Horizontal Thinking and "The Big Man Can't Shoot"

[Chap]

A Libertarian utopia is premised on everyone sharing libertarian values. Atlanticmike does not share those values. In fact, he's close to an anti-libertarian in that respect. I think the board's core purpose can be preserved, with minimal rules to address individuals who actively subvert having an actual Libertarian utopia.

I agree with this. A rule against actively and deliberately disrupting the board would do 90% of the work that needs to be done.

[Marcus]

A Libertarian utopia is premised on everyone sharing libertarian values. Atlanticmike does not share those values. In fact, he's close to an anti-libertarian in that respect. I think the board's core purpose can be preserved, with minimal rules to address individuals who actively subvert having an actual Libertarian utopia.

I agree with this. A rule against actively and deliberately disrupting the board would do 90% of the work that needs to be done.

Absolutely.

In the long run, formulating a rule about trolling, or purposeful disruption of the communication process, as the term is typically used in current research, would certainly help. Even just as a warning, it would help to have that language on the table. Repeatedly, a few have complained that any opinion dissenting from a majority is what is defined as trolling, which is not true. Having that formally noted and 'disruption' clearly defined would hopefully end the interminable arguments over which "side" wants the trolling to stop.

[Res Ipsa]

I agree with this. A rule against actively and deliberately disrupting the board would do 90% of the work that needs to be done.

Absolutely.

In the long run, formulating a rule about trolling, or purposeful disruption of the communication process, as the term is typically used in current research, would certainly help. Even just as a warning, it would help to have that language on the table. Repeatedly, a few have complained that any opinion dissenting from a majority is what is defined as trolling, which is not true. Having that formally noted and 'disruption' clearly defined would hopefully end the interminable arguments over which "side" wants the trolling to stop.

I spent several hours yesterday reading up on the current literature on trolling (at least the literature that I could access). I intend to do more.

[MeDotOrg]

The podcast discusses how earlier in the season, and particularly in this game, Chamberlain had adopted Rick Barry's underhand free throw technique.

Wilt Chamberlain's 100 point game was in 1962. Rick Barry's rookie year was 1965, so saying he 'adopted' Rick Barry's style is a bit of a misnomer.

[honorentheos]

The podcast discusses how earlier in the season, and particularly in this game, Chamberlain had adopted Rick Barry's underhand free throw technique.

Wilt Chamberlain's 100 point game was in 1962. Rick Barry's rookie year was 1965, so saying he 'adopted' Rick Barry's style is a bit of a misnomer.

Fair point. I haven't listened to the podcast in a very long time and don't know if that is due to inaccuracy or more an issue with framing that I misrepresented. If so, my apologies in detracting from the bigger point.

[Physics Guy]

Basing bans on some explicit principle is a good idea in that it can help the moderators make tough decisions, in ways with which the great majority of the community will be happy. I think it's important, though, not to try to formulate principles that will relieve the mods of all burden of subjective judgement. First of all that just doesn't work; the most you can do is kid yourselves to think you're being perfectly objective in following the letter of your law when in fact some kind of arbitrary bias will inevitably have been baked into the law implicitly. And secondly it opens the door to endless barracks-room lawyering by trolls trying to exploit loopholes in the law.

Whoever is paying the server fees can ban anyone for no reason at all. And at the end of the day, people get banned because mods decide to ban them—period. People can appeal against moderatorial sanctions in the literal sense of asking mods to reconsider, and mods can reverse their decisions if they choose, but there is no right of appeal in the legal sense. The safeguard against unfair heavy-handedness on the part of the moderators is for them to allow enough leeway that anyone who gets banned will, in the overwhelming consensus of the community, have more than deserved to be banned.

I'm sorry if this doesn't sound very libertarian, but posting here isn't a human right, banning someone from here isn't shooting them, and moderators here are not paid. I think that whatever principles get formulated have to be tools for the mods, and not shackles.

[Chap]

Basing bans on some explicit principle is a good idea in that it can help the moderators make tough decisions, in ways with which the great majority of the community will be happy. I think it's important, though, not to try to formulate principles that will relieve the mods of all burden of subjective judgement. First of all that just doesn't work; the most you can do is kid yourselves to think you're being perfectly objective in following the letter of your law when in fact some kind of arbitrary bias will inevitably have been baked into the law implicitly. And secondly it opens the door to endless barracks-room lawyering by trolls trying to exploit loopholes in the law.

Certainly. As Universal Rule 13 puts it:

Moderators and administrators will follow the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law. Try to see things from their point of view.

[Marcus]

…posting here isn't a human right, banning someone from here isn't shooting them, and moderators here are not paid. I think that whatever principles get formulated have to be tools for the mods, and not shackles.

Yes.

[Res Ipsa]

Basing bans on some explicit principle is a good idea in that it can help the moderators make tough decisions, in ways with which the great majority of the community will be happy. I think it's important, though, not to try to formulate principles that will relieve the mods of all burden of subjective judgement. First of all that just doesn't work; the most you can do is kid yourselves to think you're being perfectly objective in following the letter of your law when in fact some kind of arbitrary bias will inevitably have been baked into the law implicitly. And secondly it opens the door to endless barracks-room lawyering by trolls trying to exploit loopholes in the law.

Whoever is paying the server fees can ban anyone for no reason at all. And at the end of the day, people get banned because mods decide to ban them—period. People can appeal against moderatorial sanctions in the literal sense of asking mods to reconsider, and mods can reverse their decisions if they choose, but there is no right of appeal in the legal sense. The safeguard against unfair heavy-handedness on the part of the moderators is for them to allow enough leeway that anyone who gets banned will, in the overwhelming consensus of the community, have more than deserved to be banned.

I'm sorry if this doesn't sound very libertarian, but posting here isn't a human right, banning someone from here isn't shooting them, and moderators here are not paid. I think that whatever principles get formulated have to be tools for the mods, and not shackles.

I don't think it's very unlibertarian. When post-modernism tore through law as a field of study, it destroyed forever the notion that an objective rule set can be created that will objectively decide the results of individual cases. I absolutely agree that the last thing mods should do is kid themselves into thinking they aren't making subjective decisions. The best we can do is tether our decisions to some general principles and do our best to exercise the unavoidable subjectivity in a fair manner. To that point, it is much easier for me to moderate someone I like or agree with than to moderate someone I don't like or disagree with. In the latter case, I have to carefully woodshed my thinking to try and reduce personal bias as a factor as much as humanly possible.