Cleaning up Volconvo

[Kyran]

Greetings everyone,

I have asserted my intentions to return Volconvo back to a place of civil intellectual discussion and learning. The level of debate has dropped within the last couple of months while the amount of insulting, arrogance, and outright malevolence has increased.

I never intended to make enemies out of anyone. Yet, in order to have a friendly objective community there must be someone enforcing the rules. Why? Because there are people who will not obey them; people who will not listen to a friendly suggestion to not be a complete and utter asshole.

I said it was coming...and it's here: Judgement Day. Your judge and jury is Sean. I am the plaintiff on behalf of the member base which has issued complaints.

Before I make the complaints to Sean, I am going to define what will redeem you from the rules and give you time to improve. This is an agreement you are free to enter into.

Redemption #1: Thou shalt not be angst.
--No flaming, no insults, no personal attacks, no hating the person over the position on an issue or over their opinions.
--Talk about the issues, not about the people.
--Debate as a student and do your best to follow the etiquette (fallacies.)

Redemption #2: Thou shalt not be pompous.
--Do not act offended, surprised, or shocked at the perspectives of others.
--If someone makes a mistake unwittingly and you jump down their throats, you are guilty of arrogance.
--Unbias your topic titles. Make them Clear.
--I am the only asshole that should have ever been; do not compete with me.

Redemption #3: Thou shalt not be stubborn.
--If you make a logical error and change your perspective by realizing it, you will make everyone proud.
--Listen to each other.
--If you refuse to change your mind when you are proven wrong and given time to think about it, you have failed this plank.

Redemption #4: Treat others as you wish to be treated.
--No double-standards. If you're rude or vulgar, expect it in return.
--No retaliating against forum justice (trying to get mods banned for disciplining you, etc.)

Redemption #5: Repent, Forgive, and Forget.
--Apologize to persons you have offended.
--Forgive persons that have offended you.
--Let go of grudges.

If any of you will do these things, I will not hold your flaws against you. I am not perfect, but I am committed to values.

Sign this thread with full acknowledgement that you understand and will comply with this standard of conduct.

I am taking responsibility for your actions. If Sean wants to punish anyone *who follows my agreement* he can punish me and me only. You have nothing to fear from Sean as long as you are trying to be a good debater, because I will arbitrate for you and keep you from being butterfaced, blammed, and banned.

Abandoning the agreement means I will never take up for you again.

The rest of you, who do not enter this agreement, are condemned to the rules. You are under them and you will suffer your own punishment for breaking them. I will hunt you down and get you banned for being a flamer.

In order to make this agreement official, Sean has to make a decision. From that point on, the rules will be enforced. When you (who sign this thread) cross the line, I will take the heat and talk to you about what you did.

Now, let's get this forum back on the right track.

[Gorgo]

Just to clarify some terms that are important to remember here.

pom·pous ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pmps)
adj.
Characterized by excessive self-esteem or exaggerated dignity; pretentious: pompous officials who enjoy giving orders.
Full of high-sounding phrases; bombastic: a pompous proclamation.
Chracterized by pomp or stately display; ceremonious: a pompous occasion.

ar·ro·gant ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-gnt)
adj.
Having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or self-importance.
Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward others: an arrogant contempt for the weak. See Synonyms at proud.

[bishop]

i'm either a part of it, or haven't bothered to worry about it - but, what's all the complaining about? i haven't noticed it any different here than it was a couple months ago.

if you're looking for completely tame debate, you aren't being realistic whatsoever. we're at the peak of campaign season in one of the most heated and important elections we've had in a long time. it should go without saying that people are going to be a bit more on edge than usual.

[rcne]

I don't believe you have experienced a real flame war - if what you call some of these debates here a 'Flame War'.

I believe there is at least one member who is/was a member of IHIQS - now there be monster flame wars. Cyclical but still rearing their ugly head.

This place as of yet is basically self regulating, I've not seen a flame yet, well maybe some smoke but not a blazing brush fire.

I respectfully decline your offer of protectionism. I believe in regulating myself without another level of management deciding for me what is wight/wrong.

If Sean finds me offensive then its his right to say 'cool it'.

[tusaki]

How can any political topic be unbiassed? Isn't bias the essence of politics?

[PatrickHenry]

I ain't signing your effen "agreement" Kyran. If Sean wants me off his playground, he can tell me so himself. I don't need your muscle. I respect decent moderation and agree to its necessity. Without it we are nothing but a face-slapping club. You are an opinionated guy, something I came here looking for so I can argue. But your opinions aren't the mandatory ones here. Sean's are...

PS: I would never accept "help" from someone with an in-your-face sig, like yours, that I disagree with. I know who my friends are... And 99% of the time I already walk your proclaimed line. Usually better than you. Moderate well, brother.

[Gorgo]

Sean, do you agree with what Kyran wrote and how he has written it? Do you really want people like this running the board?

And because Saddam Hussein was a terrible dictator is the perfect reason you DON'T want to murder and starve his people.

[Friedrich]

As they say on the Supreme Court, "I concur in part, but dissent in part."

[Pooeypants]

Ease up everyone, Kyran is only doing what he thinks is best for this forum. Sean has final say ofc.

[Sean]

It's so tempting to comment, but I think I'll wait until this develops a little more, and after my exams are done tomorrow.

[Gorgo]

Okay. You're saying that he's kidding, then. Good.

[gr8fuldaniel]

I just deleted my whole response to this because Pooey said for us to lighten up. I will have to think up something less controversial.

Edit to add:
See, I can moderate myself, with a nudge.

[Sean]

Originally posted by Gorgo, Okay. You're saying that he's kidding, then. Good.

No..Kyran is serious...you should challenge him if you don't agree. What do you expect from a moderator, and what do you expect from fellow users.

Oh and gr8, that was funny lol.

[Gorgo]

I want moderators (and anyone else) to be kidding when they write things like that.

[harumscarum]

I agree with a few above. I decline to "sign" the agreement. I am a pretty regular reader of volconvo and do not see where you are coming from. Can you point out a few threads that have been off track? hell yes but it does not outweigh the majority of good debates on here.

The fact that many threads go to 3-4 pages means that something is going right. I have learned a lot from reading on volconvo and would hate to see it turn into some heavily moderated forum. I would understand if there was a large amount of posts with "You are a complete asshat", but again this is rare.

If anything I think this board needs more conservatives because I am sure Mr.V gets tired :). I would also recommend the ability for persons who create threads set a default word limit in each post. I normally visit here at work and sometimes I get involved in a debate and come back in the afternoon and someone has written a novel. I am less inclined to reply because I don’t want to write something that may have been included in the novel.

and to carry on what Bishop said I think the debates will get more and more "heated" as election day nears.

[gr8fuldaniel]

I am going with the group conscience here.
I havent seen any glaring, persistent violations requiring a [SIZE=2] "Judgement Day"[/SIZE].
Careful Kyran, we like Volconvo too.
Are you going to try to change the logo from "Heated Debate" to "Sedate Debate" ??

The most impressive change you can make around here, would be to lead by example. Dont insult my friends. Dont hack our posts without consulting us.

BTW, the whole God act is B.S. Lighten up. I already have a God and you aint it. Thou shalt not act pompous?
wtf? Isnt that what you are doing? You can be one of us if you want, but you cant try to be our God, too.

[Nono]

I liked Gorgo's definitions. I find Kyran's post both arrogant and pompous -- pretentious and self-important -- as I do idiotic remarks like the one he made to PatrickHenry about "I happen!".

If Kyran wished only to enforce the etiquette, that would be fine, and it's what mods are for. As I see it, though, his commandments go well beyond the etiquette into territory where he can maintain no claim to objectivity.

As I wrote to Sean, his message has always been "I don't care what views you express provided that you do this within the bounds set by the etiquette". If things now proceed à la Kyran, then it's obvious the etiquette will have to be overhauled and expanded to make it all 'legal'.

Why don't you launch your own board, Kyran? Then everything can be regulated by divine providence: you can be judge, jury and the whole apocalyptic shebang.

[Scribbler1]

As a Mod, I won't side for OR against Kyran (a little management wisdom I've picked up over the years), but I do have two points.

1. In defense of the group in general, I would say the group as a whole behaves rather well considering the anger and frustration that comes with political discussion. Most members seem to have about the same level of passion for the subjects under discussion, but I see a degree of self-policing and both an understanding and a respect for the etiquette.

2. What is one man's insult is another's good-natured jab. Terms like "tinfoil hats", "black helicopters", "right-wingers", "Bush groupies" and "xenophobia" can be considered insults, but everyone seems to take them (and give them out) without genuine malice.

Just my dos centavos.

[Kyran]

I shall try my best to answer everyone's comments and clarify what is not understood at this point.

If you enter this agreement, then when you break the redemptions or Sean's rules, Sean punishes me not you. Sean does not want to enforce the rules to the point where anyone feels discouraged from debating. Sean knows he can whip me into shape without me giving him any lip about it. In response, I will privately message you with A) what you did quoted and B) what rule violation it convicted me of.

The moderators will be suspending ME, not you. So if they believe you are trying, they won't come after me.

No one can obey the rules perfectly, not even me. That's why you need someone to take the heat for you who can; someone willing to take punishment. This way, when you make a mistake, you'll be informed and because I took the fall for you...you will be inclined not to do it again, or often. You can be as obnoxious as you are, but you will know it hurt me.

I think this'll work...because if Sean suspends me over and over and over and over again because of what you do, and you don't have me telling him every time that you are improving then I believe Sean will ban you entirely.

There is no excuse to ignore this opportunity, so if you do ignore it I hope you are perfect and do not whine or moan about your own discipline. Whatever Sean does to me is what he will also do to everyone who refuses to enter this agreement. I won't offer myself as arbiter otherwise.

Now I'm gonna name names. Gorgo, Nono, PatrickHenry, Sonart, RickSp, Seeker_of_Sins, and gr8fuldaniel. I am calling you out because you are the most obstructive to intelligent debate that I have noticed. I have given you the chance to be above the rules as long as you try to set a good example by following the Redemptions. No one has to be perfect. If you don't have a chip on your shoulder then you'll pass with flying colors.

Most of you seven have, in essence, said "Go to hell. I'm perfect." What good will that do when Sean starts suspending me for the actions of people who enter this agreement? Do you think Sean will treat you differently knowing that you could have merely agreed and been idemnified from punishment? I don't think so.

You can curse me, accuse me, and insult me all you like. I'm still willing to take the punishment for your behavior as long as you are trying to improve. How can I be arrogant if I'm willing to take your punishment? Does that mean I hate you?

The offer remains open to everyone. The very fact that people would refuse this type of amnesty is enough to convince me that they deserve to be punished.

Why am I doing this? I am determined to change this country, and in order to do that the internet needs a forum devoted to objective debate. The people who pick up my philosophy years from now will need a mechanism of discovering how it works; this is the only way that can happen. Plus, it leaves room for people of any ideology to discuss the issues. But flamers will not have a haven here.

It pains me to see people won't believe me. You think this is such a big deal?

I mean what I say...
I am the Fusionist
...and I am willing to walk my talk. Read that link and dare me to prove it.

I'm no Jesus, but I'm on His side. Who can be me much less my Lord?

Now, it's up to you all to make your decisions. No hard feelings, no grudges, no enemies. We are a community.

[Section 8]

I completely disagree that topics should be unbiased. However, I think that they should be long, with facts cited, and not just a couple of sentences and a question. This isn' a news organization. However, some unbiased sources should be cited in the topic, and then commented on.

Despite this however, I do agree with you that the debate is somewhat devolving. There has been an increase in sarcasm, and a flood of logical fallacies, especially ad hominem. By far, the most deconstructive thing is to post one or two liners. That and "I agree" posts. (Unless of course you're adding something constructive to the debate.)