Purgatory Hosting Standards
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
in The Styx
In the thread 'Where is the Ship Going" a recurring theme has been whether currently allowable standards of debate in Purgatory have made it more difficult for minority or unpopular views to get a respectful hearing, leading to a more monochrome, less diverse membership.
This is essential a matter of Hosting standards, probably best characterised by our normal standard of Host-lite. This is intended to allow freedom for quite heated discussion provided it does not descend into personal abuse.
Do Shipmates see a need to change these standards as a means of encouraging a more diverse membership?
This is essential a matter of Hosting standards, probably best characterised by our normal standard of Host-lite. This is intended to allow freedom for quite heated discussion provided it does not descend into personal abuse.
Do Shipmates see a need to change these standards as a means of encouraging a more diverse membership?
Comments
Is part of the problem that there are no repercussions or sanctions for use of assertions, logical fallacies, selective quoting, generalisations etc? It happens, you object, they carry on as if it didn't matter? That's the vibe I'm getting from you.
Decidedly, yes. I don't think it's simply a question of attracting a greater diversity of contributor, but of the regulars expressing themselves without recourse to the kind of language that would be inappropriate in any civilised conversation, let alone under Christian auspices. Verbal abuse is of its nature designed to be both disrespectful and and intimidatory. It has no place on this ship, whatever backgrounds we Old Salts hail from.
Now I can see why that kind of function would dismay a great many people, and it could only be done by a person who was absolutely fair and even-handed--but IMO it had this great advantage--namely, that one didn't have to constantly rewrite the rules to a finer and finer tolerance, in order to weed out those one-offs who had managed to come up with a barely-legal-but-annoying-as-all-shit pattern of behavior, which would likely never be repeated again. Erin could just go bite them in the ass. And people KNEW that, which kept certain people a bit more circumspect, and not as inclined to test just how far they could go.
I'm fairly sure that the on-and-on, wearying and ever-repeating pattern of flippant disrespect would have merited a few well-placed ass bites by now--and possibly saved Ship culture from becoming a hostile environment to minorities. Because the law is a blunt instrument, and I can just see why hosting lite means (usually) not intervening when this stuff happens. It's usually just this side of a 10 commandment breach. And the host, naturally enough, is not inclined to make a judgment call that will almost certainly end with him/her being pilloried in the Styx for being heavy-handed. (We've seen quite a bit of that, too.)
Because SOF allows for challenging ideas, but not people, it requires more attention from the hosts. At least compared the few others I've been on,
Pretty much agree with this.
The general H&A view is that the freedom to hold H&A to account here is a positive benefit of the structure.
If I didn't believe that, why on earth would I have started this thread?
Erin also had little patience for the Help, help, I'm being repressed.
Hostile to minorities. I agree that SOF can be, but I'm fairly sure we'd disagree on who those minorities are. Whilst the right wingers might feel their POV isn't represented, their existence isn't challenged by the debate. We've had many more conservative folks than trans. For that reason, IME.
And there are some viewpoints that cannot get a reasoned response because they are not reasoned to begin with.
Whilst I agree that people on SOF are not always as civil as possible, I'd also say that incivility is a subjective determination.
No, that's not what I meant at all. Let me take another shot at communicating. My point (which may well reveal why I am not and have never been Host material) is this: I imagine that I am a host and I come across one of these situations. None of the commandments has been clearly transgressed. Yet it's making me uneasy, because it's clear one poster is being blown off by several others without any attempt to understand, engage, or seriously reply to that poster. Instead, phrases like "After all, Republicans are like that" (note that the poster him/herself has not been directly referenced--it's a blanket statement about a group, not about the poster him or herself, though the connection exists between the two, but it hasn't been spelt out and so there's that extra degree of deniability.) Add a couple Trump jokes, someone's one-line whine about how "Reagan did the same thing" (no further information given), and then segue into a discussion of how right-wingers are so intolerant--but now we're far enough away that it's not even entirely clear the reference is to Republicans anymore, let alone to the original poster--just damning rhetoric about conservatives in general. So, as I-the-theoretical-host understand it, there's clearly a hostile environment, and the poster has done nothing obvious to invoke it bar bringing up an unpopular point of view--which is sucky behavior, and I would like to see it stop. Nevertheless, every person in the chain could plausibly say that they weren't meaning to get personal about the first poster at all, these were just general statements--and so it becomes a bit difficult to say "take it to Hell," since in my ruling I myself will be in fact the first person to make overt the connection between the first poster and this cloud of hostility. What to do? What to do? Especially since the hostility is so clearly not maliciously meant--it's thrown off as a one-liner and several people are riffing off each other, clearly having a good time and being witty--and after all, the original poster is NOT a delicate snowflake and must be expecting some blowback, and no lines have really been crossed... So, call it or not?
It's at that point that, due to my own ignoble nature, the thought will cross my mind that, if I DO decide to make what some people will consider a Big Flaming Deal about this, and issue a hostly warning, it's virtually guaranteed that someone is going to pitch a hissy fit about it--probably on the thread, possibly to the tune of several pages in the Styx. Because there's that element on the Ship. And I'm tired, and it's been a long day, and we count on Shipmates to police each other to some extent, and I could do more damage than already exists... I can see why a host might reasonably decide to let it go.
And let it go again, the next time it happens.
And again.
All completely reasonable decisions. But the net effect of those reasonable host lite decisions over time, with no counterbalance available, is a) the original poster gets worn out and jumps ship; and b) the Ship becomes a self-congratulatory echo chamber.
My apologies if I've been offensive. As I mentioned, I've never hosted and may have the complete wrong end of the stick.
I said pretty much the same thing on the Purg thread, and nobody took the point up. The Ship isn't here for advocacy.
This is the equivalent of saying that it's open season on right wingers. I don't care what your (generic you) politics are, that is no way to find out what they think. If you're not interested in finding out what they think, why are you (generic) here?
(I agree with you about the change in subject matter, although not about the timing. Politics has come to the fore in a big way since about 2015. In addition, populism played a big role in both Brexit and the US Presidential election, and I think we're seeing a both reaction against that here and a change in the discourse on the right as a result).
I think this is the core problem - the conservative end of the theological spectrum has embraced ideas that are utterly unsupportable in debate. So yes, they are not represented so well on discussion boards like this, where people will be held to account.
That has always been the point - make your argument and debate and discuss it. Listen to others, and respond to their critiques. I still see this happening in Purg (I sometimes post some odd idea that has come to me, and we discuss it). Believe me, if - when - I see my position being dismissed, I will respond. But what I see is indefensible positions being rejected. I see this in a wider context too - and I see that in a positive light.
No, but anyone who does instantly gets told why they are morally inferior before engaging any further.
No, I'm mistaken. They get told that if it is assumed they are intelligent and informed before one gets to the content of anything they might post.
Can you see why this might be a problem?
But I'm now doubting whether that's true.
Wondering if part of the issue is an opinion that right-leaning views are of no merit or validity, so that anyone holding them is of necessity either stupid (a fool who has been taken in by right-wing media) or malicious (motivated by some sort of hate for minorities or the poor).
Trying to constrain a person who holds such an opinion to low-temperature or polite-language ways of expressing it may not solve anything, if the real issue is the prevalence of that opinion among a number of high-post-count contributors who thereby set a tone for the Ship despite being a minority.
Just wondering aloud...
And aware that the Christian tradition is that "the fool says in his heart that there is no God", and thus some history of classifying atheists as either wicked rebels against the just authority of God or basically stupid. Christianity does not have clean hands in this respect.
Again, I disagree slightly. I think at least some of these ideas can, at least in theory, be defended using intellectual tools (which is not to say I necessarily agree with them).
The problem is that much of conservatism both political and theological has abandoned those tools in favour of populism, and ISTM that much of liberalism both political and theological has been lured to the mire of populism itself in response.
As an outsider, that's how I read the polarisation of US politics in particular, and I think UK politics is headed the same way for the same reasons. Our thread on Boris is much longer than any thread on Tory policies.
I took it up, but the thread was moving fast and you might not have seen it.
If we're here for debate, what is the point of debate? Why should we find out what right-wingers think?
There are multiple possible reasons for debating, including debating for its own sake, but one of my reasons for debating people is to learn to develop my ideas, to make them better and sharper, because ultimately I want to change people's minds about some things. I want to find out what right-wingers think because I want to understand how they got to be so wrong, and I want to change their minds.
I strongly dispute the notion that the Ship isn't here for advocacy. Lots of us are here advocating for what we think and believe. I didn't spend hours and hours every month for years arguing against homophobia in Dead Horses in the 2000s because it was so much fun. I did it because homophobia is wrong and I wanted to change people's minds. I did it for the same reason that I worked on the campaign against Proposition 8 in California, which made same-sex marriage illegal.
And it's important that advocacy be allowed, even though it's obviously not what everyone is here for. I'm not interested in a discussion board that is simply a debating society or a venue for exchanging views. We're often talking about things that matter, things worth advocating for.
To your first two paragraphs, I'm politically all over the place, but to your point, of course I want to find out what those of opposing views think partly or often mostly in order to change their minds, but I also want to allow myself to be challenged. There's a lot of talk about Dunning Kruger here, but it's usually directed at other people.
If my grounds for advocacy are robust, they can afford to be challenged, and if they're not, I want to know. In order to know that, I need not to be put off by insults and denigration. The more of those I hear, the more I find the opposing views inherently suspect.
My trajectory on same-sex marriage is well-documented here. As I've said before, my mind got changed by the people who accepted that my position was in good faith and engaged with me on the substance. The hardest part of that trajectory was and indeed is the people who didn't.
The single most compelling reason in my life that I'd be tempted to explore politics further to the right is the tone of many left-leaning advocates here, however well-meaning they might be.
Minor detail. I don't know that it's correct to talk about the conservative end embracing ideas. Once upon a time lots of people had those same ideas. The critique for at least some issues is that the conservative end failed to change existing ideas when other people did.
Also, I'm a little wary of the degree to which people are willing to use the word 'indefensible' when what they really mean is that they don't think much of the quality of the defence. Conservative attitudes to homosexuality are perfectly defensible in the sense that people are defending them all the time. In my opinion the defence involves reading the Bible in a way that ignores history and context and the difficulties of translation... but it's still an attempt to defend.
And perhaps that's what driving some of the concerns right now. The Ship's ethos has tended to be that people are challenged on their ideas, and poor defences of ideas get dismantled. When we talk about things being indefensible, is that what we're saying, or are we saying that you'll somehow get in trouble for even trying?
People may attempt to defend the indefensible. If someone is ignoring history, context, and the difficulties of translation, they're not actually mounting a defense of their attitude toward homosexuality - they're just making stuff up. And if we have to explain why history, context, and translation difficulties matter because they really don't know, so be it.
But regardless of whether or not it is, I don't think one is adding much value to the world for advocating against Trump, Brexit and Boris Johnson in a forum that, by and large, already agrees with you.
To my mind one can engage in advocacy on the Ship, but
a) if that's all one does, it's difficult to see how that's any different from crusading
b) there's a difference between advocacy in a setting such as the UN where one speaking on behalf of a group and is pushing a certain agenda to inform and one hopes direct the organisation's policy (and it is universally recognised that that is why one is there), and advocacy in a context of discussion.
I agree with this. I think asking for more H&A enforcement is just pushing the problem onto the shoulders of the Hosts. In real life there are lots of situations where people say we don't need more enforcement or harsher penalties, we need a culture change. ISTM this is similar.
I do see where you are coming from. One of the reasons for opening this thread is simply that I want to explore whether there are any long established Hosting standards and practices which may be contributing, inadvertently, to some of the issues raised in the Purg thread.
Sp far as criticisms of the contents of a post, we allow in any individual post the use of strong criticism of ideas, the use of sarcasm, swearing for emphasis. And I still think that is fine for individual posts. And the monitoring and moderating of individual posts are the province of Hosts. Patterns are another matter.
My personal opinion is that we may be able to find ways of stopping what I think of as Purgatorial dogpiles, jumping on critical bandwagons. And I think that gets somewhere near the heart of your concerns. I don't think the generous freedoms we give to means of criticism in any individual post can be changed without doing damage to the ethos of unrest. Nor do I think we can or should do anything about thin-skinnedness. The standards, intentionally, allow for robust, even heated, debate, but of ideas.
Right at this moment, I'm not sure what means might be used to control perceived Purgatorial dogpiles, or even if there is H&A consensus that it would be a good idea to try and find a way. Back to patterns. In general, Admin have the power to jump on unacceptable patterns of posting behaviour by any particular individual. Hosts apply the guidelines to individual posts and advise (privately or publicly) if they become concerned about an emerging pattern by any particular individual. And that's fine. I'm just not sure that Admin powers or practices specifically cover any form of dogpiling against ideas, the collective unfavourable response by several Shipmates to the ideas of one. I've never discussed that issue before.
I think the pros and cons of that are worth exploring. Even if in the end we decide to leave the guidelines as we are.
The other notion which arose in a comment by Croesos caught my attention. Is it always possible to be feel contempt for ideas and preserve respect for a person? Our Commandment 3 and 4 guidelines say that if you can't preserve that distinction in your mind you should go to Hell or shut up. Here I get conflicted. I think expression of contempt for ideas should be allowable in any individual Purgatorial post. But I see the impact of cumulative contempt and wonder whether that has moved away from serious debate.
I'm not sure this necessarily follows btw - I'm sure had Johnson ended up leading a previous government, the volume of reaction would have remained the same especially if the thread was in Hell.
The 10 commandments are fine as they stand.
If we can’t play properly, then there are consequences already in place.
Guess it is up to hosts and admins to decide if they want to be good cop or bad cop.
As a parent-of-many, one observation is that no matter how Correct a person (of any size) is....
Occasionally they do require to be sent to their room or given shore leave.
Just because.
But under Ship rules, isn't the situation that if you want to attack that poster, then do so, but do it in Hell?
I wonder if part of the issue is that we've had so many attacks on Hell that it's become regarded as a bad thing to call a Shipmate to Hell. I wasn't around before the invention of Hell, but the history says that Hell started to prevent personal animosities or dismissal of individuals from clogging up the other boards, and I wonder if part of what is going on is that the diminution of Hell is pushing the personalisation of disputes back into the main boards? My memory suggests that we used to have concurrent threads in Purgatory and/or Dead Horses and Hell, the first two politely drafted and evidenced, the Hell thread abusive, with often the same Shipmates taking part in both threads.
Nowadays, if I disagree with something, I refrain from posting.
It's entirely possible to hold a point of view that is basically correct and to be an arse in the way you express it. And I think someone who does this may well avoid being called to hell for a long time. I don't think there's a problem with hell as such, just that some Shipmates Behaving Badly™ are unlikely to get called there.
But I think that's a bit of a strawman with regards to this thread. AFAICS, most people, myself included, agree that pro-Brexit, pro-Tory, pro-Trump views have less 'merit' (in the sense of being right) than their own. But the purpose of Purgatory isn't merely to minimise the number of invalid views that are posted.
[Edited for clarity]
That cuts both ways. The pro-Brexit, pro-Tory, pro-Trump tribe believe the views of the anti-Brexit, anti-Tory, anti-Trump tribe have less "merit" / are completely wrong as well. What seems to be changing is the willingness to agree to disagree or to believe that holding the "wrong" views doesn't necessarily make you a bad person overall.
As one of Rev T's tutors used to say, you can advance any ideas you like as long as you can argue them and back them up with evidence. Which is one of the primary purposes of Purg IMO.
My frustration is when those purporting to reply to a post either haven't read or tried to understand what I've said at all, or have incorrectly put me into a category and typecast me, with apparent bias and put-downs.
I only come here for a few circus threads these days.
Too much of the time, it goes along with a sanctimonious refusal either to do anything other than repeat bigotry in Purg and stay the cold side of the portals of hell.
As such, the fact that their "theological" views are a personal attack on me is allowed to pass.
I know, that's what Ephanies is form, but I still think this is a meaningful point to make. Debate cannot proceed on the basis that opinions have no effect in the real world, or that their effect in the real world is no basis on which to judge the argument or, potentially, the arguer, particularly if they refuse to say anything other than "I'm right, the bible tells me so"
cit. Posters passim
People sometimes get called to Hell because of stuff they've said in Purg or Dead Horses. Whilst the Hell thread might include some discussion of the stuff that caused the Hell call in the first place, the Hell Hosts would direct people back to Purg or Dead Horses if necessary.
You might be right about conversations in Purg being impacted by changing attitudes towards the Hell Board coupled with with posters being happier to walk the line and adopting behaviours from other social.
The Ship has, as long as I've been here, thought itself a community. Though I'd argue that we are less of one these days.
Italics mine. I always hated that reasoning. It's like coming up to a Jew and saying "All Jews are lying swine" and when they say they feel attacked saying, "I didn't say you, I was talking about a group." It's bullshit.
I'm really not concerned about dogpiling against ideas. Let me reword that--I have no problem with having an idea absolutely eviscerated provided the ones doing it are actually attacking the argument rather than simply slinging mud at the poster, usually via a reference to the class of people (Tories, Republicans, conservatives, inerrantists) he/she belongs to. Nor do I mind swearing or emotional language or all that stuff, again, provided the human OP is treated like a human being and not like a faceless clone who must pay for the sins of all his/her class/group, regardless of whether he/she actually participates in those evils him/herself.
Truly, I don't even care if someone feels contempt for the first poster on account of his/her opinions--so long as they refrain from expressing that personal contempt in Purg. But contempt around here is not so easily identifiable as "You asshole" (as you certainly know). It's more likely to surface in "Well, that's how Republicans are, we all know that, right?" or off-hand references like "It's a shame the church you visited was so backward, but at least they weren't LCMS." That's what I'm objecting to. (And yes, there were several exchanges on the LCMS subject roughly similar to that a few months ago, and neither I nor my denomination were even in play on that particular thread. We were just being held up as an example of trogolodytes.)