Enneagram Type 4 Board Archive

Since we are talking, let's make it all clear. [ Boards: Main, Type4, Movie, Care, Chat ][ Top 10 ] [ HOME ]

Since we are talking, let's make it all clear.

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Type 4 Message Board ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Mikko on April 04, 2002 at 07:48:34:

In Reply to: About Moderation posted by Amanda :) on April 04, 2002 at 00:38:10:

[Read Amanda's good intro to this in the previous message first, I deleted it to save space]

: In light of all this, I'd like to comment on a few aspects of Mikko's email:

--Me too. First of all, it wasn't *my* email, technically. Emily forwarded Tiggy's email to me to ask my opinion about it. (Because as the board advisor, I answer to people who have problems with moderators) I replied to Emily with about the situation. Emily emailed Tiggy, I don't know if she included an explanation about why Tiggy was getting those comments from me.

: : 1) It would be ludicrous to take sentences out of context and try
: : to decide wheter to delete a message or not by those sentences. Each
: : message has to be evaluated as a whole, anything else would be pointless.

: xxxxNo problem here.

: : 2) Just because someone posts something that is both accurate and
: : upsets someone, it's not the basis for deleting a message.

: xxxx Again, no problem here. But it continues:

--You do have a problem here. At a general level the message that started this all was both accurate, although exaggrevated and upset someone. Don't forget that.

: It's sort
: : of a part of life to be challanged every now and then. If someone
: : has a problem because their type is challenged, that person has a
: : problem because they are identifyind with the type too much. And
: : that is unhealthy or at least non-productive, and trying to claim
: : anything else is avoiding the truth.
: :

: xxxx I have a REAL problem with this! Nowhere does it say that the moderator is the authority on the enneagram. Their job (as far as I can see) is to moderate within the bounds of the rules.

--The moderators can also voice their opinions.

:Had I received this, I would have had a number of issues with it. Firstly, I would be insulted to think that someone who knew nothing of me personally should pass such sweeping judgement of me.

--It wasn't to you, it was personally to Tiggy and I do know something about her.

:Secondly, this comment does not fall within the bounds of moderation.

--So?

:Thirdly, how dare anyone 'diagnose' me from on high and presume to know what my 'problems' may or may not be. And finally, the most unproductive part of this whole point was the last sentence. It becomes an open and shut case. There is no comeback. To think other than the moderator is dismissed as irrelevant because it is 'unhealthy', 'non-productive' and 'avoiding the truth'. I don't know about you, but I have a serious problem with this kind of comment.

--Now, you might not make a difference between "identifying yourself as being of a type" and "identifying with a type." I do.

: : 3) If she continues to present her personal upset in the terms of
: : what majority thinks, what her type is like on the whole and so on,
: : I will totally ignore her. If she can't present her own opinions
: : as her own, I'm not interested in hearing them.

: xxxx I'm not particularly interested in WHAT the moderator is interested in hearing or not hearing! This whole comment is beside the point and goes to places it has no business delving into because it has nothing whatsoever to do with the rules as stated.

--If there was a message you wanted deleted, told so to the person who would do the deleting, but in a way that they ignore you, then you probably would be interested in what they are interested in.

True, we don't have rules about how many times you can repeat the same requests after they have been denied or how you should do it. Do you think we should have such rules?

I personally do get irritated when people are denied something, their egos are bruised and then they present their opinions as the "voice of majority" or whatever. It's not accurate or true. And I don't like inaccurate or untrue comments, especially if they are aimed partially or completely against me or anyone I feel responsible for.

: : 4) If she continues to aim baseless attacks against moderators, especially
: : when addressing them directly, she will be ignored. I can't understand
: : how she thinks she can complain about others' lack of standards when
: : she doesn't display much common courtesy herself.

: xxxx I have no knowledge of what is refered to here - so I won't comment.

--In fact, many of my reactions towards her are influenced by what is referred there.

: : 5) We only set the limits what can be posted. What is actually posted
: : and what people want to discuss, that's up to them.

: xxxx WITH the exception, it would seem, of what the moderator decides arbitrarily - and what level of 'health' you are deemed fit.

--Is there a misunderstanding here? I don't really particulary care if someone keeped posting messages I wasn't "interested in", unless they could be considered spam. Talk until you're blue if you want. I just won't listen. That's what I meant, nothing more, nothing less. You see, messages that should be deleted are something I AM interested in.

: There seem to be no end to the 'limits' this email covered - but not much to do with the rules as I read them. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it is a flagrant abuse of the moderator's own limits!

--I must say I don't really understand what the last sentence meant. If someone keeps saying (asking for) something after a "no", it would be impolite not to reply without saying something first.

I sense some misunderstanding here. The idea is that the moderators don't set any particular topics or actively guide appropriate conversations. More like setting boundaries rather than controlling the flow.

: However, it must
: : be said that if there are only messages where people always agree
: : with each other, why discuss at all?

: xxxx Why indeed? Apparently, if this email is anything to go by, only discussion that falls into line with the moderator's accepted standard - which has little to do with the rules - is acceptable!

--Yeah, you really did misunderstand. Just one more time: What I like or care about does not equal to what I delete or not delete. If I disapprove of something, you know in the way "I don't like that style" but there's nothing inappropriate about it, surely that doesn't stop anyone from posting in that style.

: One final word - according to the rules as stated, Tiggy was well within her rights to ask that the post be deleted. This should have happened as a matter of course - according to the rules. In order to be fair to every poster and visitor here, we need to have standardised rules that are applied without fear or favour.

--Ah yes, you were away for awhile, this is what we have been talking about for the past 2 years or so non-stop here. I think we have a pretty good system at the moment.

If you, however, disagree, I can make an offer. Write a set of rules are both completely fair and completely applicable here on this board, so that they are also practical, clear, precise, concise, easy to understand, can't be used against themselves, and I think that's enough. Oh, they should also be such that people can't accuse the moderators of favouring some posters and

During 2.5 years of rule writing there hasn't been a single person who would've been able to do that, and it's not because of the lack of effort.

: Amanda (7w6)

Mikko (8w9)

Follow Ups:

Yes, let's....... Amanda :) 12:00:24 04/05/02 (6)
- Amanda, my request was on the basis of it breaking the rules on swearing and tone (nowt to do with being challenged), I only said moderation had lacked consistency in the past. That was all, but it provoked vitriol. nt Tiggy - who read Amanda's post. 17:42:30 04/05/02 (2)
  - I tend to think we live in the NOW. What was in the PAST is no more. When someone judges NOW by what was in PAST, it tends to upset me. [nt] Mikko 18:13:34 04/05/02 (1)
    - Do you even know how stupid that sounds? nt Misanthrope 22:40:42 04/06/02 (0)
- Re: Yes, let's....... Mikko 12:56:12 04/05/02 (2)
  - Ah, now I see....... Amanda :) 00:22:54 04/06/02 (1)
    - Re: Ah, now I see....... Mikko 16:09:48 04/07/02 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:
: [Read Amanda's good intro to this in the previous message first, I deleted it to save space] : : In light of all this, I'd like to comment on a few aspects of Mikko's email: : --Me too. First of all, it wasn't *my* email, technically. Emily forwarded Tiggy's email to me to ask my opinion about it. (Because as the board advisor, I answer to people who have problems with moderators) I replied to Emily with about the situation. Emily emailed Tiggy, I don't know if she included an explanation about why Tiggy was getting those comments from me. : : : 1) It would be ludicrous to take sentences out of context and try : : : to decide wheter to delete a message or not by those sentences. Each : : : message has to be evaluated as a whole, anything else would be pointless. : : xxxxNo problem here. : : : 2) Just because someone posts something that is both accurate and : : : upsets someone, it's not the basis for deleting a message. : : xxxx Again, no problem here. But it continues: : --You do have a problem here. At a general level the message that started this all was both accurate, although exaggrevated and upset someone. Don't forget that. : : It's sort : : : of a part of life to be challanged every now and then. If someone : : : has a problem because their type is challenged, that person has a : : : problem because they are identifyind with the type too much. And : : : that is unhealthy or at least non-productive, and trying to claim : : : anything else is avoiding the truth. : : : : : xxxx I have a REAL problem with this! Nowhere does it say that the moderator is the authority on the enneagram. Their job (as far as I can see) is to moderate within the bounds of the rules. : --The moderators can also voice their opinions. : :Had I received this, I would have had a number of issues with it. Firstly, I would be insulted to think that someone who knew nothing of me personally should pass such sweeping judgement of me. : --It wasn't to you, it was personally to Tiggy and I do know something about her. : :Secondly, this comment does not fall within the bounds of moderation. : --So? : :Thirdly, how dare anyone 'diagnose' me from on high and presume to know what my 'problems' may or may not be. And finally, the most unproductive part of this whole point was the last sentence. It becomes an open and shut case. There is no comeback. To think other than the moderator is dismissed as irrelevant because it is 'unhealthy', 'non-productive' and 'avoiding the truth'. I don't know about you, but I have a serious problem with this kind of comment. : --Now, you might not make a difference between "identifying yourself as being of a type" and "identifying with a type." I do. : : : 3) If she continues to present her personal upset in the terms of : : : what majority thinks, what her type is like on the whole and so on, : : : I will totally ignore her. If she can't present her own opinions : : : as her own, I'm not interested in hearing them. : : xxxx I'm not particularly interested in WHAT the moderator is interested in hearing or not hearing! This whole comment is beside the point and goes to places it has no business delving into because it has nothing whatsoever to do with the rules as stated. : --If there was a message you wanted deleted, told so to the person who would do the deleting, but in a way that they ignore you, then you probably would be interested in what they are interested in. : True, we don't have rules about how many times you can repeat the same requests after they have been denied or how you should do it. Do you think we should have such rules? : I personally do get irritated when people are denied something, their egos are bruised and then they present their opinions as the "voice of majority" or whatever. It's not accurate or true. And I don't like inaccurate or untrue comments, especially if they are aimed partially or completely against me or anyone I feel responsible for. : : : 4) If she continues to aim baseless attacks against moderators, especially : : : when addressing them directly, she will be ignored. I can't understand : : : how she thinks she can complain about others' lack of standards when : : : she doesn't display much common courtesy herself. : : : xxxx I have no knowledge of what is refered to here - so I won't comment. : --In fact, many of my reactions towards her are influenced by what is referred there. : : : 5) We only set the limits what can be posted. What is actually posted : : : and what people want to discuss, that's up to them. : : xxxx WITH the exception, it would seem, of what the moderator decides arbitrarily - and what level of 'health' you are deemed fit. : --Is there a misunderstanding here? I don't really particulary care if someone keeped posting messages I wasn't "interested in", unless they could be considered spam. Talk until you're blue if you want. I just won't listen. That's what I meant, nothing more, nothing less. You see, messages that should be deleted are something I AM interested in. : : There seem to be no end to the 'limits' this email covered - but not much to do with the rules as I read them. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it is a flagrant abuse of the moderator's own limits! : --I must say I don't really understand what the last sentence meant. If someone keeps saying (asking for) something after a "no", it would be impolite not to reply without saying something first. : I sense some misunderstanding here. The idea is that the moderators don't set any particular topics or actively guide appropriate conversations. More like setting boundaries rather than controlling the flow. : : However, it must : : : be said that if there are only messages where people always agree : : : with each other, why discuss at all? : : xxxx Why indeed? Apparently, if this email is anything to go by, only discussion that falls into line with the moderator's accepted standard - which has little to do with the rules - is acceptable! : --Yeah, you really did misunderstand. Just one more time: What I like or care about does not equal to what I delete or not delete. If I disapprove of something, you know in the way "I don't like that style" but there's nothing inappropriate about it, surely that doesn't stop anyone from posting in that style. : : One final word - according to the rules as stated, Tiggy was well within her rights to ask that the post be deleted. This should have happened as a matter of course - according to the rules. In order to be fair to every poster and visitor here, we need to have standardised rules that are applied without fear or favour. : --Ah yes, you were away for awhile, this is what we have been talking about for the past 2 years or so non-stop here. I think we have a pretty good system at the moment. : If you, however, disagree, I can make an offer. Write a set of rules are both completely fair and completely applicable here on this board, so that they are also practical, clear, precise, concise, easy to understand, can't be used against themselves, and I think that's enough. Oh, they should also be such that people can't accuse the moderators of favouring some posters and : During 2.5 years of rule writing there hasn't been a single person who would've been able to do that, and it's not because of the lack of effort. : : : Amanda (7w6) : Mikko (8w9)

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Type 4 Message Board ] [ FAQ ] type4board/messages/28539.html

Your Ad Here