You know the drill

[LausTibiChriste]

While Laus attempts to frame my opinions on moderation as some sort of attack on or ingratitude to KK, this is clearly not so.  KK habitually, and in this thread explicitly, has invited input about the forum.  There is no reason to make this thread about me personally.

However, if we are to look at the persons making the arguments, rather than the arguments themselves, it is obvious that Laus takes a self-serving position.  Of course, a person with a history of unacceptable posts and long-term bans (such as Laus has) would like to see the forum unmoderated.  Moderation interferes with Laus posting the way that he likes to post.

Go. Start. Your. Own. Forum.

[orate]

And in the opening post in the other poll this was mentioned; "My answer to this question is that, if this forum cannot be operated as the moderated forum it was founded to be, then it should not be kept going at all. ... I ask that we either restore moderation or pull the plug."  Did you read the opening post of the other poll?

https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=26842.0

Why? why do we need to pull the plug? so you're not happy with the way it is moderated therefore nobody gets to use the forum? isn't it a bit like a spoilt child who doesn't like a toy but won't let anyone else play with it. 

Having written those words, I am in a good position to explain what they mean.  I was writing with the traditional Catholic philosophical assumption that things have a purpose or an end.   For example, the purpose of human being is to know, love and serve God in this world and be happy with Him in the next.

When we think in these terms, there is something wrong with things that do not work towards their purpose.  There is something wrong, for example, with a person who refuses to "know, love and serve God."  If I were say this about a person, it would not mean that I dislike him.  To say that a thing is not fulfilling its purpose is not a statement about one's personal feelings towards it.  It is an objective statement that is disordered.

This forum has a purpose.  It has shown itself unable to fulfill its purpose (at least not well) when it is not moderated.  Therefore there is something wrong with leaving the forum unmoderated.

If KK wishes to run an unmoderated forum for the people here who like that sort of thing,  he should throw out the statement of purpose and the rules that we currently have and make new forum in the place of this one.  It could have its own purpose and its own rules.  Having a bunch of rules that are ignored and unenforced is an objective problem, even if there are people who like the forum that way.

.

THIS.

I voted yes with moderation and no without moderation.

The purpose of this forum is to spread the truth of the Catholic faith.  There is such a thing as causing scandal —-in the true sense, causing other to sin—- as opposed to just playing or not playing with toys. The take your toys and play somewhere else stance does nothing to alleviate the harm in causing scandal to someone else.  JMHO

[Jayne]

The purpose of this forum is to spread the truth of the Catholic faith.  There is such a thing as causing scandal —-in the true sense, causing other to sin—- as opposed to just playing or not playing with toys. The take your toys and play somewhere else stance does nothing to alleviate the harm in causing scandal to someone else.  JMHO

What we have in this thread is the one who kicks sand in everyone's face, even though it is against the sandbox rules, telling those who want the rules enforced to go play in another sandbox.  There is nothing wrong with wanting the rules enforced, especially when there is someone who regularly breaks them.

[TerrorDæmonum]

How many times do I have to say it

One lakh crore.

NOTHING is prohibiting you from starting your own. That's what the Saints did when they saw an issue - they started their own orders. They didn't go the superiors of others and bitch like 5-year-olds about their perceived faults.

But seriously, wanting to use a forum and wanting to operate a forum are vastly different things.

The example of the saints also shows humility and respect for authority. You don't see people in orders who just willy-nilly go off and start their own order when they don't like their surperiors. That would be anti-Catholic.

The calling to start an order is not based on personal sentiment.

Also, on the Internet, attacking perceived motives and interior states of a person can be quite...ineffective. Has she posted any errors worthy of rebuke?

As a top poster on the forum, you can be sure she knows that not everybody will like her forum usage, but to make it a personal issue seems excessive.

Just to reiterate in both polls I have voted for more moderators just not one from a certain 'camp' (I don't want to rehash that).

I also don't want any camp moderators. Things are bad enough on the Internet.

[TerrorDæmonum]

It is odd to have a debate between people who want more decorum on the forum and those who want those dissatisfied to leave.

In my experience, it goes nowhere.

The "make your own forum" argument goes in both directions I suppose as well.

Making a forum and running it and properly maintaining it are not what most people seem to think. This forum has run continuously from what I've seen, and it has been kept up to date, properly applied its TLS certificate to the entire forum, and the chat widget kept running, even though the admin doesn't use it for #suscipedomine.

I also assume that the forum is regularly backed up and that these backups are or were tested. I don't know the admin's configuration beyond what the network reveals, but I would assume he has done this.

Trying to a restore a forum from backups can easily destroy it if not done properly.

Some people might remember a certain forum going away mysteriously one day...that was because of an attempt to install the same chat widget here on that forum on the live forum.

An admin's perspective can easily become "the network is working and the server installation is error free so all is good".

Forum admins usually have a copy of the forum for tinkering before they do anything live, but the admin might work on production...which takes some confidence that I never have had.

All that needs to be done regardless of forum activity. The hosting and domain costs are the easy bit.

Moderation can also be the easy bit on a small forum, but not as easy as clicking "renew" with a saved payment method.

This is why I and some others may have wanted "more moderation", because to go this far while letting things deteriorate seems sad. Of course, it is ultimately up to forum members to conduct themselves properly.

After all:

Let nothing be done through contention, neither by vain glory: but in humility, let each esteem others better than themselves:

How does one say "Easier written than done" in Koine? Anyway, we can at least try.

[Jayne]

The "make your own forum" argument goes in both directions I suppose as well.

It is pretty clear in the sandbox analogy that the rule-breaking bully who disrupts the play of others is the one who should leave, rather than those who rightly identify his behaviour as inappropriate.

[LausTibiChriste]

It is odd to have a debate between people who want more decorum on the forum and those who want those dissatisfied to leave.

In my experience, it goes nowhere.

The "make your own forum" argument goes in both directions I suppose as well.

Making a forum and running it and properly maintaining it are not what most people seem to think. This forum has run continuously from what I've seen, and it has been kept up to date, properly applied its TLS certificate to the entire forum, and the chat widget kept running, even though the admin doesn't use it for #suscipedomine.

I also assume that the forum is regularly backed up and that these backups are or were tested. I don't know the admin's configuration beyond what the network reveals, but I would assume he has done this.

Trying to a restore a forum from backups can easily destroy it if not done properly.

Some people might remember a certain forum going away mysteriously one day...that was because of an attempt to install the same chat widget here on that forum on the live forum.

An admin's perspective can easily become "the network is working and the server installation is error free so all is good".

Forum admins usually have a copy of the forum for tinkering before they do anything live, but the admin might work on production...which takes some confidence that I never have had.

All that needs to be done regardless of forum activity. The hosting and domain costs are the easy bit.

Moderation can also be the easy bit on a small forum, but not as easy as clicking "renew" with a saved payment method.

This is why I and some others may have wanted "more moderation", because to go this far while letting things deteriorate seems sad. Of course, it is ultimately up to forum members to conduct themselves properly.

After all:

Let nothing be done through contention, neither by vain glory: but in humility, let each esteem others better than themselves:

How does one say "Easier written than done" in Koine? Anyway, we can at least try.

Thanks for your input, Insanis

[LausTibiChriste]

The "make your own forum" argument goes in both directions I suppose as well.

It is pretty clear in the sandbox analogy that the rule-breaking bully who disrupts the play of others is the one who should leave, rather than those who rightly identify his behaviour as inappropriate.

It's not clear because your sandbox analogy is shit. Here's a better analogy:

> Dad made a sandbox, all the kids were playing in it
> Dad had to go to work, so he told all the kids to play nice, left some parents in charge
> Parents eventually had to leave because they need to leave because a certain race of people made usury mainstream a few centuries ago so they need to work extra hard
> Kids are playing, some fight, some hug, all good
> Generally, there are some issues, but nothing to crazy. Everyone agrees to the unwritten rules
> Then this big-nosed you-know-what decides she's the Queen of the playground. Doesn't like the unwritten rules. Wants to make her own.
> But considering she's of a certain race, she doesn't just force her will on others
> Oh no
> She is sneaky, making back-room deals, bringing in other kids from other playgrounds
> Going to other playgrounds to be a bully herself
> And with Daddy and the other parents gone, she tries to assert her control
> Not her fault, just genetics I guess. I mean if your race killed Christ, you'd be a mess too
> So she starts kicking sand, subtly, at so many other members
> In so many other sandboxes
> But most of the other members just want to build sandcastles
> Then a few of us decide to tell this you-know-what to shut her conniving, j00 mouth
> But she doesn't
> So we start kicking sand in her face
> A lot
> She doesn't like that. Starts playing the victim.
> Puts the blame on everyone else
> Plays the victim (where have I seen that before? Hint: 1940s)
> Oh well, tough shit. Narcissists gonna narcissist.

I could go on, but I think you get the point

[GiftOfGod]

How many times do I have to say it

One lakh crore.

[diaduit]

Who sets the standard here, who decides it is uncatholic, why is it deemed uncatholic, why is it not fulfilling its purpose and who decided that?
Laus sandbox analogy is excellent.  The forum is not perfect, mea culpa but it was running along nicely, not perfectly.  We are human beings with distinct personalities and we are flawed to expect and enforce perfect behaviour is just not realistic but for some reason certain factions have decided that we are not performing perfectly enough.

Paineto
Also, on the Internet, attacking perceived motives and interior states of a person can be quite...ineffective. Has she posted any errors worthy of rebuke?

Have I, has Laus?

[TerrorDæmonum]

Have I,

I don't know, but not that I have seen.

has Laus?

Recent activity has become erratic and I'm confused by it, and I am leaving it to the admin to deal with and I won't comment on it anymore.

I'm not in any position to make or enforce any forum policies or rules. I was just commenting on what I saw.

[Jayne]

Who sets the standard here, who decides it is uncatholic, why is it deemed uncatholic, why is it not fulfilling its purpose and who decided that?

The founders of the forum decided the forum's purpose and created rules to support that purpose.  The rules set the standard and moderators decide on how to apply these rules. 

When the forum as a whole ignores these rules it changes the nature of the forum. 

[LausTibiChriste]

Who sets the standard here, who decides it is uncatholic, why is it deemed uncatholic, why is it not fulfilling its purpose and who decided that?

The founders of the forum decided the forum's purpose and created rules to support that purpose.  The rules set the standard and moderators decide on how to apply these rules. 

When the forum as a whole ignores these rules it changes the nature of the forum.

Then leave

[diaduit]

Who sets the standard here, who decides it is uncatholic, why is it deemed uncatholic, why is it not fulfilling its purpose and who decided that?

The founders of the forum decided the forum's purpose and created rules to support that purpose.  The rules set the standard and moderators decide on how to apply these rules. 

When the forum as a whole ignores these rules it changes the nature of the forum.

Rules being broken is one thing, calling for the plug to be pulled and saying it is uncatholic because of minor brushes with the rules is an agenda.  And it only got heavy with and about you because you just won't drop your poking stick.

[Jayne]

Who sets the standard here, who decides it is uncatholic, why is it deemed uncatholic, why is it not fulfilling its purpose and who decided that?

The founders of the forum decided the forum's purpose and created rules to support that purpose.  The rules set the standard and moderators decide on how to apply these rules. 

When the forum as a whole ignores these rules it changes the nature of the forum.

Rules being broken is one thing, calling for the plug to be pulled and saying it is uncatholic because of minor brushes with the rules is an agenda.  And it only got heavy with and about you because you just won't drop your poking stick.

Where did I say that this forum is uncatholic?  I'm saying that it is not the forum it was created to be. 

There have not been "minor brushes with the rules".  One of the most essential ideas in founding this forum was that it be a neutral ground in which sedevacantists and sedeplenists could hold discussions without calling into question the Catholic faith of the other side.  While KK was gone that rule was violated repeatedly.  He needed to come back to enforce it to get people to follow it. 

Rule number one under forum conduct is about being charitable.  Rule number two forbids vulgarity.  These are the first two rules because they are important.  It is not "minor" when posters completely disregard them.