The Tank has Gone to Hell

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Your strategy empowers those who would abuse the rules and decorum, for the sake of avoiding confrontation. That's noble of you, to some extent, but it doesn't sit well with me. What do people like me do who feel that avoiding a confrontation is a measure of weakness and surrender (due to our personalities, not a general judgment applying to you)? Basically your solution is that I should alter my personality to be more like you. That's exactly the kind of, "You should be less aggressive, Z" that others have tried to enforce. Why put limits on those with stronger personalities, instead of simply enforcing the rules? This strategy just feels so inauthentic to me. Maybe you can be true to yourself and ignore false accusations, but I can't. Or maybe you don't receive as many false accusations?

For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill. -- Sun Tzu

If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him. -- Sun Tzu

Don't think of it in terms of "winning" and "losing". Instead, keep it in mind that a discussion on the Internet is like playing in a band--if the music becomes dissonant or unenjoyable then quit playing.

In short, never wrestle with a pig--you will get dirty and the pig enjoys it. The people who find loopholes in the rules of a forum make themselves known through their actions. Our only responsibility is to hold up the mirror, show them what they look like, then let them bask in the glow of their purely imaginary and meaningless "victory".

There was a memorable episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation where Data played some futuritic strategy board game against a grandmaster. Despite having a brain that can process information far faster and more efficiently, Data was soundly defeated. After rethinking his tactics, they had a rematch. This time, Data did not lose but the grandmaster did not win. In fact, the game went on and on to the point where the grandmaster resigned in an immature huff--if he couldn't win he wasn't going to play any more. What made the difference? Data had changed his tactics from "I must win" to "I will block him from winning". This is the essence of how I engage potential trolls and/or arguments on the Internet. Is it passive-aggressive? Absolutely. Does it work? Beautifully. Does it work in real life? Heavens, no--in offline life this behavior makes you the troll...which in decades past was called "being a dick".

As far as false accusations or insults...honestly, I couldn't care less. The beauty of an online forum is that no one can misquote you and as long as you don't take anything personally their insults are, like the insulter themselves, irrelevant.

I will, however, drop the suggestion to do what I would do--that is a little arrogant even for me, I have to admit...and I can be damned arrogant from time to time.

[ussusimiel]

It's taken me a while to get a handle on this but I think I've finally made some progress. I was eventually forced all the ways back to Hegel (which is always a pain in the arse ) but, hey, while the 'Tank may be a fractious forum we're also an elite one, aren't we?

Anyway, where I've got to is that, as always, the disagreement comes down to the differences between the liberal and conservative/libertarian viewpoints, and that this has finally dug down into the administration of the forum itself.

What I think has led to the current impasse has been the attempt to run the 'Tank along the liberal idea of what the forum could be (no offense Av, it's how I'd like it to be too ). This is the idea that each person would take others into consideration while self-moderating. And it is here that I believe the main conflict occurs.

In this article (I haven't read it all yet), 'The Radical Critique of Liberalism', I found the following:

... the liberal inquiring process of unjustifiably privileging intrinsically private agency is what makes liberal theory liberal and, relatedly, what makes the liberal theorist, liberal.

What I understand this to mean is that a liberal is personally invested in the political position they hold, thus when a liberal engages in a discourse, no matter how detached they may seem, by the very fact of their being a liberal they, at some level, take the discussion personally.

The corollary of this is that from non-liberal (e.g. conservative and libertarian) perspectives, discourse is about ideas and there need be little or no personal involvement in what are simply words on an Internet forum. Thus taking another person's feelings into account can seem to be either condescending (to the other person) or controlling (by the 'emotionally sensitive' other person).

IMO, what we have witnessed over the last year or so has been the clash of these two extremes. Under these circumstances a liberal 'Tank is not going to function because when the conservative/libertarian side is pushed to the extreme it becomes more and more insensitive, while at the same time a more extreme liberal side becomes more and more sensitive.

Due to the distinctly different nature of participants in the 'Tank I think that Cail's suggestion of two moderators has merit (again, no offense intended to Av's modship). (The obvious thing, as I see it now, would be to have a liberal-leaning mod and a conservative/libertarian-leaning mod. This may have been tried before and not worked. *shrug*)

I also came up with a couple of suggestions that relate to the two main sides involved in most of the debates here:

• - I think that if liberals recognised that, to a greater or lesser extent, their political positions are also personal, then they would realise why a thick skin is necessary to engage in political debate. They would see more clearly the need to be well prepared, because, in effect, when they defend their political positions they are also defending themselves.
  
  - I think that if others recognised that the liberal position is both political and personal they would see that telling liberals to 'stop taking things personally' is simply the same as saying 'stop being liberals', which is not really much use during a debate.

I really value the 'Tank. I have gained a huge amount from my participation in it. It is a great forum. It's strength is the quality and passion of the people who take part in the discussions and debates here. I think that it is clearly worth making an effort (every two or three years, it seems) to maintain its vitality and diversity.

u.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

There could be some truth to that argument, and I agree with the point about two mods.

[Cail]

Yeah, great post ussu.

But I'll say it again, the mods have to have the power to ban, even if it's just a Tank ban, in order to have any teeth.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

It seems strange that that isn't the case Cail.

[Fist and Faith]

I guess this system doesn't have that option. I assume giving mods the power to ban would have been discussed if it was possible, but I've never heard it mentioned at all.

[Cail]

In any other subforum it wouldn't be an issue. But it's a different story in here. For members and mods who aren't used to the dynamic (or just don't like/understand debate), the whole lot of us ought to be banned. Or not, who knows.

And they've got to be around more often than Av. I know I give him a hard time, but that's mostly my frustration with his schedule (which is not his fault, he only has internet access at work).

Edit - Yes Fist, it's been discussed at length, and the forum software as of 3 years ago (when I was involved in the discussions) wasn't capable of that. So what's necessary is that the admins need to accept the decisions of the Tank mods without question or exception. Tank bans have to be done via the honor system, and violations result in a forum ban.

[Fist and Faith]

Seriously, the best solution I can think of is a different site. I swear I'm not trying to chase the Tank away. But a couple of you - opponents would be best, wouldn't it? - could make a site, even linked to the first thread here, where you'd be able to run it the way you want. If it was a site with only this one forum, admins could ban, and there wouldn't be an issue of other forums not being able to.

Edit: Just saw your edit. Heh. Yeah, I guess that would work. Again, I'd think opponents would have to be in charge, yes? Assuming opponents who are not well known for such behavior could be found.

[Cail]

That defeats the purpose. Even if we did that, after a month or two (if that long) political debate would crop up in D.C. or G.D. And then KW would be right back here.

I moderate on a motorcycle forum (and if you wussies think it gets contentious here, you're sadly deluded). When the SHtF there and any mod feels that someone needs a vacation, we PM the offending quote(s) and our reasoning to the HMFiC, and the member is banned without question. The HMFiC trusts the mods, and when he stops trusting them, he de-mods them.

I thoroughly enjoyed modding with Pliss. Though Syl and I clashed on things, I thought we did pretty well. I don't want to do it again, 'cause it's a thankless job. But someone like Soulbiter or Sindatur would probably do well with it.

[Fist and Faith]

The problem is, someone who deserves to be kicked out of the Tank might be perfectly fine elsewhere. Maybe even a valued contributor. It really would be great if there was a way to ban from just the Tank.

What I was suggesting would be the Tank, but you get to it through a link here. The Tank just happens to meet off-site. People trying to start political debate anywhere at the Watch could be told to take it there. I've deleted posts and threads in the Close, and told them to take it where it belonged. Easy enough.

[Cail]

That's exactly my point Fist, but you can't move the Tank offsite. The Tank ban can't be enforced with the current forum software, it has to be done with the honor system. If someone can't abide by that, they deserve a vacation from the entire site for a period of time.

[[Syl]]

It's pretty easy to do on the board we have. Change posting permissions for the Tank so that only group "Tankers" are allowed to post. People would request access to join the Tankers group just as they would the Writers Circle, Last Chronicles forums, and so on. The mods of the group will have permissions to add/remove membership to the Tankers group.

Come to think of it, I wouldn't mind a similar set-up for A&S when it comes to creating new posts. Set up a Suggestions Discussion thread and an Announcement Discussion thread. Then prevent non-moderators (and a few others like Romeo, Scott Brick, etc.) from creating new threads. I would just split of discussions that deserve their own thread. Since most of my job is moving threads to other forums, it'd make things a lot easier for me.

[Cail]

Well there you go, problem solved.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Syl, why not put all users in the Tank group automatically and them let mods change permissions as needed afterwards. Would that be too laborious? I think turning it into a private club is the wrong paradigm, but mods need to be empowered to enforce some sort of order.

[Cail]

So that people have to opt out? That's a good idea.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

That is a benefit as well Cail. I just know that some folks pop in here sporadically when the urge strikes them, I'd hate to interrupt that impulse with a request for membership permissions.

[Dread Poet Jethro]

I also concur
Certainly I'm not here much
But want the option

[Worm of Despite]

I also concur
Certainly I'm not here much
But want the option

Be quiet non-Tanker.

Just kidding. I believe hiding the board only if someone opts out of it on the Options page might work. The option to "Tank" back on (or off) could be under Prefernces along with with other Yes/No questions like "Hide online status".

To make one take extra steps or PM someone to gain access to the Tank might hurt productivity. We need to remember the Tank is one of the few (and sometimes the only) active forum when we log on.

Then put a stickied thread at the top of this forum notifying of the new On/Off switch in Options.

Anyone who bitches about the Tank can then be accused of being too dumb to work a light switch.

[sgt.null]

the writing workshop forum here is an opt in. the Tank could be as well...

[Avatar]

Progress? Well done guys.

I'm not going to answer everything directly. I'm certainly not going to spend my time defending my moderation style or disagreeing with anybody about the circumstances of long past events.

Couple of things...

WF, thank you.

Z, you had an opportunity there to move it away from being personal, but you didn't take it. Even if you feel it is personal, you should know that addressing it that way reduces the chances of meaningful input.

well banning BBF was a positive step. how long did the freak get?

Life Sarge, he got life.

It takes a big man to admit when he's wrong. Thank you for the apology Wayfriend.

Thank you too.

Don, it was long ago. And we made allowances. Which is part of what makes us successful here. We make allowances.

A members only 'Tank:

As Syl said, it is possible. (Hell, the group even exists already...has for a long time.)

It is NOT possible to add everybody to it by default. You have to apply to join.

If you want to get a head start, visit this link:

kevinswatch.ihugny.com/phpBB2/groupcp.php

View the info for the Think Tank group, and request membership.

That'll do for now. I'll revisit this as soon as I have have a touch of free time,and maybe address a few other points directly.

For the record...I think this sort of discussion every now and then is healthy.

--A