Reviving the Board

[Marcus]

Be careful what you wish for.

Although Res Ipsa's idea is perfectly reasonable and would, in a perfect world, be easily implemented, it's been tried before. For example, once upon a time I asked for a "jubilee" wherein MG 2.0's previous sins be forgiven and his arguments be judged on their own merits and he not be knee-jerk attacked simply because it's him. I was mercilessly raked over the coals for this off-and-on for years to come (cue the vehement disagreement / gaslighting in 3, 2, 1. . .).

That instance aside, let's think of the ramifications of Res's idea should it be actually implemented. I'm personally all for it (aside from the nightmarish amount of work it would generate for our beleaguered moderators), BUT: Is the community here really prepared to, say, respond to the substance of Ajax18's points without calling him a racist? Does everyone have the self-discipline to deal with the meat of MG 2.0's assertions without calling him a deluded idiot? Can everyone calmly and coolly refute binger's statements without calling him any names whatsoever, even if he does so first? (Before you state that doing those things isn't the same as questioning motives, I counter by saying that doing those things is assigning motives, thus putting them into the same genus, if not the same species.) 'Cause the latter options seem to be everyone's favorite sport and, I suspect, a significant reason why people keep coming back for more.

If you choose to respond to this post, please answer or address my three questions in bold, above.

since you missed entirely and completely what the suggestion was, no, this reader won't.

yes. it's a lazy way out.

Speaking of lazy ways out, will you please capitalize the first words of your sentences from now on?

no.

[Gadianton]

I thought on the derail issue, that a main factor is the OP author's wishes. Sometimes derails and tangents end up as interesting developments, or there might be some subjectivity in what is a tangent.

On the conservative beliefs thread that Alph brought up, I disagree that Ajax's response was a derail. It was a terrible argument and lots of extraneous vent-fest, but he was trying to make a point about how beliefs and actions go together and so I think it contributed. I just responded.

On the other hand, DT's trans derail I have reported, and I hope the moderators will split those posts off elsewhere. But had I not cared about that derail, or other participants heavily participating not cared (which there isn't currently heavy participation), then letting a thread turn into something else isn't necessarily bad.

[ceeboo]

In my opinion, over the entire span of time I have been participating on this board (many years), derails have been happening in almost every thread, with very few exceptions. While the motives for derailing vary from person to person (insult, humor, banter, attack, deflection, anger, intentional, unintentional, etc.) it is simply how most discussions evolve on these boards. Often times a discussion takes a turn, they alter course, the focus changes. I don't think this is always and/or necessarily a bad thing. As a matter of fact, sometimes a derail can take a dud thread and turn it into a very thought provoking and interesting discussion - taking off from a single derail.

Yeah, trying to control and/or stop derails will, no doubt, at the very least result in the perception that some posters are treated differently than other posters. I think we have way too much of that already (true or perceived) and we certainly do not need more.

[Res Ipsa]

Be careful what you wish for.

Although Res Ipsa's idea is perfectly reasonable and would, in a perfect world, be easily implemented, it's been tried before. For example, once upon a time I asked for a "jubilee" wherein MG 2.0's previous sins be forgiven and his arguments be judged on their own merits and he not be knee-jerk attacked simply because it's him. I was mercilessly raked over the coals for this off-and-on for years to come (cue the vehement disagreement / gaslighting in 3, 2, 1. . .).

That instance aside, let's think of the ramifications of Res's idea should it be actually implemented. I'm personally all for it (aside from the nightmarish amount of work it would generate for our beleaguered moderators), BUT: Is the community here really prepared to, say, respond to the substance of Ajax18's points without calling him a racist? Does everyone have the self-discipline to deal with the meat of MG 2.0's assertions without calling him a deluded idiot? Can everyone calmly and coolly refute binger's statements without calling him any names whatsoever, even if he does so first? (Before you state that doing those things isn't the same as questioning motives, I counter by saying that doing those things is assigning motives, thus putting them into the same genus, if not the same species.) 'Cause the latter options seem to be everyone's favorite sport and, I suspect, a significant reason why people keep coming back for more.

If you choose to respond to this post, please answer or address my three questions in bold, above.

yes. it's a lazy way out.

Speaking of lazy ways out, will you please capitalize the first words of your sentences from now on?

Hi boss, your quick response caught me flat footed. Before answering your questions, I want to apologize. When I posted about getting my wish, I was trying to make a point by example. In my opinion, when most talk about the quality of the board, what they propose is weaponizing the rules to gain some advantage against their perceived enemies. It turns the rules and they way they are enforced into a zero-sum game, with lots of people trying to game the system or work the refs to reward themselves and their friends at the expense of their enemies.

That was what I had seen so far in this thread, and I've seen it in dozens of threads over the years. I had intended my post to show that the rules don't have to be a zero-sum game -- they can be used to increase the ability of folks to talk about whatever is on their minds without doing so at the expense of the the ability of others to do the same. My hope was that it would spur discussions about ways the board could change, whether through rules, enforcement, or individual behavior, in ways that could make the free speech pie bigger rather than fighting over who got to eat the existing slices.

What you and I other moderators know is that I have made lots of suggestions about the rules and how we interpret and apply them. They range from "I really think this would help" to "maybe this is worth talking about." And I do it by starting either with a DM to you or a post in the mod forum. There may be some discussion or not. And then, as board owner, you decide what we're going to do, including whether to take a more significant change to the board for discussion and a poll.

And I'm perfectly happy with that set up. I get to say my piece. You always give what I have to say fair consideration. And you always explain your reasoning. And, as a bonus, you are unfailingly considerate and polite.

Rereading my post, I fear that I've implied that that you are denying me my strongest wish for the board. You aren't. I think you and I may have discussed this aspect of the derail rule way back when I was a baby moderator. But if I've proposed it before in my normal way, I don't remember it.

So, I'm sorry. I should have given what I suggested some more thought and then proposed it in the mod forum per my usual practice and found a different way to make the public point I wanted to make.

Having rung a bell that I can't unring, what I would suggest is an experiment with the change: a set period where we treat shifts from substance to motive as derails under UR 4. I'm thinking along the lines of the Great Moderator Experiment.

On the topic of the MG 2 jubilee, I wasn't a moderator or actively posting on the board when that happened, so my perspective is all with 20-20 hindsight. One of the things about the board culture that I have always found jarring is the length of time that people carry grudges. Not everyone, of course, but enough so that it was noticeable to me when I first started reading posts here. Given the religious focus of the board, I think the concept of jubilee is fitting and would make the board a more inviting place for people to speak their minds. But I think you're really swimming against a strong current on this one. I think carrying grudges is too deeply embedded in long-standing board culture. Perhaps even culture that existed before this board did.

On the amount of work, I think any change will temporarily increase the workload for the mod team as the board members adjust to the changes. There will undoubtedly be an uptick in limits testing, as people try to figure out how close to the line between thread and meta thread they can get without having their posts moved.

Speaking only for myself, I am happily willing to spend lots of my time doing moderation tasks that are focused on improving the board. Conversely, I have little patience for spending hours of time on folks who go out of their way to make our jobs more difficult based on personal animus toward me, you, the other mods, or other members of the board. I think my suggestion is at least worth exploring and I'll happily put in whatever additional time is needed. And that's true even if Xeno and cp don't have the capacity to put in the extra time. If it gets to be a nightmare, I'll wave the white flag, acknowledge the experiment was a failure, and go back to business as usual.

I do want to clarify that I'm not suggesting any new limits on speech. People who want to call Ajax a racist or MG 2.0 a deluded idiot or the moderators a progressive cabal can still do so. However, if they do it in a substantive thread, it will be split into a new meta thread, just as we do with other derails. The substantive discussion can continue in the original thread and discussions of motive, personality, etc. can continue in the meta thread. I'm also not suggesting that we disallow meta OPs. If people want to have a go at each based on their self-imagined ability to read minds, I'm all for it. The intent is to allow people who wish to discuss and exchange ideas without the disruption of interpersonal pie fights to have space to do that.

Also, I agree 100% with your comment about questioning motives and assigning motives. There will have to be some trial and error by the mod team until we find lines we're comfortable with enforcing. For example, there is a world of difference between making a sincere attempt to understand someone's motives "I don't understand. Why do you say that?" and "You only say that because you're a brainless MAGAT." I don't think we want to discourage people from trying to understand other's points of view. If that turns out to be an impossible line to maintain, then I'd favor returning to the status quo.

So, my answer to your three questions is "yes." As we're talking about my suggestion, I have pretty good incentive to make it work.

Whatever you decide, our usual deal is in my place. It's no skin off my nose and on we go.

[Res Ipsa]

Good points. On my end, increased work is fine if it works as intended. Of course, the law of unintended consequences we always be lurking in the shadows. If it doesn’t work, it would be easy to revert.

While I like the idea that trying to distract from a post topic via a "questioning motives" post should not be permitted, I think it is absolutely the case that our right-wing posters frequently get away with off-topic replies as well. Far too often, their posts to others' threads are irrelevant emissions about Hunter Biden, transgender people, Covid-19, or feminists.

They are not actually interested in discussing these topics either. They just want to state their feelings about them because they don't know how to respond to the original topic.

A good example would be the recent thread on conservative belief in demonstrable falsehoods by Gadianton. Instead of actually answering the topic with real academic research, the far-right trolls just emoted about covid, trans people, and Kamala Harris.

As I said, they add nothing but strife. They are incapable of addressing things said by posters they hate. This is supposed to be a discussion board, not a place for people to showcase their psychoses.

My suggestion has nothing to do with "left wing" or "right wing." It has to do with the dynamics of human interaction and wholly human attributes that sabotage attempts at substantive discussion.

[Res Ipsa]

I thought on the derail issue, that a main factor is the OP author's wishes. Sometimes derails and tangents end up as interesting developments, or there might be some subjectivity in what is a tangent.

On the conservative beliefs thread that Alph brought up, I disagree that Ajax's response was a derail. It was a terrible argument and lots of extraneous vent-fest, but he was trying to make a point about how beliefs and actions go together and so I think it contributed. I just responded.

On the other hand, DT's trans derail I have reported, and I hope the moderators will split those posts off elsewhere. But had I not cared about that derail, or other participants heavily participating not cared (which there isn't currently heavy participation), then letting a thread turn into something else isn't necessarily bad.

I think we should continue that practice. The mod team would continue to take its cue from both the opening post and subsequent postings by the thread starter when it comes to the scope of the thread. Under our current application of UR 4, the motives of the thread starter, as well as those of every other poster, cannot be derails, regardless of the wishes of the thread starter. The change I'm suggesting would only remove that unwritten application.

Your example is a good one of current moderator practice. Had you reported Ajax's post as a derail, I'd have examined it from that perspective. Because you responded, I didn't spend any time thinking about UR 4. When I got your report of the trans post, I agreed that was a derail under UR 4 and split it off into its own thread. While giving thread starters 100% control over whether each post is on or off topic is an invitation to 100% biased moderation based on personal animus, following the thread starter's lead in defining the scope of a topic, using our independent judgment mainly to keep the scope consistent, has turned out to be effective and fairly easy to implement. I'm a fan.

Under the change, and using your thread as an example, if a person responded to the OP by attacking your motives for making the post, and you chose to explain or defend your motives, then I'd say that you as thread starter have included your motives as "on topic" for your thread. If, instead, you reported the post, we'd split it off into a thread titled something like "From XXXXX (meta)" The net result should be to give the thread starter a little more control over the scope of the thread than they have now.

[Res Ipsa]

In my opinion, over the entire span of time I have been participating on this board (many years), derails have been happening in almost every thread, with very few exceptions. While the motives for derailing vary from person to person (insult, humor, banter, attack, deflection, anger, intentional, unintentional, etc.) it is simply how most discussions evolve on these boards. Often times a discussion takes a turn, they alter course, the focus changes. I don't think this is always and/or necessarily a bad thing. As a matter of fact, sometimes a derail can take a dud thread and turn it into a very thought provoking and interesting discussion - taking off from a single derail.

Yeah, trying to control and/or stop derails will, no doubt, at the very least result in the perception that some posters are treated differently than other posters. I think we have way too much of that already (true or perceived) and we certainly do not need more.

We have a rule that says "thou shalt not derail," but no definition of derail. Even if we had a detailed definition of "derail," individuals on the board would have wildly divergent opinions on how the detailed definition applied to an individual post. beyond that, no matter how detailed the definition is made, there will always be individuals who will study the detailed rule to find unclear language or loopholes to exploit in order to derail threads based on highly technical arguments. And, perversely, the more detailed the definition gets, the more loopholes there are to exploit.

It's a "wicked problem" that is a feature of the nature of language. No one has ever solved it and no one ever will.

So, with respect to derails, we try to adopt a methodology that arrives at sensible results that don't discriminate based on the subject matter of the post or the identity of the poster. Note the "try." While I fully admit that cannot possibly make everyone happy, we do try to respond to suggestions to help us do a better job, including avoiding favoritism based on race, religion, political views, etc.

So, one thing we do is adjust the strictness of enforcement based on the kingdoms. For topics in Celestial or SSP, we interpret "derail" broadly -- the effect is fairly close to a strict "on topic" requirement. In Terrestial and Paradise, we interpret derail more narrowly. We recognize that conversations have a natural meander to them and we don't want to interrupt that. For example, if Don Bradley drops in and posts in a thread, we understand that people will want to greet him and don't start moving all the "Hi Don. Nice to see you in these parts" posts into a new thread.

Likewise, we want to leave room for humorous or ironic interjections into discussions, which are elements of in real life conversations.

I'm not sure that the team is on the same page when it comes to Prison/Telestial. In a forum where personal attacks are completely legal, I'm not personally convinced that trying to enforce derail rules in those two highly adversarial kingdoms makes much sense. Maybe that's worth a mod forum conclave.

In other words, we know that some board members want the ability to have focussed discussions, while others prefer more meandering discussions, much like most real life discussions. The different enforcement in the different kingdoms allows people flexibility in the style they want.

Another thing we do is to give the person who starts a thread some discretion over its scope. In the first instance, we look at the title chosen by the thread starter and the content of the OP. As the thread progresses, we pay attention to how the thread starter has responded to posts in the thread. An unwritten part of the derail rule is that the thread starter can't "derail" their own thread. Whatever the thread starter posts in later posts expands the scope of the thread to include topics the thread starter has addressed. However, to prevent personal animus related gamesmanship, it doesn't work the other way around. Once the thread starter has broadened the topic by posting on it, they can't narrow the topic by excluding something they included before. This wasn't a practice I invented or introduced here. It was new to me, and I find that it works quite well in preserving the natural meander in conversations, especially in the middle kingdoms.

Yet another thing we try to do is differentiate between potential derails and actual derails. Often a participant in thread will interject something that isn't on topic but potentially could change the topic. If no one reacts to the interjection, then we're inclined to leave the thread alone because the post hasn't actually derailed the conversation. So, rather than intervene on our own whenever we see a comment that could be considered a derail, we wait to see if it actually results in derailing the substantive conversation.

Finally, we don't "actively patrol" in the middle kingdoms as much as we do in the upper kingdoms. By "actively patrol" I mean being on the lookout for rule violations and addressing them as we see them. Personally, with few exceptions, I don't address rules issues if no one clicks on the report button. There are are significant exceptions: posting the contents of DMs, doxxing, personal attacks on family members, obvious personal attacks. With derails in the middle kingdoms, if thread participants seem happy with the twists and turns of the thread, I am too. In Celestial, I'm more likely to intervene with posts that are clearly off topic, even if I haven't received a report. The major exception to that is when we see members repeatedly engaging in clear derails in multiple threads.

So, what is phrased as a simple rule is applied as a balancing act.

Now, there is one big weakness in the whole approach that you've probably already spotted. If board members are not willing to engage in good-faith use of the reporting function, the moderation will appear to be skewed even if we applied the rules in a completely consistent and neutral fashion. Here's what I mean. Imagine two posters, A and B. They are at the extreme opposite ends of the political spectrum, and one is an obnoxious vocal atheist and the other is an evangelistic, true believing LDS adherent. And they each think that each other is scum of the earth.

Now, assume that they each derail each others threads at the same rate. However, A is anti-authority to the point that they consider snitching to the mod panel unethical. B, on the other hand, flyspecks A's posts and reports every post that could possibly be considered a derail.

If I rely on folks to make a good faith effort in using the reporting function to address possible derails, whose posts get moved the most? A's. And by a long ways. And it has nothing to do with bias or prejudice by moderators.

This effect will be even more pronounced if A and B decide to game the system. A may decide to flood the mod team with frivolous reports of Bs posts. When the unbiased mod team correctly declines to take action on them, A can then incessantly complain about biased moderators and use that claim as a justification for not using the report process. B may do exactly the same thing, and also complain about biased moderators and start resorting to self help. So, there can be an enormous gap between perception and reality when it comes to bias.

Addressing the elephant in the room (pun intentional), both Atlanticmike and Binger have gamed the moderation system in ways that I have described. The perception of moderator political/religious bias that they have actively worked to create based on political or religious affiliation is false, and they both know it.

I'll confess to having old man brain, Ceeboo, but can you give me examples of moderator action or inaction with respect to your own posts that you think was politically or religiously biased?

I don't know if you were actively reading or posting when Atlanticmike and Binger first arrived -- before the current mod panel was appointed. You can't really get the flavor of it now, as Binger has deleted hundreds and hundreds of his past posts. But that shows what the board would look like if we had no derail enforcement at all. Binger simply derailed thread after thread after thread, showing no consideration or respect for the topic of the thread. And the fact majority of those derails were to insult, harass, and antagonize people on the board he didn't like. It was everything you legitimately don't like about the board today turned up to 11.

If we had a board full of people who were committed to Libertarian values, I'd be out of a job and that would be just ducky. What some folks can't seem to understand is that a Libertarian values others' free speech as much as their own. Using speech to repress or disrupt others speech is anti-Libertarian. So, people being people, moderators here are a necessary evil. Recognizing that, I do try to keep the level of evil as low as I can...

[canpakes]

Are you that uneducated that you don't realise that what you put in the post above is the exact reason why the board is struggling and no one posts anymore? You are moaning about "our right wing posters" talking about covid, trans, Kamala, and Hunter Biden, but I can almost bet that you probably don't complain about the everyday posting about Peterson and Trump or about how the lunatic leftists here post about how stupid Republicans are. You are the same as Moksha in every respect. You come here so that you can get your daily fix of progressive heroine, but unfortunately, there is no treatment available for the ailments that are caused by being progressive.

Board traffic isn’t ‘down’ and, indeed, you decided to become active under this username with the conditions as they are.

Your argument doesn’t seem to be a strong one.

By the way, who is this progressive heroine that you speak of? Does she wear a fancy costume, or carry a truth lasso?

[ceeboo]

In my opinion, over the entire span of time I have been participating on this board (many years), derails have been happening in almost every thread, with very few exceptions. While the motives for derailing vary from person to person (insult, humor, banter, attack, deflection, anger, intentional, unintentional, etc.) it is simply how most discussions evolve on these boards. Often times a discussion takes a turn, they alter course, the focus changes. I don't think this is always and/or necessarily a bad thing. As a matter of fact, sometimes a derail can take a dud thread and turn it into a very thought provoking and interesting discussion - taking off from a single derail.

Yeah, trying to control and/or stop derails will, no doubt, at the very least result in the perception that some posters are treated differently than other posters. I think we have way too much of that already (true or perceived) and we certainly do not need more.

We have a rule that says "thou shalt not derail," but no definition of derail. Even if we had a detailed definition of "derail," individuals on the board would have wildly divergent opinions on how the detailed definition applied to an individual post. beyond that, no matter how detailed the definition is made, there will always be individuals who will study the detailed rule to find unclear language or loopholes to exploit in order to derail threads based on highly technical arguments. And, perversely, the more detailed the definition gets, the more loopholes there are to exploit.

It's a "wicked problem" that is a feature of the nature of language. No one has ever solved it and no one ever will.

So, with respect to derails, we try to adopt a methodology that arrives at sensible results that don't discriminate based on the subject matter of the post or the identity of the poster. Note the "try." While I fully admit that cannot possibly make everyone happy, we do try to respond to suggestions to help us do a better job, including avoiding favoritism based on race, religion, political views, etc.

So, one thing we do is adjust the strictness of enforcement based on the kingdoms. For topics in Celestial or SSP, we interpret "derail" broadly -- the effect is fairly close to a strict "on topic" requirement. In Terrestial and Paradise, we interpret derail more narrowly. We recognize that conversations have a natural meander to them and we don't want to interrupt that. For example, if Don Bradley drops in and posts in a thread, we understand that people will want to greet him and don't start moving all the "Hi Don. Nice to see you in these parts" posts into a new thread.

Likewise, we want to leave room for humorous or ironic interjections into discussions, which are elements of in real life conversations.

I'm not sure that the team is on the same page when it comes to Prison/Telestial. In a forum where personal attacks are completely legal, I'm not personally convinced that trying to enforce derail rules in those two highly adversarial kingdoms makes much sense. Maybe that's worth a mod forum conclave.

In other words, we know that some board members want the ability to have focussed discussions, while others prefer more meandering discussions, much like most real life discussions. The different enforcement in the different kingdoms allows people flexibility in the style they want.

Another thing we do is to give the person who starts a thread some discretion over its scope. In the first instance, we look at the title chosen by the thread starter and the content of the OP. As the thread progresses, we pay attention to how the thread starter has responded to posts in the thread. An unwritten part of the derail rule is that the thread starter can't "derail" their own thread. Whatever the thread starter posts in later posts expands the scope of the thread to include topics the thread starter has addressed. However, to prevent personal animus related gamesmanship, it doesn't work the other way around. Once the thread starter has broadened the topic by posting on it, they can't narrow the topic by excluding something they included before. This wasn't a practice I invented or introduced here. It was new to me, and I find that it works quite well in preserving the natural meander in conversations, especially in the middle kingdoms.

Yet another thing we try to do is differentiate between potential derails and actual derails. Often a participant in thread will interject something that isn't on topic but potentially could change the topic. If no one reacts to the interjection, then we're inclined to leave the thread alone because the post hasn't actually derailed the conversation. So, rather than intervene on our own whenever we see a comment that could be considered a derail, we wait to see if it actually results in derailing the substantive conversation.

Finally, we don't "actively patrol" in the middle kingdoms as much as we do in the upper kingdoms. By "actively patrol" I mean being on the lookout for rule violations and addressing them as we see them. Personally, with few exceptions, I don't address rules issues if no one clicks on the report button. There are are significant exceptions: posting the contents of DMs, doxxing, personal attacks on family members, obvious personal attacks. With derails in the middle kingdoms, if thread participants seem happy with the twists and turns of the thread, I am too. In Celestial, I'm more likely to intervene with posts that are clearly off topic, even if I haven't received a report. The major exception to that is when we see members repeatedly engaging in clear derails in multiple threads.

So, what is phrased as a simple rule is applied as a balancing act.

Now, there is one big weakness in the whole approach that you've probably already spotted. If board members are not willing to engage in good-faith use of the reporting function, the moderation will appear to be skewed even if we applied the rules in a completely consistent and neutral fashion. Here's what I mean. Imagine two posters, A and B. They are at the extreme opposite ends of the political spectrum, and one is an obnoxious vocal atheist and the other is an evangelistic, true believing LDS adherent. And they each think that each other is scum of the earth.

Now, assume that they each derail each others threads at the same rate. However, A is anti-authority to the point that they consider snitching to the mod panel unethical. B, on the other hand, flyspecks A's posts and reports every post that could possibly be considered a derail.

If I rely on folks to make a good faith effort in using the reporting function to address possible derails, whose posts get moved the most? A's. And by a long ways. And it has nothing to do with bias or prejudice by moderators.

This effect will be even more pronounced if A and B decide to game the system. A may decide to flood the mod team with frivolous reports of Bs posts. When the unbiased mod team correctly declines to take action on them, A can then incessantly complain about biased moderators and use that claim as a justification for not using the report process. B may do exactly the same thing, and also complain about biased moderators and start resorting to self help. So, there can be an enormous gap between perception and reality when it comes to bias.

Addressing the elephant in the room (pun intentional), both Atlanticmike and Binger have gamed the moderation system in ways that I have described. The perception of moderator political/religious bias that they have actively worked to create based on political or religious affiliation is false, and they both know it.

I'll confess to having old man brain, Ceeboo, but can you give me examples of moderator action or inaction with respect to your own posts that you think was politically or religiously biased?

I don't know if you were actively reading or posting when Atlanticmike and Binger first arrived -- before the current mod panel was appointed. You can't really get the flavor of it now, as Binger has deleted hundreds and hundreds of his past posts. But that shows what the board would look like if we had no derail enforcement at all. Binger simply derailed thread after thread after thread, showing no consideration or respect for the topic of the thread. And the fact majority of those derails were to insult, harass, and antagonize people on the board he didn't like. It was everything you legitimately don't like about the board today turned up to 11.

If we had a board full of people who were committed to Libertarian values, I'd be out of a job and that would be just ducky. What some folks can't seem to understand is that a Libertarian values others' free speech as much as their own. Using speech to repress or disrupt others speech is anti-Libertarian. So, people being people, moderators here are a necessary evil. Recognizing that, I do try to keep the level of evil as low as I can...

Res, rather than trying to respond to your lengthy post, I want to offer something that I think is far more important than a direct response.

The time and energy that you have expended in this reply, as well as previous replies to others - and the time taken to answer board questions - and the time taken to handle posts that have been reported - and the time taken to read through threads where there is an objection - and the time taken to huddle with shades/mods to make decisions - and the time taken to read and consider the concerns of many - and the time you take thinking of ways to improve the board - and the time taken to share these ideas on the board - all without ever complaining about your time taken. . . Is fantastically underappreciated and enormously generous of you. So, as someone who would never do the things that you do, I just want to say thanks!

[Res Ipsa]

We have a rule that says "thou shalt not derail," but no definition of derail. Even if we had a detailed definition of "derail," individuals on the board would have wildly divergent opinions on how the detailed definition applied to an individual post. beyond that, no matter how detailed the definition is made, there will always be individuals who will study the detailed rule to find unclear language or loopholes to exploit in order to derail threads based on highly technical arguments. And, perversely, the more detailed the definition gets, the more loopholes there are to exploit.

It's a "wicked problem" that is a feature of the nature of language. No one has ever solved it and no one ever will.

So, with respect to derails, we try to adopt a methodology that arrives at sensible results that don't discriminate based on the subject matter of the post or the identity of the poster. Note the "try." While I fully admit that cannot possibly make everyone happy, we do try to respond to suggestions to help us do a better job, including avoiding favoritism based on race, religion, political views, etc.

So, one thing we do is adjust the strictness of enforcement based on the kingdoms. For topics in Celestial or SSP, we interpret "derail" broadly -- the effect is fairly close to a strict "on topic" requirement. In Terrestial and Paradise, we interpret derail more narrowly. We recognize that conversations have a natural meander to them and we don't want to interrupt that. For example, if Don Bradley drops in and posts in a thread, we understand that people will want to greet him and don't start moving all the "Hi Don. Nice to see you in these parts" posts into a new thread.

Likewise, we want to leave room for humorous or ironic interjections into discussions, which are elements of in real life conversations.

I'm not sure that the team is on the same page when it comes to Prison/Telestial. In a forum where personal attacks are completely legal, I'm not personally convinced that trying to enforce derail rules in those two highly adversarial kingdoms makes much sense. Maybe that's worth a mod forum conclave.

In other words, we know that some board members want the ability to have focussed discussions, while others prefer more meandering discussions, much like most real life discussions. The different enforcement in the different kingdoms allows people flexibility in the style they want.

Another thing we do is to give the person who starts a thread some discretion over its scope. In the first instance, we look at the title chosen by the thread starter and the content of the OP. As the thread progresses, we pay attention to how the thread starter has responded to posts in the thread. An unwritten part of the derail rule is that the thread starter can't "derail" their own thread. Whatever the thread starter posts in later posts expands the scope of the thread to include topics the thread starter has addressed. However, to prevent personal animus related gamesmanship, it doesn't work the other way around. Once the thread starter has broadened the topic by posting on it, they can't narrow the topic by excluding something they included before. This wasn't a practice I invented or introduced here. It was new to me, and I find that it works quite well in preserving the natural meander in conversations, especially in the middle kingdoms.

Yet another thing we try to do is differentiate between potential derails and actual derails. Often a participant in thread will interject something that isn't on topic but potentially could change the topic. If no one reacts to the interjection, then we're inclined to leave the thread alone because the post hasn't actually derailed the conversation. So, rather than intervene on our own whenever we see a comment that could be considered a derail, we wait to see if it actually results in derailing the substantive conversation.

Finally, we don't "actively patrol" in the middle kingdoms as much as we do in the upper kingdoms. By "actively patrol" I mean being on the lookout for rule violations and addressing them as we see them. Personally, with few exceptions, I don't address rules issues if no one clicks on the report button. There are are significant exceptions: posting the contents of DMs, doxxing, personal attacks on family members, obvious personal attacks. With derails in the middle kingdoms, if thread participants seem happy with the twists and turns of the thread, I am too. In Celestial, I'm more likely to intervene with posts that are clearly off topic, even if I haven't received a report. The major exception to that is when we see members repeatedly engaging in clear derails in multiple threads.

So, what is phrased as a simple rule is applied as a balancing act.

Now, there is one big weakness in the whole approach that you've probably already spotted. If board members are not willing to engage in good-faith use of the reporting function, the moderation will appear to be skewed even if we applied the rules in a completely consistent and neutral fashion. Here's what I mean. Imagine two posters, A and B. They are at the extreme opposite ends of the political spectrum, and one is an obnoxious vocal atheist and the other is an evangelistic, true believing LDS adherent. And they each think that each other is scum of the earth.

Now, assume that they each derail each others threads at the same rate. However, A is anti-authority to the point that they consider snitching to the mod panel unethical. B, on the other hand, flyspecks A's posts and reports every post that could possibly be considered a derail.

If I rely on folks to make a good faith effort in using the reporting function to address possible derails, whose posts get moved the most? A's. And by a long ways. And it has nothing to do with bias or prejudice by moderators.

This effect will be even more pronounced if A and B decide to game the system. A may decide to flood the mod team with frivolous reports of Bs posts. When the unbiased mod team correctly declines to take action on them, A can then incessantly complain about biased moderators and use that claim as a justification for not using the report process. B may do exactly the same thing, and also complain about biased moderators and start resorting to self help. So, there can be an enormous gap between perception and reality when it comes to bias.

Addressing the elephant in the room (pun intentional), both Atlanticmike and Binger have gamed the moderation system in ways that I have described. The perception of moderator political/religious bias that they have actively worked to create based on political or religious affiliation is false, and they both know it.

I'll confess to having old man brain, Ceeboo, but can you give me examples of moderator action or inaction with respect to your own posts that you think was politically or religiously biased?

I don't know if you were actively reading or posting when Atlanticmike and Binger first arrived -- before the current mod panel was appointed. You can't really get the flavor of it now, as Binger has deleted hundreds and hundreds of his past posts. But that shows what the board would look like if we had no derail enforcement at all. Binger simply derailed thread after thread after thread, showing no consideration or respect for the topic of the thread. And the fact majority of those derails were to insult, harass, and antagonize people on the board he didn't like. It was everything you legitimately don't like about the board today turned up to 11.

If we had a board full of people who were committed to Libertarian values, I'd be out of a job and that would be just ducky. What some folks can't seem to understand is that a Libertarian values others' free speech as much as their own. Using speech to repress or disrupt others speech is anti-Libertarian. So, people being people, moderators here are a necessary evil. Recognizing that, I do try to keep the level of evil as low as I can...

Res, rather than trying to respond to your lengthy post, I want to offer something that I think is far more important than a direct response.

The time and energy that you have expended in this reply, as well as previous replies to others - and the time taken to answer board questions - and the time taken to handle posts that have been reported - and the time taken to read through threads where there is an objection - and the time taken to huddle with shades/mods to make decisions - and the time taken to read and consider the concerns of many - and the time you take thinking of ways to improve the board - and the time taken to share these ideas on the board - all without ever complaining about your time taken . . . Is fantastically underappreciated and enormously generous of you. So, as someone who would never do the things that you do, I just want to say thanks!

I appreciate the attaboy. There's absolutely all kinds of debatable propositions in what I wrote. I think my description of how we approach the issues of derails is pretty accurate. The rest is a combination of what I've observed and how I think about it. If there is a magic bullet for the kinds of interpersonal problems we experience here, I've never been able to find it.