have made an Augean stable out of T4T.

However, do you think that the style "totalitarian" is amiss when a poster suggests that the sheridanizing of his opponents on the matter of Homo Global Warming is desirable?

I realize that the exemplar, Mr. Philip Henry Sheridan, was (and perhaps is) held to be a Progressive Commercial Republican in his own time and it is perhaps Presentism to think his treatment of and views on the First Nations is "totalitarian". I await your verdict on these matters.

Yo. Ob. Sv.

VKS

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Dear Mr. Cheslog,

I am sorry that we have made an Augean stable out of T4T.

However, do you think that the style "totalitarian" is amiss when a poster suggests that the sheridanizing of his opponents on the matter of Homo Global Warming is desirable?

I realize that the exemplar, Mr. Philip Henry Sheridan, was (and perhaps is) held to be a Progressive Commercial Republican in his own time and it is perhaps Presentism to think his treatment of and views on the First Nations is "totalitarian". I await your verdict on these matters.

Yo. Ob. Sv.

VKS

That might stand as a decent example. What I meant by 'get rid of' was to remove from political power by democratic means those who resist action on global warming. If 'get rid of' is can be interpreted in many ways, and is a phrase that too much implies violence, I could edit the post and use longer and more descriptive phrases to describe the means by which denialists might properly be removed from positions of political power.

But General Sheridan, by modern standards and terminology, practiced ethnic cleansing. In war, he was very effective in a brutal way. He has no particular association with ecology. I have been a consistent opponent of four particular classes of crimes against humanity associated with modern warlord government: genocide, ethnic cleansing, organized rape and political famine. By associating 'get rid of' with General Sheridan and bringing in ethnic cleansing, Mr. Saari is taking things well out of context, is making an entirely inappropriate accusation with no basis which feels to me like a personal attack. He is unnecessarily invoking a historical figure who has little or nothing to do with the topic under discussion in order to add emotion.

The basic pattern might be 'Clinton brushes her teeth. Hitler brushed his teeth. Therefore, Clinton is like Hitler.' It is entirely possible to discuss the merits of phrases like 'get rid of' without comparing contributers to the forum with individuals who practiced crimes against humanity.

Every discussion needs a contrarian, so let me argue that less can be more. We all blow-off steam occasionally, and sometimes the steam is pretty hot. Luckily, there are few here that are tender souls, and most slights are ignored. Occasionally, posters feel the need to move that to the next level with the Ignore feature, which seems to meet their needs. That leaves a small residue of posts that may need more active management. I hope that number is kept exceedingly small.

My biggest concern is not invective; it's blandness. Discussion that is too PC will fall quickly into the B-O-R-I-N-G category, and eventually dissipate completely, as posters go elsewhere. I don't see that as a postive result for T4T or the members.

I'm not fond of personal attacks any more than anyone else. I just hope that appeal to authority doesn't drive the forum to being a place only suited for tattle-tales and whiners. The discussion here has been lively and often engrossing. That's why I'm here.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I'm not fond of personal attacks any more than anyone else. I just hope that appeal to authority doesn't drive the forum to being a place only suited for tattle-tales and whiners. The discussion here has been lively and often engrossing. That's why I'm here.

A very valid perspective. This is part of why I was attempting through humor on the recent 'Inquisition' thread to discourage a new obsession with cliques flaming at those who flame.

But there are a few posters who seemingly can't perceive what is wrong with flame and insult. Occasional intervention to keep a lid on it would be helpful. I'm hoping that a clear statement of rules and a brief show that the rules will be enforced will be sufficient, at which point Craig's presence might fade again. This might last for six months to a year, at which point things will escalate up again to where he'll have to materialize again.

Over all, I think Craig has done well. The line he is drawing isn't overly strict. I don't anticipate an attempt to turn this into a Sunday school.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Dear Mr. Cheslog,

I am sorry that we have made an Augean stable out of T4T.

However, do you think that the style "totalitarian" is amiss when a poster suggests that the sheridanizing of his opponents on the matter of Homo Global Warming is desirable?

I realize that the exemplar, Mr. Philip Henry Sheridan, was (and perhaps is) held to be a Progressive Commercial Republican in his own time and it is perhaps Presentism to think his treatment of and views on the First Nations is "totalitarian". I await your verdict on these matters.

Yo. Ob. Sv.

VKS

I have to admit that I did not read the phrase "get rid of" in Bob's post as something threatening. I read it as someone who wanted to see people removed from office.

Bob has edited his post to make this clear. I thank him for doing so.

Everyone should know that I am going to have extremely low tolerance for anyone accusing another person of being the next Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, etc.

Unless you can prove the person about which you are writing has committed crimes against humanity, you should find another way to express your disagreement.

Perhaps I need to add this to the rules to make this concept clear. I am not banning the use of such analogies, but you better have a very good reason for heading down this road if you do.

-- Craig

I never used the "report bad post" feature because I had no idea what was considered a bad post on 4T, considering some of the "dirty !@#$!" "Yer another!" exchanges, so I quite forgot it was there.

I for one am not interested in turning 4T into a Sunday school, but a lot of that stuff was becoming so boring I couldn't even read the thread any more. I have used "Ignore" for only 3 posters: one who posts long incoherent rants on two particular threads occasionally and I can't make any sense out of them; one who kept hitting on one note incessantly as an answer to everything and may anyone who disagreed with him burn in hell; and one who greeted every post with sexual innuendo and bragging of the sort you get in locker rooms and street corners and on middle school playgrounds. Everyone else, I'm glad to read, at least when they get out of the loops described above and start actually talking.

I find it ironic that the two people who got this ball rolling are, one, the board's libertarian gadfly (the latter word to be understood in either the common or the Socratic sense, to keep it neutral), and the other, the person most inclined to insult another who disagrees with him on theory.

It feels like the phantom "clique" has given way to Big Brother. Awesome.

Meant as an observation, not a personal attack.

BTW, does this mean I can't be called a "Gen-X twirp" or compared to "Osama bin Laden" by Mr. Xenakis anymore? I actually found it rather endearing.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

I find it ironic that the two people who got this ball rolling are, one, the board's libertarian gadfly (the latter word to be understood in either the common or the Socratic sense, to keep it neutral), and the other, the person most inclined to insult another who disagrees with him on theory.

It feels like the phantom "clique" has given way to Big Brother. Awesome.

Meant as an observation, not a personal attack.

BTW, does this mean I can't be called a "Gen-X twirp" or compared to "Osama bin Laden" by Mr. Xenakis anymore? I actually found it rather endearing.

I sincerely hope that's what it means.

Rani and I have been civil with each other now for months (thanks, my Queen!) - that alone should give the entire Forum a credit to draw upon for at least a few more months.

My more recent tiffs with another poster have not been so sweet and may have triggered this revival of a perceived need for some moderating influences.
As I have told a long line of various authorities in my life, I promise to do better in the very near future. And,

"I will gladly pay you Tuesday for that hamburger today."

Originally Posted by The Rani

This is true. I'm not quite sure how it happened, or I would be glad to share our "gettin along" techniques with the group, so they might learn from our fine example.

Do I still get to call you "playdude?" Misspelling words, even intentionally, is just one of those pet peeves that I can't bring myself to do! If not, I will shorten it to just "dude" in the future.

By all means continue the "play" with the "dude" - it warms the, ah, the, ah, ah, oh yeah, heart!

I'm thinking about 'tickling' the competitor who stole the correct moniker for a certain e-list we both belong to. If that occurs, I may be reincarnated here with the correct spelling (however, I may be writing from a small cell, preferable padded - I'm very sure it won't impact the quality (or lack of) of my posts. )

Questions for Craig:

Is it possible to fold some of my individual threads into more topic-appropriate threads? I noticed, when your PM brought issues to my attention, that certain posters had complained that I had started too many "vanity" threads. Since some posters feel offended by this, is this a topic for moderation? Will moderator approval be needed to start new threads?

Is an "approved topic list" required? It would seem to be a consensus that a narrower focus is desired. If so, would there be an "off-topic" thread? This would allow posters to concentrate on narrower, dedicated threads, if desired.

Should there be a "statute of limitations" applied to user complaints?

If the forums are to be more closely moderated, there will be many specific details to address. A written, static FAQ for each forum would be required, stating the limitations.

Note: To fully understand the context of this thread, I had to remove my Ignore List, at least temporarily. (It's going back on, shortly) Is it a personal attack to slam a poster who has put someone on Ignore? The person who has the slammer on Ignore may be unaware of the attack, but it does lower the civility level that so many are now advocating.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Duuuudddee .... didn't you see the other thread???

The possible target is in no way, shape or form associated with this Forum (he would consider it far beneath him). That would make this an off-site tickling. I believe it would be most un-American for the site moderators to attempt to impose its rules and regulations on an action, tickling or otherwise, that is clearly off site.

I am beginning to question your true commitment to your professed cause of stamping out misspellings. Be ye sheep or sheepdog?!

Originally Posted by The Rani

I assume this means me. I don't know why some people assume that "no government" means "no rules."



Does calling someone a name and then claiming neutrality in the same breath make it "not a personal atttack?"

Serious question for the webmaster.

Craig: Is there an individual veto power over all posts? Does one complaint reach the level for editing or deletion? Specific criteria must be stated. Is there a level for evidence of intent?

We are rapidly approaching the criteria for criminal trials. If so, the dialog on this board will be greatly restricted. Individuals will use the threat of "legal action" to quash dissent.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

I find it ironic that the two people who got this ball rolling are, one, the board's libertarian gadfly (the latter word to be understood in either the common or the Socratic sense, to keep it neutral), and the other, the person most inclined to insult another who disagrees with him on theory.

It feels like the phantom "clique" has given way to Big Brother. Awesome.

Meant as an observation, not a personal attack.

BTW, does this mean I can't be called a "Gen-X twirp" or compared to "Osama bin Laden" by Mr. Xenakis anymore? I actually found it rather endearing.

Yes. That is precisely what it means.

I don't intend to pick sides or favor anyone. I regret it may come across that I am -- but I think things have gotten out-of-hand and I need to be more engaged with the tone of the discussion here.

-- Craig

Originally Posted by The Rani

Or, another question, is it a personal attack to put certain posters on "ignore," then repeatedly announce to the group why they have put these posters on their list? These are indirect "slams," but they also tend to lower the civility level.

Craig? A ruling, please. What level of dialog is acceptable? Perhaps an academic journal or technical publication's standard? A legal brief?

Originally Posted by Pink Splice

Questions for Craig:

Is it possible to fold some of my individual threads into more topic-appropriate threads? I noticed, when your PM brought issues to my attention, that certain posters had complained that I had started too many "vanity" threads. Since some posters feel offended by this, is this a topic for moderation? Will moderator approval be needed to start new threads?

Is an "approved topic list" required? It would seem to be a consensus that a narrower focus is desired. If so, would there be an "off-topic" thread? This would allow posters to concentrate on narrower, dedicated threads, if desired.

Should there be a "statute of limitations" applied to user complaints?

If the forums are to be more closely moderated, there will be many specific details to address. A written, static FAQ for each forum would be required, stating the limitations.

Good questions.

For now, I do not intend to place moderation over creating new topics. My focus the past few days has been on the tone, not the content, of the discussions here.

I am open to a conversation about creating a more general forum for off-topic and political conversations that focus more on current events than the generational theory. But, I am not ready to implement anything like that yet. I welcome comments about these ideas.

I am not going to enforce a statute of limitations to start. I hope that all posters will feel free to report posts that may violate the rules I have stated above. Since this is new, I don't want to create potential loopholes.

I am not looking to be big brother. I just want to bring some calmness and civility back to the community.

-- Craig

Originally Posted by Pink Splice

Note: To fully understand the context of this thread, I had to remove my Ignore List, at least temporarily. (It's going back on, shortly) Is it a personal attack to slam a poster who has put someone on Ignore? The person who has the slammer on Ignore may be unaware of the attack, but it does lower the civility level that so many are now advocating.

A personal attack is a personal attack. I don't care if it is against a person on ignore, a person who left the boards years ago, or someone who joins.

Slamming a poster is not allowed. Pointed disagreement with a person's ideas is allowed.

My suggestion is that everyone refrain from personal attacks. Then there won't be issues.

-- Craig

Originally Posted by Pink Splice

Craig: Is there an individual veto power over all posts? Does one complaint reach the level for editing or deletion? Specific criteria must be stated. Is there a level for evidence of intent?

We are rapidly approaching the criteria for criminal trials. If so, the dialog on this board will be greatly restricted. Individuals will use the threat of "legal action" to quash dissent.

The number of complaints really does not matter. My reading of the content of the post, and whether it abides by the rules I have proposed above, matters.

One complaint could be enough. Ten may not be. It depends entirely on what a poster chooses to write.

The easiest solution, I would suggest to everyone here, is to avoid personal attacks and focus on the substance of the issues.

-- Craig

Originally Posted by webmaster

The number of complaints really does not matter. My reading of the content of the post, and whether it abides by the rules I have proposed above, matters.

Craig, first I'm a moderator on an INTP mailing list, so I'm sure you're not having a good time right now. Anyhow, some questions/suggestions.

One complaint could be enough. Ten may not be. It depends entirely on what a poster chooses to write.

True enough. The content of a post, I think should be judged based on objective criteria. Is this easy? No. Suggestion would be to have perhaps a co-mod(s) (I have no claim to that ) since my guess is if you entertained that idea, you'd select (like I do) based on list/board tenure.

The easiest solution, I would suggest to everyone here, is to avoid personal attacks and focus on the substance of the issues.

Agreed. The mailing list I'm a mod on has the no ad-hom rule as well.

Clarification please: In a prior post you mentioned "tone". I know this may sound like the typical INTP getting stuck on minutiae, but what does this mean ?

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Craig, first I'm a moderator on an INTP mailing list, so I'm sure you're not having a good time right now. Anyhow, some questions/suggestions.



True enough. The content of a post, I think should be judged based on objective criteria. Is this easy? No. Suggestion would be to have perhaps a co-mod(s) (I have no claim to that ) since my guess is if you entertained that idea, you'd select (like I do) based on list/board tenure.



Agreed. The mailing list I'm a mod on has the no ad-hom rule as well.

Clarification please: In a prior post you mentioned "tone". I know this may sound like the typical INTP getting stuck on minutiae, but what does this mean ?

I was trying to clarify and confirm, in response to Pink Splice's question about whether I was going to restrict new topics and/or off-topic postings, that my focus is not on these issues but on stopping the flames, personal attacks, and threats that have become all too prevalent.

The word "tone" likely paints with too broad a brush. I am not seeking to limit passion or debate -- but one can be a passionate debater without resorting to threats or name-calling.

I hope that helps.

-- Craig

Originally Posted by webmaster

The word "tone" likely paints with too broad a brush. I am not seeking to limit passion or debate -- but one can be a passionate debater without resorting to threats or name-calling.

I hope that helps.

Yes that helps.
1. A "flame" is usually recognized as a post high in emotional content, vs. facts.
2. A threat. Quite simple. Writing something that would either get you arrested or your lights punched out if spoken IRL.
3. Ad-homs. Unfortunately I'm aware of those. There be moderator's banes, those ad-homs.

There are two things I count as ad-homs even though they technically are not. One is "You're another" and the other is to insult the group one belongs to and then claim "I display a general garment and you claim it's cut to your measure?" As a matter of fact, unless one wants to play the Exception card aka Oreo, Queen Bee, etc, yes; it is.

Examples, just for illustration purposes: "OH, well everyone KNOWS Silents are going to put a bandaid on the cancer." or, "Why do Democrats want Al Qaeda to murder us all in our beds?" Or, "feminists all hate men and lie about crimes against women for their own gain." Or, "Well, duh, anyone in that trade (with that hobby) is a pimpled, fat social retard anyway, so cut the poor thing some slack, why don't you?

I note that if one argues and the person likes you, they'll play the Exception card for you.

At any rate, just my $0.02 before I skip church to practice witchcraft, hang out with lesbians, vote for a Son of a Muslim, and - naah, now that they're out of their teens, I don't think I'll do anything evil to my children. And my ex's GI Generation dad got there ahead of me in terms of the other accusation. Oh, I could alphabetize my books,play with the cats, and read something arcane about computers?