See thats the problem. Whats getting in the way and who makes the call and when.

If i start a thread and it has a focused discussion and a tangent starts to get in the way. Can i ask that the tangent be allowed since i like tangents.


I dont have a problem if the OP of a thread wants it on topic and ask for that. I dont even mind if we have high content threads where that is enforced. I like OT threads too sometimes.

I think the right answer is to respect the tone of the OP. If someone wants a more focused discussion or if someone wants the thread to wander they should have the say.

The moderators, whenever they like.
Yeah I think so. If nobody's upset, what's the problem?

that's pretty much all I was trying to say.

I get why they dont allow some ugly ideas. And if i owned the site i might not either. And i like how RGT is pretty liberal in its discussions. Wish it was more opened. But sometimes you have to take the good with the bad.

If the issue of a thread is the error. I dont see how someone showing that error in all its glory would necessarily prevent me form having a substantive discussion with them. Yes it could get heated but i have know people who were racist and have had discussions with them in a fairly civil manner.
If the heated topic is a view they hold and that view will get them banned. I dont see how that view could be discussed at all. Except on the fringes of it. Which i think is less effective then confronting the view head on in a friendly manner.

I think we agree.

Im just not sure thats how the forum works when people are told to post on topic and off topic stuff is move to its own thread even though the OP made no attempts at saying they want an on topic thread.

Its just confusing. Can i post off topic stuff during a focused discussion if the OP doesn't say what they want.

Sure. Has there been a problem so far?

I think any attempt to codify such a subjective area is doomed to failure. The fact is, we are posting on a site whose owners have given jibninjas and original position the right to make such calls. Someone has to do it.

Not a big one. I linked my concerns in this post.

You are confusing me. If its the OP of a thread who should determine if a thread should reamin on topic then shouldn't the mods stay out of it unless someone gos against the OP's wishes.

They have more rights than the rest of us. I don't think they should be treated as pseudomods of their own threads though. Their wishes should matter, but they aren't the determiners, in my view.

Jibninjas and original position are the bosses. They listen as much as they want and any problems go to them or ATF. Internet forums aren't democracies.

First, I just want to note that I find this conversation useful. I mostly don't know what I'm doing as a moderator, and so it is helpful to hear the opinions of respected RGT posters on my decisions.

Second, my main goal as a moderator is to promote productive discussion. So you can definitely convince me to change how I do things if you can show me how doing so would lead to better discussions. On this topic, since I also consider these tangents productive, I would consider it a failure of moderation if I discouraged or prevented people from engaging in them.

So let me explain the reasoning behind my actions in the two cases you cite and if you still disagree with me you can tell me where you think I go wrong. In the first post you cite here I asked people to focus on the issue raised by the OP rather than discuss other issues. In this case the purpose was definitely to discourage people from raising new ideas or tangents in that thread.

I guess what I would say in defense of my actions here that I viewed that thread as a special case. It seemed to me that the OP was asking for advice on a serious personal matter and so I judged that thread should be moderated more closely than normal--something more akin to a high content thread except not really discussion oriented. However, I definitely take the overall point that I should be careful when doing this, especially in situations where the OP doesn't specifically request it.

I think the second example is a bit different. First of all, I don't think that separating the two topics into different threads slowed down the discussion at all--the second thread carried on for over 300 replies. Second, I certainly didn't intend this separation to imply any disapproval of a second topic being raised, as I explicitly noted when I separated them.

Instead, the purpose here was to try to lessen confusion. Sometimes we have the topic of a thread evolve into a different one. In that case, in the case where the original topic is replaced by a new one, I'll leave it be (assuming there is no complaint from the OP).

However, sometimes you have a new topic arise alongside the original one, so that you have two conversations going on at once. If one is brief, then I'll leave them alone, but if they are both extensive, then it can get confusing for those following along to figure who is saying what to whom and so the thread of the thread can be lost. Thus, my goal in separating them is to help both conversations succeed. I'll again note that I think I was successful as the new thread to which I moved the tangent to ended up having over 300 replies.

Of course.

I'll note that while this works relatively well for long-time posters, we also have to moderate threads started by new or relatively new posters who might not be familiar with some of the standards here, or might not be comfortable in setting the tone of a thread. Thus, as moderators we have to sometimes guess at the intentions of these OP's in making our decisions.

Alright then we disagree. If i started a thread and a mod tried to control the flow to keep it on topic i wouldn't like it. Unless i asked for it to stay on topic.

Yeah ultimately it ant no democracy and they are going to do what they want. Just putting my .02c in the suggestion box.


Your modding has been fine by me, i like our new mod god.

The only reason i bring it up is i like how RGT threads flow form topic to topic within threads. And its only fair since jib has so many complaints you should get one.

Fair enough. I can see that. Compliant withdrawn.
I know you didn't disapprove of it and a split is better then ending the discussion or locking the thread to keep it on topic.

We disagree here.

I dont really have any good arguments to change your mind other then i like it when two or more topics, only touching on the edges of each other or not at all, mix together (especially if there all good discussions). That is almost better then watching a crappy derailed thread turn into something good once it comes off the rails.

And splitting threads, if done a lot, would end derails or tangents not closely related to the thread. Which clearly isn't something i think you are doing a lot of. Just something i think would happen if splits were done a lot.


I know bad arguments. Even worse for my position is most in RGT would agree with you on the split as a good thing. I know im in the minority and probably an even smaller one then being pro derail.



Either way its not a big deal or as bad as the other thing we were talking about where highly unpopular ideas are not allowed to be expressed (and consonantly challenged directly). That ruffles my feathers more if you want to argue about that tangent.



Instead of guess work you could post something in the sticky saying how RGT sometimes rambles so if you want an on topic thread you should ask for it. Though no one reads stickies..... so that wont work.

I'll just note here that I actually do view being a moderator as much closer to a democracy than bunny does, albeit not a direct democracy, and also with some "constitutional" provisions that are set by the owners of the site. However, ultimately I think that is a misleading metaphor as being a moderator is much more like being a judge than a ruler in my opinion.

Well, I'll keep this in mind when thinking about splitting a thread in the future.

First, this is not just a matter of unpopular ideas. For instance, I think the views that jibninjas and stu pidasso were defending in the genocide thread are pretty unpopular, but I didn't even consider deleting them. The problem is a narrower one than that, and it is one to which I don't have a very good solution.

The real issue has to do specifically with discussions about controversial race, sex, and sexual preference topics. 2p2 has certain policies in place that prohibit posting sexually and racially objectionable comments. This makes sense in discussions about poker, where such things will definitely not contribute to the discussion. However, here in RGT (and even more so in SMP), this creates a problem. These forums are here in part to discuss topics such as the morality and accuracy of racist or sexist views, especially as these topics are influenced by our views on religion. And, especially if you have traditional religious views on these topics, you might find it is difficult to present your views about homosexuality or gender roles without being offensive.

Now, I think one bad solution would be to just prohibit all discussions of such topics here in RGT. If we did this we could fully comply with 2p2 policies, but at a fairly steep cost to the openness of discussion here in RGT.

Another solution would be to let pretty much anything go--barring perhaps the use of actual slurs. The problem is that this would not be in compliance with the 2p2 policy against posting racially objectionable material (at least, as I understand this provision).

So the sort of compromise view that I'm currently adhering to is that you can discuss your views on racial or sexual difference if you can do so in a way that isn't blatantly offensive. One way to think about this is for instance if you think that homosexuality is immoral, you should try to communicate your view as if you were talking to a friend who was also a homosexual. Same thing with your racial or sexual views. Here my moderation would be based on how effective I think you are in adhering to this standard.

I think the biggest downside to this approach is that it is a fairly subjective standard, which makes it more difficult to justify my decisions to others. In deciding whether someone has adequately complied with this standard I have to rely heavily on contextual factors, i.e. something like my "sense" of the conversation. My preference would be to minimize such discretionary decisions and judgment calls, but I don't really see a viable alternative in these situations.

Of course, some people don't seem to have the sensitivity (or willingness) to successfully pull this off. To such people I would recommend that they just avoid these topics if they want to avoid infractions. Hopefully there are other topics still worth discussing for these people.

Yeah, you pointed out the problem here.

Thats pretty good i guess. I understand the site owners cant just let a free for all on racial and other offensive topics. Its a poker forum not a forum created to have an opened discussion on heated views. Like i said if i ran it i would probably have the same view.

But...when someone cant use racial slurs and be as offensive as they are inclined to be i think you lose something. You lose a little but of the truth of their views. You teach them to be much better at hiding their views behind facades. Which makes it much harder to challenge those views. Let it all out imo.

I just dont understand how censoring offensive views helps anyone more then allowing those views to see the light of day. I mean if anything it helps the person holding the offensive views avoid criticism.

You lose the ability to correct somebody. But you better be sure you're right before you correct someone.

Read any good articles on metapedia recently?

Im vary rarely sure im right so that doesnt work for me.

I'm kinda pumped about this vid coming out. Check out the trailer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0yt6c6TwsM I'll put my reputation on it (the actual movie at least) being good.

Good, as in truthful, or entertaining? I found Zeitgeist to be entertaining...doesn't make it any less full of ****.

Both, I, based on the authors/producers reputation, will say that this piece will be the gospel (pure truth), and entertaining.

Have their been any studies that look a potential correlation between belief in theism and conspiracy theories? It just seems like most of the conspiracy theory people I run in to are god believers.

Well to me, the word conspiracy as a derogatory term, is a joke. People conspire. And yes, people can gossip and come up with wild speculations as well. It is what it is. For the record, I anticipate the vid I linked to will be well documented and methodically laid out.

The word is used in the scriptures at least one time that I can recall, fwiw.

Jeremiah 11:9 And the LORD said unto me, A conspiracy is found among the men of Judah, and among the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

Whether or not people "conspire" it baffles me that atheists place so much faith in science and are so prone to downplay the nature of man and insist on morality rather than spirituality. Morality is rather common place if you ask me.

Imagine people ever got off this planet and went to other planets to repopulate all over the universe without human nature being reformed....

Who is downplaying the nature of man, and in what sense?

I see no difference. Morality= spirituality. But a morality that isn't in line with God, isn't balanced. Well, I suppose sometimes there are the options of mercy or justice...but whatev.....that may be balanced afterall depending on your own standing.

Practically speaking, no kingdom = no justice, no 40 day fast = no balls.

People have faith in science because it works. When you're having a heart attack, what is your go-to mental process ("Quick I need to get to a hospitable ASAP because that's where all the science is") When you want to travel long distances, do you walk? When you post on these forums, how vast is science's reach?

Here's a thought experiment: Imagine two people, one person who has no faith in god and another who has no faith in science. Who are these people? What are they capable of? What are their limitations?

Can you explain the remark about downplaying the nature of mean, I don't understand..

When I was eight, i got a really ugly stomach virus and had to be carried into the doctor's office by my stepfather. The next thing i know I'm in the hospital, and listening to the doctor tell my mother that some tests seem to indicate a mass and stomach cancer. I had to listen to my mother cry all night. The next thing i know, I'm being wheeled into surgery, because it's not stomach cancer, but my appendix, which is about to burst.

Final verdict: Bad bug.