[MD] Intellectual honesty

[Horse]

  Hi Steve, Dan, DMB, Ron, John, Matt, Platt and anyone else who's 
interested



On 11/07/2010 02:25, Steven Peterson wrote:
> Steve:
> If those supporting Horse's action don't think Bo ought to be banned
> then I am as confused as Matt is about what administrative action we
> are talking about here. I mean, yeah, yeah, yeah...I agree that Bo is
> all these flavors of horrible (and probably also a pretty good guy),

The impression I get is that no-one (myself included) wants to see Bo 
removed from MD. Which is good - Bo is liked by many on the forum and 
none of us want it to come to the point where Bo is removed. I know I 
don't anyway. But what is required is that Bo stops repeating what, for 
most, is the bleeding obvious. I.e. that Pirsig is either the originator 
of the SOL or that he supports it in any way.

As both yourself and Matt have pretty much stopped reading what Bo posts 
to the forum (a luxury I don't have if I want to be a good 
administrator/moderator) you may have missed a number of people asking 
Bo to 'shut the fuck up' and to stop being, as many correctly see it, 
intellectually dishonest.

> but what specific administrative action are we talking about? Is it...
>
> 1) a new forum rule where anyone claiming that SOL is Pirsig's idea
> risks being banned?

Not a rule that will go on the website but a moderator request that will 
have the same effect. See comments below.

> 2) a administrative request that Bo shut the hell up about SOL for a while?

Tried that - didn't work! See comments below.
Also, please note that I'm not saying that there can be no discussion of 
the SOL - just that it is not Pirsig's idea or supported by Pirsig.

> 3) a specific threat leveled at Bo that he will be banned if he in
> particular continues to say that SOL was Pirsig's idea?

Not banned - removed from the list. See below

> 4) something else, like Bo will be banned if he continues to try to
> woo every newbie that comes along by flattering them and telling them
> about how they have blessedly managed to stumble upon the Great
> Insight?

See below.


There are specific rules that relate to the forum which can be viewed on 
moq.org and there are the general rules of any mailing list which are 
that the list admin/moderator should keep some sort of order, try and 
sort out member disputes and a whole bunch of other admin/moderator type 
tasks. There is also a general rule that the admin/moderators decision 
is final.
So what options do I have as moderator if, after asking someone to stop 
doing something or behaving in a way that I think is incorrect, they 
refuse and carry on as if I had said nothing? As far as I can see I have 
three choices:

1) Do nothing
2) Moderate each incoming post from the offending member and only pass 
those that I think are suitable
3) Remove the member from the list

If I do 1) I'm not doing my job properly, which I take seriously, so 
that's not an option I would accept.
If I do 2) I'll have have to spend ridiculous amounts of time not only 
checking posts for inappropriate content but also having arguments from 
all and sundry that whatever I do is wrong and censorious and that I'm 
an evil jack-booted bastard. I don't accept this option either as I have 
far better things to do with my life than waste time in pointless arguments.
Which leaves me with 3) and is the option I have chosen. Also remember 
that removal from the list isn't necessarily permanent. If a member 
agrees to stop whatever it was that I asked them to stop they can come 
back onto the list. This has happened before.

If you know of other options then please let me know.

I've opted for 3 because this gives me a chance to stop offending 
behaviour without having to waste time in pointless discussions.
Which, in my opinion, is what I've been doing for the last couple of 
weeks and which I don't intend to continue.
Bo has been asked to stop one particular thing. If he chooses not to do 
so he will be removed from the list. If anyone else chooses to continue 
the behaviour Bo has been asked to stop, the same thing happens. Very 
simple.

In addition to what I've said above, I would also repeat more or less 
what I said in a previous post:

It would be a good idea to allow newcomers to settle into the forum for 
a few weeks instead of, figuratively, leaping on them as soon as they 
are through the forum door and have their coats off and regale them with 
the MoQ according to Bo. Consider this an administrative request and 
have the good manners to allow new members some breathing space and 
settling in time.
I also think it would be a good idea that if an argument has gone on for 
a certain length of time or number of posts and is getting absolutely 
nowhere then I should and will call a time-out to all involved for a 
cooling off and reflection period. I will try and be polite and 
reasonable about this and will expect those involved to respect my 
decision, live with it and not give me a hard time about it or make 
stupid accusations


> None of us think that Bo's SOL thesis is worth a darn and wish he
> would stop harping on it, but what action are you defending here? I
> thought it was 1) at first, but maybe it is 2) since you don't think
> Bo ought to be banned. I thought Horse had done 1) in which case forum
> rules are now:
>
> #1 You must have read Pirsig's 2 books
> #2 You may not say that SOL was Pirsig's idea
>
> (Are there other rules to add to this list?) But perhaps Horse only
> intended 2). I normally delete any posts addressed to or from Bo, so
> I'm not at all clear about what has transpired. Is there a new forum
> rule or not?

If my position isn't clear now then it is unlikely to ever be so.
Bo hasn't posted for a while so maybe he's taking time out to consider 
what I and others have said. I hope so.
Bo and others are quite welcome to continue to promote the SOL but with 
regard for what I have asked.

Cheers


Horse

-- 

"Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid."
— Frank Zappa