TQ Open Government

[austintorn@aol.com]

(I am not modding this thread; it's only a stakeholder. The ownership can be changed.)

A la other science forums:

Ask a question in public about the site's operations and hopefully get a response from a mod, owner, or a regular member.

[Graybeard]

Why shouldn't I close this thread .... new buddy ?

greg

[labelwench]

The purpose of this thread remains unclear to me.

Perhaps the thread starter will provide a little more detail and clarification, possibly give an example.

[Graybeard]

To be honest I think Austin would like a more open form of Government.

But should I mod a post I am not going to discuss the reasons why .... in this thread. However I will try to be as transparent as it is posssible to be ... in this thread .... if requested.

Mods decisions a not open to question .... they are made from guidelines that are not available to members.

If you Austin, as the thread owner, feel that this will give you leverage, or right of appeal, or a soapbox to declaim my actions ... then I will delete this thread. But if you have genuine questions, and genuine reasons for challenging ... then I will listen.


Graybeard.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Of course I will be genuine, so that makes the above presumption moot. There's no need for a bad foot to be gotten off on. Plus, there were other moderator-type threads in existence, plus person to parson talk about events, both here and in outside life. Just wanted to give it a new title as per what works elsewhere in t he online world.

Other science forums have this feature and it works fine, for it involves the content providers, who are central the very substance of a site, similar to people being invoked in any kind of open government. No people,no site or government, and, of course, no site or government, then nowhere to put the contents. Each requires the other.

When one asks something here, they are willing to have the answer be public, whether they come out of it well or not. It's just that people like information. For example, I would think it's just fine to say that they are no rules posted since they were lost in a transition and no one has time to post them because their outside of work schedule is so busy that not much else can be done. People know how the world is these days and so they could relate to this, plus they have the information, and maybe some well known rules might be reiterated on the fly. This of course would be better than "They're coming soon", but they don't, for it relates the people to larger problem, if there is one, plus then they know better how to post. I'm just giving an example; I'm not saying that is the problem.

Could be as simple as one asking something general or individual like why they got banned, which I'm not not asking. I don't know what questions they will ask really.

I guess I should be the one to start, so I'll go off and think of mostly easy questions to start it going, but one will stick in one really tough one, too, for balance.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Why shouldn't I close this thread .... new buddy ?

greg

The positive converse would be what is it useful for.

(That's not my first question)

[austintorn@aol.com]

#1.

If rules were posted, then they'd be right there as spoken in black and white for all and any anyone to abide by. It's not like the rules wouldn't be standard for all posters. That's all. What is below is just beyond the initial rules thing.

So, easy, on that one above. For threads, though, there could be some specialized ones, of course, as there are, for just talk, like the Public Square, as we know, plus other specializations, but I'm not getting into that now, but I'd say that a no-hold-bared-thread wouldn't serve much purpose other than getting people used to being bad.

The rules update part would add any new innovations like 'science" threads, for which posters should provide full proof, if possible, or at least heavy proof, if full is not possible, going on to heavy reasoning or philosophys and so on if the idea is too new for heavy proof or low proof.

Conversely, the burden of proof is less for alternative threads although not zero (just as no full science proof may not be always possible in 'science' threads.

OK, the basic behavior rules are easy, even in preliminary form, like no insulting and no preaching, and more, and the other parts above may take more refining but those parts are an opening for mods, actually, to go even further and state things about the manner of conduct in those marked 'science' or 'alternative' threads, so you see, this thread works both ways. It's neither a free ride for the content providers not for the content site. It can only grow from its current stagnation if both sides are involved.

[austintorn@aol.com]

#2 A mod modding a thread in which s/he is a poster involved in what has to be modded is an ambiguity since it is not clear which side of the duo self is the regular member and which is the mod person part, and is further a conflict of interest due to the mod/member's involvement in the heart of the matter.

OK, that's easy… to moderate, if we include the pun.

[austintorn@aol.com]

#3 OK, let me wrap it up for now.

Here's the very tough one that I've kept in the dark for so long…

(It's not about my old new old new buddy Graybeard, so he can relax, or Drifter, and it's not about anyone who ever done me wrong at all. It's about fairness)

I've observed over quite a while that a certain member in the regular threads section can totally and severely insult anyone in that one certain thread and only in that one certain one thread, but that is still a heck of a lot, although I could be slightly wrong about the past in that then there could have been more than one thread, but I am speaking of not that past part, even it if would extend the case, which it surely would. This is not a personal issue, as s/he does not insult me at all! Although I would think that it is also fine for others to put that here if they are among the insulted.

OK, the main problem: I further note that the many insults to even many people are of the high level that would seem to get anyone else banned for life instantly! Really, not a one time happening.

Do I have anything wrong with this picture? Do not the same rules apply to all? If not, how do I apply for exception? (Just kidding, but still…)

And now, I mean this in a completely honest way: this open government thread would be for all out honest answers and questions—and so in that vein I can say that both sides may know more beyond just the mere at large observing of the situation, such as even freely given in public or off-site or in another science forum. We just have to wait for how open or not this thread turns out to be on both sides, giving it a chance to form and find its way.

Frankly, the opening responses to this thread already seemed very negative, about hidden guidelines and all, plus the 'closing' remarks. Really, pause and look at SciForums, for example, out there in the other online science worlds, for what works. Should I say that dictatorships are on the way out?

[Graybeard]

#2 A mod modding a thread in which s/he is a poster involved in what has to be modded is an ambiguity since it is not clear which side of the duo self is the regular member and which is the mod person part, and is further a conflict of interest due to the mod/member's involvement in the heart of the matter.

OK, that's easy… to moderate, if we include the pun.

Is this the hard one ??

OK ... I mod only if either of two 'rules' are broken.

Is the person causing antagonism in the thread ... regardless of whether the person is right or wrong. ?

Yes .... issue a warning !

Does the person continue ?

No ... no further action required.

Yes ... issue an infraction

Does the person continue ?

No ... no further action required.

Yes ... Tell the person that a banning is imminent .... give the person time to pack there clothes and depart gracefully ..... lol

The other rule:

There is a difference between Graybeard and greg ..... this has to be otherwise I could never post at all.

When I sign Graybeard I do not wish to be called out on my judgement ... this lowers respect for all mods and makes it even more difficult. This will get you banned unless you desist instantly once warned.

For the rest everyone is free to say what they like.


However ... in the interests of democracy I will try to be accountable for all my actions and I will repond to this thread if called .. its in the public forum and so not visible to the public.


Please note that I do not like being a bad policeman .... but it is almost impossible to avoid. Rascal gave me a great boost the other day when he said that

Greg - our esteemed Australian moderator - among the few people I know of who has the distinguished ability to be argumentive, while remaining amicable.

Its nice to receive something other than negative feedback.

Graybeard