TIGHAR
Chatterbox => Extraneous exchanges => Topic started by: Chris Johnson on September 15, 2015, 03:37:15 PM
-
Well >:(
-
There are five administrators including two members of the board of directors. Each of us has equal authority and can act independently to enforce the Forum rules. In practice, we discuss and reach a consensus before taking actions such as putting someone on moderation or banning them outright.
-
Pah and the board members are?
Myself and Russ Matthews.
Please translate "Pah."
-
Chris, the moderators are presumed to be trustworthy people who need no one to moderate them.
Sort of like Queen Elizabeth II is not required to have a driver's license like all of her subjects must have.
-
the usage may be lost on you ;)
Not at all. Just wanted to be sure you intended to convey "contempt" and "disgust" toward my reply to your question.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)
"Is this Forum Moderated?" (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,343.0.html)
"How to play nice and fight fair--guidelines for civil discourse" (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,377.0.html)
"How to insert links into posts" (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,127.0.html)
"Better Earhart Websites and Forums" (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,928.msg18751.html#msg18751)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes%3F)
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
This is a private board, run by TIGHAR, so TIGHAR gets to make the rules about how it functions, including moderation. A lot of people don't understand that point...the First Amendment has to do with the government imposing censorship, it does not stop private entities from moderating speech if they choose. And, even the First Amendment has legally defined limits, as you can't just say whatever you want at any time and get away without consequences.
-
I think it is a mistake to believe that people don't 'get it' about how TIGHAR's forum is run and may be run according to law -
'Freedom of speech' is never a right in the corporate venue, that is not the question. Corporate censorship is frequently imposed in private venues, such as vigorously at TIGHAR, including the occasional application of damnatio memoriae to make it as if certain things never appeared. Fortunately or not, however, our modern internet has a means of rendering that particular effort moot for those who know how to use 'way back', etc.
The question is one of fairness to the representation that what TIGHAR runs here is a reasonably open forum for science-based debate, and who gets to make that decision. One supposes that is in the eye of the beholder (whether reasonably open and science-based) whereas who gets to censor is without question: emphatically, without apology, always the 'owner', whose administrators serve to the letter by all I can tell.
Chris' alluding to the U.S. Constitution doesn't tell me he believes we have an absolute right here; knowing Chris, I admire the spirit of the example which is more nearly, I believe, a pointing to an ideal we should all strive for - especially when we claim to be open.
As to whether TIGHAR's own censorship (that is what it is whenever this sort of control is imposed) is good or bad is a matter for the beholder to decide for himself: an even greater tenet of the U.S. Constitution is that we live under a body of laws that provide for freedom of choice among our corporate populace - we can take or leave an organization and any or all that it has to say.
How a corporate entity censors is also something said. The readership is what it is: if it is largely non-members, then we have little assurance that they are more than curiosity seekers.
Now I - an onlooker, will note how TIGHAR responds to this - will it be censored in part or in whole, or allowed to print as it is, for my voice to be considered as wise or folly by the onlooker? The measure of risk TIGHAR decides to take in doing so - or not doing so, tells the onlooker something of the character of the censor.
Interesting discussion, thanks Chris!
-
The moderator is ultimately moderated by people voting with their feet. Here is a list of the top 10 Tighar posters of all time.
Ric Gillespie 4226 Still active *
Martin X. Moleski, SJ 2625 Still Active *
Chris Johnson 1812 Still Active
Gary LaPook 1624 Banned
richie conroy 1412 Last Active 7-31-15
Jeff Victor Hayden 1387 Last Active 12-23-14
Monty Fowler 926 Apparently Unhappy
Tom Swearengen 818 Last Active 6-14-13
Tim Mellon 805 Banned
J. Neville 780 Apparently Unhappy
*Ric and Martin are both among other things moderators.
Of the eight non-moderator top ten only Chris Johnson is still a regular contributor to the forum.
Monty and Jeff are welcome correct me if they choose.
And then there are the little things like refusing to answer civil questions from Monty and creating Neville's Notions, not to mention completely belittling newbees rather than simply point them to forum threads or other information.
So Moderate, Ban, refuse to answer, belittle all you please and then wonder why the question were did all the intelligent discussion and debate go.
And that folks is how the moderator gets moderated.
Neff
-
Gotta Love It !! Ain't it something???
-
This is a private board, run by TIGHAR, so TIGHAR gets to make the rules about how it functions, including moderation. A lot of people don't understand that point...
While I accept everything Dr. Riddle says, I find the overall tone regrettable and not conductive to the open and honest debate and spirited discussion that lead to an increase in our body of knowledge about Earhart and Noonan's fate.
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 EC
-
I find the overall tone regrettable and not conductive to the open and honest debate and spirited discussion that lead to an increase in our body of knowledge about Earhart and Noonan's fate.
I too find the recent overall tone regrettable and I'm eager to return to increasing in our body of knowledge about Earhart and Noonan's fate.
-
Maybe we could increase that body of knowledge by hiring someone to further evaluate all of the sonar data? Perhaps a new anomaly would appear to replace the Conroy Anomaly that wasn't.
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 EC
-
Maybe we could increase that body of knowledge by hiring someone to further evaluate all of the sonar data? Perhaps a new anomaly would appear to replace the Conroy Anomaly that wasn't.
Yes, that definitely needs doing. It's primarily a matter of figuring out who should do it, what it will cost, and where we'd find the funding. When I get a minute I'll post the imagery of the sonar targets we have from the 2012 survey. All of the ones we investigated with the ROV turned out to be coral, but we only looked at a handful of them due to time and depth constraints.
-
A targeted fundraising campaign and a widely-issued request for proposals from that industry might garner the kind of interest this particular effort needs. If we're really lucky a well-qualified company will take it on for the feel-good publicity it would generate. But first they have to know about it.
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 EC
-
The intent of this thread is to question the fairness and effectiveness of the moderation of this Forum. The criticism has been explicit and scathing, including the naming and characterization of individuals.
I did a survey of the Forum's history of banishings over the four year period, 2011 - 2015, for which we have records. The results were interesting and I'm happy to share them. I have listed the dates of the banishments and the reasons recorded at the time but, out of respect for the banished, I have not named names.
Since September 2011, 23 individuals (as opposed to spammers) have been banned from the Forum for cause. Death toll by year:
2011 - 1
2012 - 2
2013 - 14
2014 - 6
2015 - 0 (so far)
Here's the cemetery:
September 12, 2011 Falsifying information.
October 17, 2012 Falsehoods and personal attacks
November 23, 2012 threats
February 05, 2013 Offensive conduct
February 27, 2013 Persistent misrepresentation
March 04, 2013 Troll
March 04, 2013 Troll
March 04, 2013 Troll
March 04, 2013 Troll
March 04, 2013 Troll
March 28, 2013 Troll
May 16, 2013 Troll-ism
May 16, 2013 Troll-ism
May 31, 2013 sarcasm
June 06, 2013 no reason stated
July 07, 2013 harrassment
October 23, 2013 impostor
August 26, 2014 political harangue
September 27, 2014 Ad hominem attack via PM.
November 03, 2014 hostile bias
November 03, 2014 hostile bias
November 03, 2014 hostile bias
November 03, 2014 hostile bias
In retrospect, it's clear that, over time, we have become more tolerant and that's a good thing. I think three observations are apparent:
• Our policies of moderation and judicious banning work. The Forum is better than it was (the critics will, of course, disagree).
• There are no legions of detractors waiting to fill the ranks of the fallen. There is a small and finite population of passionate critics.
• A clean house tends to stay clean. We had to do some major housecleaning in 2013 and 2014 but it was the right thing to do.
-
I find the overall tone regrettable and not conductive to the open and honest debate and spirited discussion that lead to an increase in our body of knowledge about Earhart and Noonan's fate.
I too find the recent overall tone regrettable and I'm eager to return to increasing in our body of knowledge about Earhart and Noonan's fate.
I should have been clearer - I found Dr. Riddle's tone regrettable. I'm not sure how limiting comments in here to TIGHAR members after March 1 is going to contribute to an open debate and increase our body of knowledge. What Neff Jacobs pointed out about people voting with their feet is very true as well.
I get the fact that some people who comment in here, comment simply to see their comments in print (I'm as guilty of that as the next person), but if you really look at the forum membership stats, almost 75 percent of the listed members have posted zero or at most one comment. There is a small percentage of people who have posted at least 10 comments for their time in here, and a very, very small number of people who have posted more than 30 or so times, not even 10 percent. So maybe TIGHAR doesn't have any more, or any fewer, truly active participants than any other aviation/historical discussion forum. We should be looking for more and creative ways to get more people involved, instead of moving in the other direction.
Every comment has intrinsic value, to someone. We all sort our own grains of wheat from the vast conversational chaff, every single day. I don't see how reducing the number of grains of wheat is going to move TIGHAR's effort forward any faster or "better" than it is already going. This newest initiative feels more like an attempt to control things than anything else.
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 EC
-
Here here :D