Thread: There we go again.

Originally Posted by nvoigt

While moderation on request is certainly neccessary, every user can request moderation because this is a public place. As soon as somebody feels it's inappropriate, we will decide how to moderate.

Besides, what's up with this? Do I smell the foul stench of democracy? The sick odor of free will? The frosty breath of freedom? This is a dictatorship! We enjoy torturing others and when we aren't eating babies or killing kittens, we close threads just to be able to let out an evil laughter in front of our monitors. We are the webmaster's evil henchmen. We always were, even back when we were alive *muahahaha* *rattle*. Doing evil deeds is part of the job description.

Be careful what you say. Because you're a moderator, and thus in a position of power and influence, those comments can't be construed as levity. Words that are innocent and entertaining when spoken by non-moderators magically become veiled threats and confirmation of ill intent when spoken by a mod.

Originally Posted by grumpy

Without some group (be it a police force in a city, or a moderator team in a forum) to limit such behaviours, any community will become an anarchy. In an anarchy, the one who can force his or her will on others will prevail in any argument and there will be regular power struggles as someone or some group seeks to dictate the community norms.

Just as a technical note, "anarchy" refers to a system without leaders, which makes it impossible for "the one who can force his or her will on others" to prevail at anything, because anarchists do not respond to people who try to do those kinds of things -- those people are wannabe leaders, not anarchists.

Rules, democracy, and (to a lesser extent) policing have all been features of the anarchist communities I've witnessed or participated in. People deemed unsuitable (eg, because they are frequent rule breakers) by the community at large get the boot.

In fact, since the webmaster is pretty laissez-faire and the mods are not leaders (they are police), cboard is not too far from being anarchistic at all. I'm sure that if enough of the users got together via. a poll or something, and made a coherent request for a rule change with enough democratic support, we'd be listened to, and the mods would be as bound by that as anyone else.

Originally Posted by Prelude

Words that are innocent and entertaining when spoken by non-moderators magically become veiled threats and confirmation of ill intent when spoken by a mod.

Aren't you the clever one! No, you aren't. You coming into a thread and saying the thread is over has more weight than if I walk into a thread and declare it over. You're an idiot if you don't think that's true.

I can go back and quote your lack of smiley face and "j/k"s if you want. You decided there was nothing to say further on the matter and indicated that the thread was done.


Quzah.

All I have gotten out of this thread is that CommonTater has been here just over a year and he has over 7000 posts. All I can say is wow!!! That is almost 12 posts per day for 1.5 years.
That is some serious cboard activity.

Originally Posted by VirtualAce

All I have gotten out of this thread is that CommonTater has been here just over a year and he has over 7000 posts. All I can say is wow!!! That is almost 12 posts per day for 1.5 years.
That is some serious cboard activity.

If he increases his activity, we need to start charging him rent!

Originally Posted by VirtualAce

All I have gotten out of this thread is that CommonTater has been here just over a year and he has over 7000 posts. All I can say is wow!!! That is almost 12 posts per day for 1.5 years.
That is some serious cboard activity.

And that a decade has not dulled Qazar's acerbic wit.

I miss when GD was more about polite and patriotic discussions with posters like Troll King, Rick Barckley and Rod.

Originally Posted by novacain

And that a decade has not dulled Qazar's acerbic wit.

Pick one:

It's done wonders for your spelling and reading skills though.
Yeah that Quzar's a riot.
Ten years and you still don't know my name.


Quzah.

Originally Posted by MK27

Just as a technical note, "anarchy" refers to a system without leaders, which makes it impossible for "the one who can force his or her will on others" to prevail at anything, because anarchists do not respond to people who try to do those kinds of things -- those people are wannabe leaders, not anarchists.

You are mistaking the concepts.

Anarchy actually refers to a state of society without government or rule of law (where law is a body of principles and rules that are applicable to all members of a community).

You are describing the idealist's view of anarchy, which involves a lack of any government that has the power to enforce laws, and cooperation between members of the community - who agree to live by some set of rules or guidelines. The pessimist's view of anarchy is a lack of government, with a fragile state of cooperation, and the society exhibits chaotic behaviour if enough individuals choose not to cooperate with others. The realist's view of anarchy is somewhere between those.

You are also mixing up the concepts of leadership and domination. Leadership is not about forcing one's will upon others - it is about having attributes that others are willing to follow through informed choice. Domination is about forcing one's will on others. Anarchy does not prevent leaders arising (although, when that happens, the society may become something other than an anarchy) and also does not prevent some people dominating others. In fact, in an anarchy, dominators (or dictators) often become firmly entrenched, because there is no systematic way to remove them.

Originally Posted by MK27

Rules, democracy, and (to a lesser extent) policing have all been features of the anarchist communities I've witnessed or participated in. People deemed unsuitable (eg, because they are frequent rule breakers) by the community at large get the boot.

Sure. But the rules at any point in time in an anarchy are determined by who is strong enough to defend or enforce their chosen rules, or who can persuade or force others to enforce those rules. An anarchy does not offer any consistency of rules, orderly evolution of rules, or even any attempt to treat individuals fairly. It only guarantees that the rules will be chosen by the strongest or the most influential, without any checks or balances associated with other types of society.

Unlike an anarchy, other forms of society attempt to guarantee some consistency of rules and orderly transition of rules, other than what is determined by the most powerful or influential. Different forms of society vary in how much, and how, they achieve that.

Originally Posted by MK27

In fact, since the webmaster is pretty laissez-faire and the mods are not leaders (they are police), cboard is not too far from being anarchistic at all.

Again, you are misinterpreting what an anarchy is. The role of police in most societies is a mix of enforcement and leadership, to varying degrees.

In an anarchistic society, the role (or even existence) of police varies over time, because the nature of rules they enforce also varies over time.

Originally Posted by MK27

I'm sure that if enough of the users got together via. a poll or something, and made a coherent request for a rule change with enough democratic support, we'd be listened to, and the mods would be as bound by that as anyone else.

What you describe here is not anarchy (although it is what idealists claim anarchy to be). It is actually a form of democracy.

What the crap?! I didn't come to the general forum for weighty philosophical debate! :lunaticsmiley:


Quzah.

Originally Posted by grumpy

It only guarantees that the rules will be chosen by the strongest or the most influential, without any checks or balances associated with other types of society.

I'd expect a slight variation from this. In an anarchic regime, rules would be voted by the general population. Do not expect anarchic regimes to not institutionalize democratic proceedings. However the decision of what to vote and what not to vote is where the system shows its great weakness. That's where the power of an anarchic leader usually resides and essentially why anarchy is nothing but yet another unattainable utopia built from yet again trying to fight human most basic territorial and dominance instincts.

Anarchy, if we take an interested look at history, has never proved itself to be a goal. It was always the beginning of a form of government. Anarchy just isn't sustainable.

True, Mario. Other types of community or society can emerge from an anarchy. It is a bit difficult to predict in advance which one will emerge. Just as, when another type of society breaks down, it can descend toward anarchy.

The idealistic form of anarchy tends to break down to something less ideal because there are always people who don't cooperate with others. The view of anarchy as a chaotic society also tends to break down, usually to some non-anarchic form of society, because there are always people who seek or prefer some form of order.