From: Alison Powers [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2017 5:58 PM
Subject: Re: Mad idea?
AP: Here are some thoughts regarding moderation: There is a website I frequent that is heavily moderated since there are people who log on and begin ranting on with hateful language which disrupts the overall effort. You do not need to edit anyone’s language.
HB : if you are talking about me, than you can say directly to whom your post is meant. Whatever you have in mind is very old problem. Ranting, insulting was introduced to CSGnet mostly by Rick. That’s not the invention of those who log on and begin ranting. They were taught by a master Rich himself. You just search the archive for Ricks Â»commentsÂ« and you will understand that nobody Â»begin rantingÂ« on fresh here on CSGnet. It’s very old stuff. So your statement that somebody log on and begin Â»rantingÂ« is misleading. But if you think on time when Rick log on and start ranting then I agree with you, So why don’t you propose him for psychotherapy.?
The problem is not one dimenssional as you think. So you have to put on both sides to psychoterapy or mediation process. . Otherwise I could think that you are trying to insult me that I’m mad or stupid and I need psychoterapy because I’m keeping CSGnet forum in PCT borders. I thnk that you should first have to deal with Rick because he is not offering any evidence for his imaginational constructs which has nothing to do with PCT. I think that you are too protective for him and not enough protective for science.
I could also imagine that CSGnet forum is getting back into times of Â»inquisitionÂ« ?. Are you trying to say that Â»hollyÂ« word of Rick and you has to be listened with any doubt as Church was doing for thousands years ? What are you really aming at ? To disable those who are not in accordance with Rick ???
AP : You simply set for the rule that all posts will be monitored for negative, unproductive comments and will not be posted if they only serve to disrupt and that moderators will be in contact with the violating poster to engage in a therapeutic discussion about how to express themselves in a non-violent, peaceful way.
HB : So who will be in Â»inquisitionÂ« board and how will the board select the Â»commentsÂ« which are negative and unproductive ? I assume that moderstors will be educated in Â»psychotherapyÂ« or just any will do ? Who are those moderators that will be competent to Â»chooseÂ« what is negative and counter productive and will be quakified for psychotherapy job. ? And how will we know that they are educated for psychoterapy seance ?
What can be more productive from Bills’ literature and his understanding of how organisms function ? If I wouldn’t take care, Bills’ word would probbaly be very rarely present on CSGnet if at all.
And I was proposing for at least five years that you arrange board (core group) of scientist that will evaluate Â»commentsÂ« for being in accordance with PCT. As you always stand on Rick side despite the science. I’m sorry to doubt about credibility of who ever will select Â»commentsÂ«, because I have a feeling that into Â»negativeÂ« selection could be sorted also Â»commnetsÂ« which criticize Rick and his RCT. Could you also think that you could be responsable for all those Â»commentsÂ« which areÂ Â»negativeÂ« in whatever sense you thought ?
AP : The moderators could then have a private dialogue with that individual and have a discussion about how the elevation in their emotional response has to do with an internal conflict, that anger is often an indicator that your self-preservation reference levels are threatened (just trying to come up with an example even if its not the best one). Give them a chance to rephrase their language so that they may still express their viewpoint on the website (this is where the therapeutic aspect would come in). Help them re-engage on a more moderate level that supports an ongoing dialogue. Possibly start a blog that would discuss that particular conflict that individual was experiencing to share what was going on so that others who are suffering the same reaction could benefit. I know this sounds a bit big-brotherish but this kind of moderation would be a problem if it were done on a mass, society-wide, scale. Doing it on a discussion website for the purpose of maintaining peaceful dialogue is a different matter.
HB : You don’t need moderators which role can be very questionable ? Why don’t you do it yourself ? You showed that you have enough PCT knowledge to settle problem between me and Rick. Is this proposal positive enough ?
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 2:18 AM, Warren Mansell email@example.com wrote:
I think you have tweeted it just right. ‘Challenge and discuss human values’ is a better way of putting it, and it should be open to all.
I have one tweet to add to yours. I agree that the point is to set the rules and hope people stick to them, but reading the habitual hateful language on Facebook I have a worry that in the first instance some people have real difficulties asserting their views without hate and offensiveness! The aim of the site is not really to engage people who already find it easy to assert themselves respectfully although they are welcome to join in and provide examples. It’s not a problem in a private therapy session but where those statements are for all to see I think we risk locking the stable door after the horse has bolted for some people - the damage is done. One method might be that if you get a certain number of unedited contributions passed without being offensive/aggressive/inciting violence/demeaning others then you get to be unedited.
As you know I believer that free speech is not only right but it is potentially therapeutic. But I am quite confident one can learn to talk freely within constraints and it is still useful, in fact more useful.
The moderator would not be making any judgements about the contributor. Thinking about it, the moderator could be required to be anonymous to the contributor and just screen each contribution separately. The moderator is just applying some rules, rules which are themselves open to discussion…
It’s the hard work of these moderators that is the biggest hurdle I think!
On 5 Jun 2017, at 04:31, Wright Family firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
[From Leeanne Wright 92017.06.05.11.54)]
I hope you donâ€™t mind me adding my thoughts here?
On 4 Jun 2017, at 9:51 pm, Warren Mansell email@example.com wrote:
WM: Ok, I can’t help trying to use PCT to try to address our current issues with terrorism. And for anyone asking, yes I was in London last night, but luckily far away from the area of the attacks.
LW: Iâ€™m glad youâ€™re ok. I saw a report on the news this morning of a stampede at a football match in Turin, Italy, after the crowd was apparently spooked by the noise of a firecracker going off…… Overlaying this, it was lovely to see foottage of the Manchester concert.
WM: This morning I was reading the responses to our (Muslim) Mayor Of London’s commentary. They were shocking, on both sides. So offensive to each other. Conflict escalation big time. I am also struck by the need to want to moderate social media and both the impossibility of this and its apparent clash with liberal values. I was also struck by how much in common people those who express themselves in aggressive and offensive ways have with one another! If they weren’t aware they were of opposite cultures, and could jointly have a go at a third party, they would get on marvellously!
LW: The idea of moderating a social media site, a classroom, a debate, a town hall meeting etc. is to to allow constructive dialogue to take place within an environment that is safe and respectful for all parties. That requires rules to ensure that people actually feel safe and respected. To me this is the fundamental nature of a free or liberal society. The rules in a â€˜freeâ€™ society have as their goal ensuring that all citizens feel safe and respected at all times. To this end, forums where people can freely discuss and debate issues that concern them should be promoted, but without moderation they run the risk of devolving into conflict.
WM: It strikes me that the problem is nothing to do with religion and culture and everything to do with the kindness and respect one receives growing up.
LW: I agree with a post by Rupert that to an extent there is a problem with the type of faith-based, non-critical thinking promulgated by religion in general…. Whether by design, or as a by-product, it seems to me to foster an us-them mentality, a judgemental stance that makes conflict more rather than less likely…. There is no doubt that many religions teach kindness and respect, but it seems to be kindness and respect for others that look, think and act the same as you….
WM: I suddenly thought of our Mayor’s use of the word ‘cowardly’ to describe them. This is not quite right but it points to the fact that there seems to be no safe forum for people to criticise our western/liberal values without it getting nasty.
LW: Absolutely agree! See my point above. Facebook certainly hasnâ€™t created a safe forum for its users. People need to â€˜hideâ€™ their remarks or create a small circle of â€˜friendsâ€™ if they donâ€™t wish to be attacked. This means that you are only privy to the comments of people that generally already think the same as you do, rather than opening up opportunities for constructive dialogue. It is making the problem worse rather than better in many ways….
WM: What if there was? Like good scientists, shouldn’t we all value receiving constructive criticism? Shouldn’t everyone have the chance to develop the skill of resolving conflict without it escalating to a degree that it makes it worse or causes other conflicts?
LW: I think the CSG and MoL forums could be excellent forums for developing a type of rule-based forum model based on PCT. To a large extent from what I have seen in the short time I have been following discussions, the people already involved in these forums and their interest in PCT has meant that they have been able to self-moderate pretty successfully. There have been concerns from time to time, however, even in these forums, and I donâ€™t see a problem with moderating them as a model for what could be done with forums on a larger scale. Self-moderation or regulation is ultimately self-interested and neutral â€˜third-partyâ€? moderation ensures everyone feels safe and respected, so that free speech doesnâ€™t turn into hate speech…(as happens on forums like Facebook)… and newcomers feeleel safe to contribute…
WM: So, the idea is a website… see below … Note, this is not pie in the sky. I have a meeting with the holder of a massive international anti-radicalisation grant - Prof Hilary Pilkington on Thursday. I also want to talk to her about MOL as a method to train community leaders to help raise self-awareness in ‘angry’ people in their community as a prev entative strategy.
LW: That sounds like a fabulous opportunity. It would be great to go â€˜up a levelâ€™ from â€˜ us’ and â€˜ themâ€™ to â€˜weâ€™ in our communities… You referred to this above, in terms of realising how much mmore we all have in common with each other, rather than focusing exclusively on our differences…
WM: THE IDEA. YES It is a bunch of paradoxes - a forum for criticism of liberal values moderated in a big brother way by a liberally minded expert - but that is the whole point. It’s like family therapy via social media… the biggest challenge is the 24hr expert moderation of content…
LW: I would personally think of it as a discussion of values, rather than a criticism of them. A way of giving people a voice. The value is in listening, even if you donâ€™t agree with someone…
WM: Free speech site that openly encourages the criticism of British/American/Western/liberal values but is tightly moderated to remove or edit ALL violent and offensive language.
LW: Who would be participating in the forum if they are going to be edited? Shouldnâ€™t participation be based on following the rules that everyone in the forum feel safe and respected? Editing someoneâ€™s words runs the real risk of misunderstanding, misrepresenting or misinterpreting those words and the person who spoke/wrote them…
WM: Aims to have a safe, respectful forum t o challenge and protest against our western society
LW: Agree wholeheartedly!!! Although rather than â€˜western societyâ€™ I would just say a safe, respectful society; the use of â€˜western societyâ€™ again sets up an us-them paradigm in which one set of values is presumed, unconsciously or otherwise, to be superior to another…
WM: Find that potentially aggressive people have more in common across cultural divides than they think.
I am not sure whether the website would actually get evidence that, for example a white supremacist and an Islamic jihadi ended up agreeing with one another, and then expose this with their consent, but that would be a key way to push reorganisation of people’s values.
WM: The website through its moderation would essentially provide training in how to express oneself and be assertive without being offensive, aggressive, or violent
The catch - this in itself is a Western value - but it will be used to moderate the site until that value changes!
LW: I donâ€™t think itâ€™s so much a Western value as a human value. There are certainly some countries/cultures, it is true, that express themselves differently. The Dutch and Gemans, for example, can be more blunt than British or Australians, but they tend to temper this with a lot of discussion from what I could gather when I lived there for a few years…But all societies, even Western societies, have individuals/groupss/communities who are denied a voice and a place at the decision-making table…
WM: The site should provide creative solutions to our society and advance our values for the 21st century - help them ‘go up a level’ that is truly global, not just the western liberal view of what global should mean.
WM: It needs to engage people who would otherwise be radical, stubborn, and offensive, not intellectuals who already write in the New Yorker or The Guardian.
People could use the website to challenge:
- human rights either generally or specific human rights
- tolerance of unusual or dangerous practices
- assumptions of how different genders or sexualities should be treated
- how old people are treated
- portrayals of people in the media
- acceptance of all religions
- ‘innocent until proven guilty’
- ‘turning the other cheek’
LW: I think itâ€™s a wonderful idea Warren! I would probably use the word â€˜discussâ€™ rather than â€˜challengeâ€™ as it is a more neutral word. â€˜Challengeâ€™ has connotations of conflict about it, at least until you are well down the road of a safe and respectful world. Scientists can challenge â€˜factsâ€™ but much of what people would be discussing on such a forum is a different way of viewing the world, but not one that is necessarily wrongâ€™ (unless it is unsafe or disrespectful to others)… <
LW: Best of luck with your meeting on Thursday!
< div style=“color: rgb(69, 69, 69); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;”>PS I hope that the PCT influence is clear?