Random Xpat Rantings

Contemplative dominance for the modern man

The culture of over-moderated forums

Posted by xsplat on November 28, 2013

Maigo commented: “Some people out there are weird and broken. And they teach being weird and broken as a way of life.”

I’ve come to realise that this is essentially humanity in a nutshell. All the systems, religions and beliefs we have are just a handed down insanity that not enough people question.

Hard to argue with that, actually. I said something similar to 18 recently, regarding her parents and their parents teaching how to be afraid of their own fears through believing in ghosts.

Indonesia is so child-like. Everybody here is afraid of the dark and afraid of being alone. They equate being alone with the ghosts getting them.

And yes, their entire religion seems to be similar – a bunch of superstitions passed on to vulnerable children, who never grow up to question their beliefs.

The Catholic evangelists have a saying that goes something like; “give me a child before he is older than 4 and he is mine for life”

I’ve tried to explain to people that “just because you learned it when you were four doesn’t make it true”, but the “Jeesus loves me yes I know, cause my Mommy told me so” logic seems irrefutable.

However there are systems of thought that attempt a constant self corection. The scientific method is an example. Humans are capable of teaching habits of openness, curiosity, and constant revisioning of their mental maps to align with truth and beauty.

Mentors should be happy and truthful to a fault; even at the expense of comfort of others precious sense of group cohesion.

You’ll see moderation policies that lead to a Pinterest level lack of contentiousness destroy forums over time. People prefer the comfort of pleasantries and conformist group think to expression of opposing views, as it’s inevitable that a genuine expression of dissent will appear abrasive. People even label honest dissent as “trolling”, rather than deal with it. I’ve seen this ruin more than one forum.

And the funny thing is that those who remain in an over-moderated forum are happy with it. Even as the quality declines, they are happy to be insulated from abrasive contentiousness, and don’t seem to notice the decline. Even while others who prefer a free expression of interesting thoughts have been kicked out or silenced through intimidation or moved elsewhere.

The thaivisa.com forum was famous for this, and stickman of stickmanbangkok.com pointed out how that forum was so over-moderated that it was completely useless. The moderators there had a habit of kicking out the smartest people. And yet those that remained praised the moderation.

Happy sheep. Thank goodness the rabble rousers are gone! Now we can be dull and pleasant and polite in our peaceful bubble of wilful ignorance!

And the same thing happened to the Rooshvforum. I took a look for the first time in four months yesterday and it’s not the same place it was. Its as contentious as Pinterest over there now, with the level of discourse having dropped to gif images of smileys and grapes and trolls and whatnot. Very little creative insight over there any more. Those that remain don’t seem to realize that the place is already all but dead. The life of it has been moderated out. All that is left are over-moderate people happy with over-moderation. Yes men so pleased with their straight jackets that they consider them to be fashionable. Sheep who are happy being sheep. People who value getting along above refining ideas to the point that they all agree to agree and exclude the non-believers with snark. Male feminists, in a way. Group mind as a culture of how to not-think.

For instance criticism of the moderation policy could not be openly discussed over there any more. All people would do is reflexively accuse of sour grapes and trolling. Or shut up for fear of being banned. No, there is nothing wrong with over-moderation! It’s being abrasive and not fitting in to the group-culture that can’t be tolerated!

It’s instructive to compare the forum now to about six months ago. Instructive as to what humanity in groups does to itself, in the name of group cohesion. It becomes wilfully dull. And RVF is further stamped by the moderators ill conceived and emotionally stunted views on intimacy.

A cult of dark triad people leading each other on in emotional deadness and group mind. It was also once more than that – there was much value shared there, and men acted as men do – with debate and spark and aggressive dissension.

I can’t see men acting like men there now. That’s not allowed.

And those that are left are happy with that state of affairs. Perhaps they are happiest with that. As most of humanity usually is. People like to follow and not be allowed to dissent. They call that culture.

From therationalmale:

A handful of my male readers often ask why I don’t moderate comments, or that the message of Rational Male would be better served if I banned certain commenters. I’ve mentioned on several posts and threads as to why I won’t ever do that (except for blatant spamming), but in a nutshell it’s my fundamental belief that the validity of any premise or idea should be able to withstand public debate. People who aren’t confident of the strength of their assertions or ideas, or are more concerned with profiting from the branding of those weak assertions than they are in truth, are the first to cry about the harshness of their critics and kill all dissent as well as all discourse about those assertions.

About these ads

17 Responses to “The culture of over-moderated forums”

  1. WHM said

    “The Catholic evangelists have a saying that goes something like; “give me a child before he is older than 4 and he is mine for life”

    Protestants too. I fought my way out of it. Wasn’t easy. It’s nasty indoctrination.

    I think what you describe is simple maturity. We have gone from the false light that is provided for us to control us, into the darkness to seek real light. It’s a lonely road. But it’s anything but dull. We did this because we can and because we saw the need to do it.

    It’s all about control. They hate us because we will not be controlled. They don’t like that at all.

  2. guest1 said

    I agree about the RVF Forum.

    It is a good forum – but too heavy handed when it comes to moderation.

    I am all for banning trolls. But a troll is a troll. Out to cause shit and disruption and nothing else.

    It is clear what a troll is when you see one. It is pretty much the same as those spam bots which repeatedly post about discounted sports shoes and what not.

    But – on the RVF Forum – I feel people are accusing people of being a troll too much. And people should only be labelled as a troll when their behaviour is clearly out of control. Indeed – the idea of somebody having hundreds of good posts and then suddently becoming a ‘troll’ doesn’t even make sense to me. No proper troll has the patience to lie low for that long.

    Anyway – I feel it is better to allow for healthy discussions and disagreements on a forum. As opposed to just booting people out since in the long run it can cause alot of healthy debate to disappear.

    Just my $0.02

    PS I am a regular poster on the forum.

    • xsplat said

      Thanks for taking the time to comment.

      I understand that there are a great many on the forum who share your views, but know to be quiet about them or risk being booted out.

      Seems unhealthy to me.

      Comments to me in Private Message from RVF members after a temp ban from this series of posts http://xsplat.wordpress.com/2013/08/01/the-posts-that-got-me-a-1-week-ban-from-rooshvforum/:

      guy #1) I tend to self-moderate pretty heavily sometimes and even then I worry that I’ll get caught up in a discussion that rubs someone the wrong way and get banned.

      guy #2) I’m unimpressed with the way so many people are getting banned lately. Okay, some of them are dicks and deserve it, but many are quality posters with over a thousand posts to their names. It seems we’re not allowed to disagree with ‘the Management’ any more – plain old censorship. Same with locking the thread – so heavy handed.

      I just keep quiet on some contentious issues because the value of the forum as a resource to me is greater than my need to explain my views to strangers who mostly don’t care what I think.

      guy #3) The mods here are far too strict in my opinion.

      guy #4) Banned? That’s ridiculous we were having a good chat. I had never thought of personal growth vs. hypocrisy so clearly, it was interesting.

      guy #5) Sucks about your 7 day ban. I don’t think you deserved it at all.

      guy #6) I got a 1 day ban too, I dont even think i disrespected anyone but oh well.

      guy #7) i dont like how this place is becoming a bit of dictatorship where top posters can say whatever they think and everyone has to agree with them.

      guy #8) Sorry to hear about the suspension, this forum can be brutal. I tend to self-moderate pretty heavily sometimes and even then I worry that I’ll get caught up in a discussion that rubs someone the wrong way and get banned.

      guy #9) they banned you for demolishing their group think, basically.

      guy #10) I didn’t see you saying anything that was offensive(but I didn’t read every post.)

      guy #11) I think there is too much banning going on here. It is scary the number of people who have being banned altogether. Indeed – I hold back myself – since I can’t be bothered dealing with bans and so forth. .. I agreed with you – but I don’t have the patience for those back and forward debates. I usually just reinterpret my opponent’s views into something I can agree with. Congratulate them on giving me something to think about. And then move on…

  3. Mark Laszczuk said

    Hi xsplat, excellent post, mate. A lot of people in the ‘sphere like to criticise feminists for squashing dissent, but it happens a lot here, too.

    The whole ‘Your freedom of expression ends where my feelings begin.’ thing is just as prevalent here (in The Manosphere) as anywhere else.

  4. Master Dogen said

    Way off topic here, xsplat, but I’m curious. When you say “Indonesia is so child-like,” it makes me wonder, do you think it’s merely culture or also possibly genetics? I’m not interested in a long diatribe about white superiority or anything like that, but it’s something I’ve honestly wondered about. I’ve been with mostly white women in my life (I’m white myself), and the second biggest group by far that I’ve been with have been Asian girls (mostly Northeast Asians, but also several Pinays and one Indonesian), and I’ve also been with a small number of Latinas (both US Latinas and original flavor in the home country), plus 4 or 5 African girls. I’ve also had close male friends in all the above groups, and time living among all the relevant cultures/ethnic groups. I’ve noticed a rather marked difference in how they relate to the universe, on a soul-level, and because the US (my home country) is such a diverse place, racially, I’ve had the opportunity to notice some trends that seem to transcend money and geography. I.e., the ninth generation blacks I meet in the U.S. are more spiritually similar to the blacks I meet in Africa than they are to the whites I meet (whatever generation) in Europe or America. Likewise with the Asian girls; culturally the Pinays on the west coast of the US are light-years away from the poor girls of Mindanao, but on a deep level, they remain quite similar.

    The numbers aren’t important; what I mean to address is the idea that while all people have a path to spirituality, it’s manifestly *not* the same path for all groups of people. There are obviously outliers and I don’t care to get dragged down into race-baiting kind of crap, as I imagine you don’t either.

    Where my question intersects with your own interests (as I interpret from reading your blog for a long time now) is the idea of taking a girl’s genetic background into account when dealing with her on a soul level. Obviously you have to take her *culture* into account; that much is true even among various classes of white girls in the U.S. But when we’re talking about the deep kind of soul connection that seems to interest you, do you feel that you change your game for certain ethnic groups? Or, another way to phrase it, when some of the commenters from a year back or so (they don’t seem to show up so much anymore) say things like “Oh you have been in SEA too long; American girls are so different,” besides the correct response you’ve given — which is that perhaps cultures are different but women have the same basic cravings everywhere — do you think there is perhaps another level on which black girls (on average of course) have different soul reactions than white girls (on average) than Filipina girls (on average), etc?

    To be totally blunt about my own mind-space when I ask this question, I’ll confess something rather un-PC. While I don’t doubt the possibility for deep spirituality that inheres in every human being, regardless of race, I do sometimes wonder if, for example, a Nigerian can achieve Buddhistic levels of mind-focus the same way an Indian or a Nordic can (for that matter, I wonder if a non-exceptional Nordic can achieve the same levels as an Indian). That particular question is not all that important, per se. But if we’re talking about the deep soul-conversion of a girl, it seems that these kinds of questions, if they are relevant at all in life, would be relevant here. I suspect they *are* relevant in life, and that’s why I ask. I’m interested to engage the girls in my own life at a very deep level, and it seems to me to be a relevant issue. Do you think there’s something particular about SEA girls that speaks to you on a soul-level and makes them, on a soul level, extra attractive to you and you, on a soul level, extra attractive to them? Are there polarities between the various races in addition to the polarities between the sexes? Your take?

    • xsplat said

      Yes, I’m sure that characters are moulded racially. Twin studies have shown that personality characteristics and even minute personality quirks can be genetic. Races are groups of genes with some commonalities, so there you have it; the Germans are German not merely by culture, their temperament as a group is influenced by their genes, and to some unknown degree is for all groups. Our minds are informed by our genes, and our genes are inherited, and we have pools of common genes.

      The SE Asians lack curiosity or creativity. That’s a famous fact, and my guess is that the foundation for this is in genes even more so than culture. Culture just happens to reflect the genetic predisposition.

      Creativity and curiosity are rare even in the west, as I recall from my grade and high school days. The more creative and curious are labelled as gifted, so it’s a thing, related partially to personality typing – the gifted tend to be introverts.

      I suspect that the gifted in Asia are not gifted with creativity and curiosity in the same proportion.

      I’ve also read talk that IQ might have a special type. We’ve heard of emotional IQ, or mathematical versus linguistic IQ. Some think there may be a creative IQ as well. I wrote a post about that once; http://xsplat.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/iq-of-the-creative-category-and-testosterone/

      do you feel that you change your game for certain ethnic groups?

      Well, the last non SEA girl I dated was a Persian looking Pakistani beauty who was/is quite bright. So we got to interact on levels that I don’t with most local girls. I didn’t really think of it in terms of game, but it’s true that smart girls are easier for a smart guy to build attraction with – just because smart guys are rare and it’s only smart girls who even have the capacity to notice and appreciate a smart guys smarts. Most SEA girls I date have no clue about my smarts, other than by seeing that I do complicated business work.

      Do you think there’s something particular about SEA girls that speaks to you on a soul-level and makes them, on a soul level, extra attractive to you and you, on a soul level, extra attractive to them? Are there polarities between the various races in addition to the polarities between the sexes?

      I doubt it. I’ve been having lust based relationships. Feels like a soul connection, as that’s the job of oxytocin – to make meaning out of pleasure. I like to intermingle subtly on a physical/energetic level. For that it helps to have a girl I’m hugely physically attracted to. That’s easier to get here. If my money went as far in the west and young attractive women were as amenable to dating men 30 years older, then I doubt I’d be here. I’m here for those two reasons – women and financial ease.

      Western girls tend to be more fun to talk to. I’ve had some deep connections with some western women.

      I’ll be wanting to travel to other countries in the coming years. Perhaps Eastern Europe and South America will be next. I was thinking China, but those smart girls might be too nerdy for me. For now though there is much untapped potential of many sorts here in Indonesia – I could easily stay a few more years without feeling any itch to move. I’m going to try to break into higher social circles, and date a brighter class of girl. I had a dream about hosting refined dinner parties the other night.

      and you, on a soul level, extra attractive to them?

      The word “paternal” is not a dirty word here. It’s as respected as is the word maternal. When the man of the house comes home, his children will greet him and touch his knuckles to their forehead. Deference and respect is built into this culture.

      I’m Daddy, by right. It’s not only my persona, it’s my skill – thousands of hours have gone into being a skilled and good Daddy. That works quite well, especially here. I think it would work anywhere, but I suspect there may be some cultural barriers to just falling into that in the west.

      My last live in had huge barriers to submitting to a Daddy. She was a real career driven tom-boy. My particular brand of magic still worked on her. It just took some months and years to ripen that part of a connection that sometimes happens in minutes or hours.

  5. avd said


    Laying down the third rail on X’s site? I’ll bite, though I won’t grab.

    Racial effects on the soul?

    A fascinating question, and one that I’ve intensely and privately pondered, for many, many years. It’s also a topic heavily obfuscated by the gatekeepers of mass information distribution, and therefore a topic that’s difficult for those still plugged-in to think about clearly.

    First, though, a quick little thought exercise to diffuse PC reactionism: would you rather go quail hunting with a pointer or a terrier? Exactly. And it’s perfectly acceptable to love both, while simultaneously trusting your five senses and common sense to understand that they are different. They’re the same species. They can reproduce. But they are not equal. They are different. The phrase “birds of a feather flock together” exists because that is what humans have witnessed as observable reality since time immemorial. That phrase, that little snippet of language, becomes shorthand understanding by our species regarding the environment we inhabit. And it’s absolutely TRUE. Go into any ecosystem and observe life—organisms with marked differences do NOT intermix, generally. When they do, it’s the exception to the rule. Notice that I’m not placing a value on this, but merely stating that it’s observable reality. It applies to mammals, fish, birds, reptiles, insects, etc. Hell, even bacteria. Are cohesive COLONIES of bacteria being racist toward other bacteria? To ask the question is to expose how intellectually bankrupt all such social arguments are. It’s because they aren’t real arguments, based on a desire to understand truth of existence. They are mental maneuvers executed with the purpose of pulling power from those targeted to those who initiate the maneuver. Many in the MS would call this framing. To neglect thinking of your own race clearly will generate the same types of problems for you as neglecting to think about your sex clearly—and isn’t that the whole fucking point of the MS? (And why it generates such conniption fits among the crowd who would have you think of your sex in a way that isn’t beneficial for you?) So I suggest that whoever YOU are, you grab sack, and begin thinking about all facets of your life as clearly as possible. It will only benefit your personal growth.

    To the meat:

    I’ve lived in locations where I WANTED to be sexually attracted to the locals. I went into it anticipating the many sexual adventures I would have with females of a different race. I did have those adventures, but pretty quickly I realized that I simply wasn’t attracted to them, on average—there were outliers, of course. Ultimately, I unintentionally (to my brain) reverted to sexual relationships with the few females of my own race who also lived in those foreign cultures. Flings were unlimited. Relationships, another story.

    And fuck me if I didn’t scratch my head over that turn of affairs. Afterwards, and many years later after staring down this undeniable fact about myself, I came to the conclusion that my body—my biological information-processing vehicle—knows damn well what it’s attracted to, and that what I “think” I should be attracted to does not fool the inner hard wiring.

    That was a pivotal moment in my own personal growth—the moment when I turned WAY DOWN the volume of information received from external sources, and turned WAY UP the apparatus for listening to the inner wisdom already hardwired inside of me, cultivated over thousands of years.

    Looking back, I can realistically say that the wisdom of my inner firmware has never steered me wrong. Cerebral thinking, on the other hand, has steered me wrong MANY times.

    There is a reason that one’s competitors do not want one to listen that that wisdom. It’s the same reason that those competitors bombard one with bullshit information to fuck up one’s mental map. Feminism is but one example of this, based on sex.

    But your post wasn’t about sex, it was about race.

    The conclusion at which I’ve arrived is an extension of one of my previous comments on X’s site having to do with emotions. I now believe, based on my own observations of the world, that racial tendencies (including emotions, temperaments, information processing, and spirituality) sink into and get deleted from DNA, over long periods of time. They exist for a reason, or they wouldn’t have been passed across generations so many times that they have become part of the racial firmware. At some point, they must have been advantageous for the environmental and social conditions of their respective races. There is also the issue of mass migrations, which alter DNA for no success-based reason at all, but merely because the mass migration occurred. It likely takes many generations to sift the genetic wheat from the chaff of such migrations. With modern travel technology we are witnessing levels of genetic mixing never before seen in recorded history. Time will tell how it all plays out.

    Specifically, regarding racial influence on soul, my observations of humanity lead me to believe that all humans carry inside the same cosmic spark. Also based on my observations, I believe this about animals. How that spark is expressed externally seems to be mostly a factor of infinite processes repeated over and over across generations, like drops of water carving canyons over time, that become codified in DNA to be re-expressed in subsequent generations. The word “race” exists to reference those changes that have sunk into the DNA of a population, skin color being ONLY ONE of those changes. If an individual of given race does something extraordinary, it is not considered racial—it’s considered EXTRA-ordinary to the expectations of racial expression for that individual’s race. There’s a very logical and non-offensive reason why mangrove swamps don’t exist in Canada, and an equally non-offensive reason why glaciers don’t exist in Florida.

    Race, culture, language, and spirituality are so intertwined, that it’s exceedingly difficult to isolate them for the collection of hard unbiased data, for the simple reason that changes to them take place over such long periods of time—far longer than the lifespan of any one individual so inclined to measure their changes.

    “Are there polarities between the various races in addition to the polarities between the sexes?”

    My personal experience, as mentioned, is the exact opposite. And I’ve never seen it among any of my friends or associates. I have ONE friend who expresses a preference for females of a race not his own—he’s married to a female of his own race. Clearly, however, there are individuals who have sexual preferences for races other than their own. I have zero understanding of those cases, so I really can’t speak to them.

    “I’m interested to engage the girls in my own life at a very deep level, and it seems to me to be a relevant issue.”

    Females will adopt the spirituality of a strong captain in whose ship they want to travel, FOR THEIR OWN SELF-INTERESTED REASONS. This is why females of conquered tribes are able to easily assimilate into the culture (including spirituality) of the victors—when they have no choice, they adapt quite easily. Females are fluid like that; males, not so much. A captain’s number one job then, is to establish the spirituality—the rules—of his ship. The social rules inherent in a female’s racial background will affect her ability to submit to leadership from another racial background, simply because those are the rules by which she is habituated to leading her life. Her difficulty to adapt is especially so if she has other options, unlike females of conquered tribes. Strong male leadership can overcome this, though it seems obvious that it might require more energy than leading a female of one’s own background, simply because there are more rules that will have to be changed, and not for any inherent superiority of one race over the other. Bending one’s rules to accommodate the rules of one’s crew is risky business, regardless of race, though it can further one’s education on the human condition.

    Grab some popcorn and enjoy the shitstorm.

    • With all due respect, this is an elaborate, long-winded, and articulate dodge of the question. You’re allaying some general fears about racial thinking (perhaps they’re your own, I have none myself). The question remains. I think your conclusion, in your last paragraph, is sound, and I agree. But I intended, at least, for my original post to preclude already such nervous hand wringing. I phrased things perhaps a bit too delicately, because I didn’t want a “shitstorm” of misunderstanding. I am assuming that any answer to the meat of my question already takes into account the very true, and very irrelevant, groundwork you’ve laid with your respone. All you’ve done here is delicately explain why racial thinking is problematic at the same time as it is legitimate (and I agree that it’s both of these), and then reassert that sexual dimorphism operates across racial lines, which with proposition I also agree, as I hope was obvious from my original post.

      ” The social rules inherent in a female’s racial background will affect her ability to submit to leadership from another racial background, simply because those are the rules by which she is habituated to leading her life. Her difficulty to adapt is especially so if she has other options, unlike females of conquered tribes. Strong male leadership can overcome this, though it seems obvious that it might require more energy than leading a female of one’s own background, simply because there are more rules that will have to be changed, and not for any inherent superiority of one race over the other.”

      All this seems fine, and true. But it still dodges the question. Duh. New circumstances will make people (male or female) react in new ways. Of course cultural rules and new paradigms will affect how females (and males for that matter) react to new situations. If all you mean to say is that such dynamics are *more* important that any other (prior, interior, genetic) dynamics, that’s fine, and I’m inclined to agree. But I’m not really asking that. I’m asking if, all other dynamics being equal, certain groups of girls have certain racial soul-interiors. Waving one’s hands in the air wisely doesn’t really get to the meat of the question, and frankly it’s tiresome. I don’t particularly care if the question makes anyone uncomfortable. And in fact I know the answer… they *do* indeed have different souls, on average. I’m asking xsplat, specifically, what his insights are on this issue and how he deals with it.

      • avd said

        Ok, I understand your question, now.

      • avd said


        I feel really compelled to write this to you: my comment was DEFINITELY NOT directed at you, personally, but rather intended for the consideration of the readership, at large. Apologies if it came off otherwise. (Yours was a really FASCINATING question, one I’ve privately pondered, for MANY years, and in my personal view, one ripe for the considering of many in the larger community, beyond only a conversation b/t you and X.) However, upon a second read, I can totally see how it might have been taken in a different way.

        I could easily (and should) have reworded a few words in my comment, to be more clear about that.

        Last thing I want is for X’s site to descend into another negativity sink. Enough of that shite going around.

        Peace, sincerely.

      • No worries, Avd. All in the spirit of good discussion. It’s certainly an interesting question.

        And xsplat, thanks for your answer above. Makes sense to me, and jibes with my experience, too.

  6. I am in the process of setting up an actual Social Media site using the Anahita software package that is based on the graphs, nodes, stories architecture. The key point of the site is Every Member Is An Author (if he chooses-meaning every registered users can post stories that behave as blog posts with permissions of who may see the stories, ie public, register users only, followers only).

    The basis and core value of the site is that It Is a Community and Not a Cult.

    So all I provide is infrastructure and process for like minded people. I have no particular agenda to impose. I just wish to put the thing up as some sort of Facebook type thing (but with strident anonymity for members. I ask for nothing at registration that would connect them in any way to their real life. I even provide them with the email service to log into to complete the registration process by confirmation, i.e. username@socialnetworkname (I do not give the name because I do not wish to spam) Then all contact between members occurs through that email, which will be a real email, webmail exactly like hotmail or gmail using much the same mail servers and a hacked up squirrel mail web page to compose, view, delete, and manage your mail.)

    And then see where it goes on the basis of how the users use it.

    The basis of what I feel should be the core values of the social network are found in the book, The Art of Community.

    But this book does emphasis the affect of negative personalities within the community and does insist that banning is necessary.

    So while I agree wholeheartedly with your post, and wish this premise of your post to be the core value of the social network, I would ask advice on this balance. You can contact me via this Facebook account if you wish.

    What does your experience as a long time blog author provide you that you could impart to me on the best way to administer a Social Network that would have a lack of censorship as a core value, that lets the discussions go where they go, yet tries to maintain the norm that debate and deliberations of an intellectual manner without personal attacks, civility, good community “citizenship” are the core values of the Social Network?

    • xsplat said

      Hi Mark. Sounds like a worthwhile project overall.

      As an anonymity freak, I don’t use facebook though. I understand that many manosphere friendly guys prefer to post with anonymity as well. So connecting guys using facebook or other social media might not be the way to go.

      As for moderation, I suggest making a clear policy, and never straying from it. The policy could be updated as needed, as new circumstances point out the need. If rules are applied equally to all, then this is fair and balanced and healthy.

      Men invented the concept of laws. It’s a good concept.

      Arbitrary moderation at the whim of mods can’t be the basis of any successful community, no matter how enlightened are the moderators. We all have biases. Communities need structure that they can agree on.

      Oh, and that’s the other thing. Democracies have input into their own laws. Generally that seems a good idea, although I would not recommend voting on the mod policy. Moderators should take input to the moderation policy seriously – and perhaps yes there should be some mechanism to force policies if the demand is high, even against a moderators wish. Communities should rule themselves, to a degree.

      I have no solution to how a community can successfully do that, really – I don’t actually believe in democracy. But any attempt is better than none.

      • sorry, I made the comparison to Facebook as a social network to give you an idea of what the site would be. You got a profile that acts mostly as a home page. I can chop the profile fields down to almost nothing and certainly nothing like whether or not you like kitties. So then any stories you post or comments you have made to other user’s stories will be visible on the profile page and someone that comes to your profile page would see those things that they have permissions to see. So were I a follower of you then most likely I would have full access to your writing. Each story or note can have permissions set to it. Follower, Registered Users, Public.

        The Social Network will have nothing and I mean nothing to do with Facebook. You pick some username and from that point forward, that is you. I don’t want to know who you are. Trust me, nobody in the manosphere could possibly know the dangers of using your real name and having your online history come back to haunt you in your personal life anymore than I do. So to protect that from happening to anyone then I will never ask for anything for registration. The software has some feature called Notes that you can connect, if you choose, such that your note call be sent to a Facebook wall or a Twitter account. But it is the option of the user to make that connection or not.

        I mentioned facebook also meaning I logged in to comment on your site using that feature so I assumed you had that info if you wished to write to me.

        So then you recommend creating a policy. I suppose the web is full of examples. But how would you word it to the point of saying “Look, state your idea, make your point, but be civil”?

        Keep in mind, the model of how I wish this thing to be is the exact opposite of the RooshV forum where this thing is not about me, but about the users, All I provide is infrastructure. I think the software allows a user to delete comments. For example, so some user ABC posts a story such that registered users may view it and then comment on it. So then the user ABC is the administrator of that story. So I am thinking that I as the administrator don’t do jack about moderating comments or behavior and it becomes the prerogative of the author of the story to moderate it as he sees fit. He has the power as a user to block other users much like some Facebook girl that doesn’t want to have creepy stalker boys following her. So if user ABC blocks user DEF, than DEF is effectively “banned” as far as ABC is concerned, but still has a viable and functioning account within the social network,

        What dangers would you perhaps in that strategy?

      • xsplat said

        I’ve seen well written moderation policies, but can’t remember where. If you don’t want to take a few hours to google up a bunch of them and patchwork together something that suits you, you could start with something simple, like:
        Moderation policy: write to reflect the care you’ve put into reading comprehension and don’t be a dick for no good reason

        and then just alter it after each instance where you are forced to take moderation action – each instance should be reflected as a rule. If you can’t make a rule to be applied accross the board as a standard for friends and foes alike, then don’t take the moderation action. And clarify it after each instance where the policy is too vague. For instance “don’t be a dick” wouldn’t hold up well in a court of law.

        But ya, your method wouldn’t need a moderation policy, as that would be up to each contributor. So freedom of speech would be hit and miss, depending on the whims of each contributor.

  7. avd said


    Hey! I was your BIGGEST detractor in your early days, WAY before the rest of the MS caught on (ignored), and one of your biggest DEFlectors in your latter days (also ignored)! (Never got even a ‘thanks’ for that, which is totally copasetic… (just pointing it out for readers.) [Go read the MS archives, all.]

    My comments ABSOLUTELY DO NOT reflect anyone’s position on anything, other than my own.

    But damn, dog, you sure stirred up a shitstorm. Fun for all, thanks(?).

    So where are we now Minter? How’s the new relationship working out? Good, I hope, sincerely.

    I’m amenable to anthing but hypocrisy, FWIW. Just so I can get my bearings straight, enegmatic friend… where are we? Having you on X’s site should be great fun. Unbelievable, in fact. Emphasis on “unbelievable.” However, step forward. You are fun, and I always held to that. But… be fun.

    Remember friend, NOT a hater, but also NOT giving a free pass to a background such as yours, either.

    This is the ONE community in the MS NOT infected with bullshit. Don’t bring it here, and there should be no problems.

    Take that as a friendly welcome, and bring the goods, MS celebrity.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 123 other followers

%d bloggers like this: