THE "CHATBOX"

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest
edgewaters
Member
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 3:49 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by edgewaters »

It seems like personality gets in the way of building ideas. We usually look at ideas from the point of view of trust - and that's the whole problem, not just with disruption but with the fakery itself, with how well it deceived us because we trusted the news not to be a Hollywood movie. An equality of trust (or equality of suspicion) between all sources that evaluates what we're presented, rather than who or what is presenting it ... you call that surrender?

Isn't "no we can't because we're flawed" more like surrender?

As it goes I'm far less disappointed with you than with them, it's a regular circus court they're holding over there. I don't understand why the main idiot keeps asking the same damn questions over and over, and pretending they weren't answered umpteen times already. Maybe you shouldn't play into it anymore? I know that here you wouldn't tolerate such a distraction for more than a few posts, before somebody would be gone.

Admittedly, total anonymity wouldn't allow us to track a pattern, to exercise suspicion properly. But the human way we have of building friendships and trust as well as rivalry and competition - its too easy to exploit both aspects. I don't know the solution, I'm just putting it out there as food for thought.

As far as "bleak and lifeless" ... I do think all things done professionally tend to be a bit bleak and lifeless. Colourful and vibrant experiences, that's what recreation is for.
Last edited by edgewaters on Sun Jul 20, 2014 4:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Seneca
Member
Posts: 511
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:36 pm
Contact:

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Seneca »

What about my simple solution?
Seneca wrote:I have simple a little proposition to avoid baseless accusations, not just for you. Accusing someone is so easy but it does hurt:
"Before you post accusations to a member of the forum, consult with someone who you think is smarter than you."
edgewaters
Member
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 3:49 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by edgewaters »

Seneca wrote:What about my simple solution?
Seneca wrote:I have simple a little proposition to avoid baseless accusations, not just for you. Accusing someone is so easy but it does hurt:
"Before you post accusations to a member of the forum, consult with someone who you think is smarter than you."
That's how we all got deceived in the first place. Looking up to people too much. No thanks. I'll keep my suspicions and mention them, too.
Seneca
Member
Posts: 511
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:36 pm
Contact:

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Seneca »

I am not talking about trusting people. I am just talking about letting someone review your line of thinking and making sure there are no errors. Making sure you are not just biased.
Making sure you read correctly what the guy you want to accuse has written.
I know this is sounds like basic stuff everybody should be able to do on their own. Not so apparently.
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by simonshack »

Seneca wrote:"Before you post accusations to a member of the forum, consult with someone who you think is smarter than you."
(...)
I am not talking about trusting people. I am just talking about letting someone review your line of thinking and making sure there are no errors. Making sure you are not just biased. Making sure you read correctly what the guy you want to accuse has written. I know this sounds like basic stuff everybody should be able to do on their own. Not so apparently.
Seneca, I would say that I agree with you - in principle: that to consult with other people (whom you consider smarter than yourself) is a wise step to undertake before making any accusations inspired by your own brain and line of thinking. However, please consider that it is still our own brains that decide and select those who we reckon to be smarter than ourselves.

Moreover, if we were to apply your principle at a wider / universal scale, I think we'd run into problems - in fact, the very problems this forum is all about, if you really think about it... For instance, who are we to accuse NASA of being a total scam? Shouldn't we first ask smarter / more qualified individuals about it? As it happens, I have done just that on several occasions - but so far, none of the stuff I've been told - by assorted NASA experts that I have duly consulted - have satisfied my brain cells. At the end of the day, we just have to trust our own brains and, if our suspicions eventually turn out to be mistaken, be ready to eat humble pie.
edgewaters
Member
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 3:49 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by edgewaters »

Seneca wrote:I am just talking about letting someone review your line of thinking and making sure there are no errors. Making sure you are not just biased.
That's what discussions do. If two heads are better than one, why not even more heads? Why harbour secret suspicions and whisper them to lone individuals? Who may wrongly relieve justified suspicion, or, conversely, confirm biases and root misguided thinking even more deeply? I don't want anyone to rid me of my uncertainty; it's something everyone should learn to treasure and hang on to, not fear and seek to get rid of.

Out with the truth, into the light of day, for all to see. Secret thoughts, secret suspicions, whispered words and faction-building ... I fart on those practices.
hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5060
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by hoi.polloi »

All of you have a point. All of you are at a point. Different points. Not points on a linear one-way path of "progress" like we are sometimes forced to imagine by the propaganda. But perhaps, like the famous fire metaphor, different points around a source of flame we are watching dancing from our individual perspectives as we sit about it in a ring, trying to figure out whom to trust and whom not to trust.

Let the discussion continue! But let they who trusts and mistrusts others trust and mistrust who they might. I for one have a scale I reluctantly and sparingly use. I prefer edgewaters' prescription of trusting absolutely nobody. But in fact I trust Simon a little more on that obnoxious scale, when I bother to put anyone on it. Still, absolute trust is dangerous for anyone and let's at least acknowledge this has some truth to it, and that doesn't make us "paranoid" people. It also doesn't necessarily mean we are all people. I am one, but not every user on our forum could strictly be described as a real living person using a computer to represent a facet of their true views through a single user name. Some users might be controlled by multiple people. Some groups or even an ambitious person (paid?) may control multiple users.

Yes, it's an annoying discussion but it comes with the territory. I don't believe casting away this fact and ignoring it in favor of an "all-anonymous" system will solve it. But having people on our forum who are in favor of that way won't hurt us too badly, I imagine.
Seneca
Member
Posts: 511
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:36 pm
Contact:

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Seneca »

Thanks for all the great feedback. It was just an idea I put out here I don't have to hang on to.

Simon, off course this is not what I meant by smarter (government experts). And it is not meant as a general rule.
Just consulting with another individual who doesn't automatically agree with you before accusing someone would be enough.

Edgewaters, I don't see why talking in private is the same as secrecy.
If you know each other a bit it avoids being misunderstood. In a group were everybody can participate without really investing in the subject misunderstanding arises more quickly and the discussion can easily get distracted.
If the individual you consult tries to deceive you, you now have evidence for a real accusation. (maybe after you consult with another person ;) )
But I am not against the idea of a room for discussing these things openly so it doesn't harm the real topics that are discussed here. Maybe for members only.
Seneca
Member
Posts: 511
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:36 pm
Contact:

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Seneca »

Maybe I am missing something due to lack of forum experience.
But has fingerpointing and questioning ever succeeded in exposing a real troll? And did he leave without input from the moderators? And didn't come back?
In other words did it accomplish anything ? Besides annoying and disgusting honest people?

If I would suspect someone I wouldn't call him out immediately because then he quickly learns to adapt. I would let him feel safe so he would make mistakes or reveal his purpose. I would undo what he's trying to accomplish, warn some people I trust more, gather real evidence.
But like I said I have little experience.
edgewaters
Member
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 3:49 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by edgewaters »

Seneca wrote:Maybe I am missing something due to lack of forum experience.
But has fingerpointing and questioning ever succeeded in exposing a real troll? And did he leave without input from the moderators? And didn't come back?
In other words did it accomplish anything ? Besides annoying and disgusting honest people?

If I would suspect someone I wouldn't call him out immediately because then he quickly learns to adapt. I would let him feel safe so he would make mistakes or reveal his purpose. I would undo what he's trying to accomplish, warn some people I trust more, gather real evidence.
But like I said I have little experience.

Easier to just challenge and ban ... it's kept the place somewhat sane. I've got no problem with the moderation on this forum - it's a space that belongs to Simon, just like his home, and he doesn't need to justify removing unwanted people from either space.
guivre
Member
Posts: 206
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 9:48 pm
Contact:

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by guivre »

I've always thought of Simon as Editor in Chief. I think that keeps the moderating in perspective.
lux
Member
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by lux »

“We are always paid for our suspicion by finding what we suspect.”
– Henry David Thoreau
Seneca
Member
Posts: 511
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:36 pm
Contact:

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Seneca »

edgewaters wrote: Easier to just challenge and ban ... it's kept the place somewhat sane. I've got no problem with the moderation on this forum - it's a space that belongs to Simon, just like his home, and he doesn't need to justify removing unwanted people from either space.
OK but only moderators can challenge and ban. I was talking about what we members can do.
hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5060
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by hoi.polloi »

Seneca wrote:Maybe I am missing something due to lack of forum experience.
Good guess.
Seneca
Member
Posts: 511
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:36 pm
Contact:

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Seneca »

You mean you did experience someone exposing a troll and driving him out without any moderator involvement?? Then please provide a link to put some more facts into this dicussion.
(and maybe you let me buy the rights to turn the story into a Hollywood movie?)
Post Reply