To faulty damper : 'faulty' being the operative word.
You like to argue. So do I.
"I think there is a misconception with the word "argument". Usually, it's used when two people 'argue'.
Here's a concept for you - you're a fool playing with words the same way a young boy discovers his manhood. Why? Let's see. Here's some of MY evidence.
"This is not the desirable kind of argument." You have not defined "THIS".
"The other argument" - what was the first one?
" is when you make a claim and support that claim with evidence." Oh, you mean like the way you're doing? Ha.
"This is the argument I'm interested in. But I usually don't like making arguments to persuade someone of something so they will accept my point of view." That's not how it reads.
" I'm more interested in discussing the multiple points of view so that we can have a larger picture of the whole." If this is true, I challenge you to 'argue' point FOR moderators. Let's see how well you do. To cover 'multiple' points, you'd also have to argue why it doesn't matter if we do or don't have moderators. I don't see this is your 'arguments'. I only see one point of view. We shouldn't have them.
" [I usually don't pay attention to the poster's name, just what was said. What was said is more important that who said it.] Yeah sure it is, Mother weilding the strap "Johnny go to your room!" Little brother picking his nose "Johnny go to your room!" Oh yeah, the exact same weight. I see your point.
"About moderators:
The purpose of moderators is to let all posters be free of any obligation to keep their posts "civil". "
You don't really believe this do you? You're the one telling us you need evidence to back up a statement. Quote for me any book, internet manual, forum forward that says this. I think these are your own words, are they not? You don't 'let posters' do anything. You 'allow' them. As soon as they click the "I agree" button when they register, they are under obligation to keep their posts 'civil'. Want evidence? Go back and read what YOU must have also clicked.
"Similar to the police/citizen balance of law where citizens do not enforce the rules and let things happen until the police shows up and let them handle it." So you're saying CITIZENS should enforce the laws? Hang on, is that just a different word for MODERATOR? What are you talking about here.? Your argument is not clear.
"This is the passive approach to keeping society 'enforced'." You cannot use the word passive and enforced in the same sentence. Enforced means 'by force or compulsion.' Passive means 'NOT acting,' You're confusing yourself here by trying to be too smart. The result is, I think you're stupid.
" A more active approach needs not police but citizens who will call out someone who does something without respect to community." Again, as soon as that CITIZEN 'calls' out someone, they are MODERATING. Do you know something crazy? Police are citizens too!
"This is much more effective as this provides those who do not respect the community in a normal manner" you need to define 'normal' before it has any relevance and credibility to your statement.
"Much more effective" needs proof, examples before it can be believed. You've provided neither.
"a sense that those in the community care about their actions and that it is not acceptable." What is not acceptable? That those in the community care about their actions? Your wording is unclear and therefore your argument is lost.
"But calling the police to "let them handle it" says to the individual that the community does not care about his actions." How do you figure this out? Again, where's all your evidence you insist a good argument has? You haven't even cited one case study. Besides, your argument has one huge embarrassing flaw. The mere fact that the citizen has 'called' the police (an action) is proof that they DO care about 'the indvidual's" actions. If you had said, "By doing nothing (passive) they are showing they don't care" the argument would at least lack contradictions, although still lacking any evidence of truth.
"Having a policed forum indirectly disrespects those that follow social norms who do not break the rules." You are presumptuous to speak on behalf of all 2000 members of this forum. You have no way of knowing if anyone feels disrespected unless you have personally interviewed them all. Have you? Well where's their petition? For your argument to be considered, you must stick with what you know. "Having a policed forum indirectly disrespects ME." You could say this. Does this mean, every time you see a police man walk down the street you feel disrespected? You may need to consider counselling to deal with any personal hang ups you have about this, if this is the case. Police are there for the communities protection.
"This policing is also arbitrary even though the intentions are to enforce the rules." Arbitrary and rules are not consistent with each other. Arbitrary means "not attributable to any rule or law; accidental". If you mean, "a moderator has to use their own judgement to determine whether a rule has been broken" then you should have said it that way - clearly.
"Someone who obeys the rules may be called on by a moderator in a thread because he responded to a personal attack, even without attacking back, just because he responded. He would take more insult by the moderator than the person who made that attack." Again, when arguing, you cannot make assumptions. Your wording must be "I would take more insult" before you have any level of credibility.
"Or, someone who tries to keep things civil is called on by a moderator because the moderator thinks this is his duty to enforce, not a non-moderator. Who moderates the moderator?" The super administrator - the one who has made the rules in the first place. He doesn't answer to anyone. He invented the game. He gets to set the rules. He gets to tell the players how they should play.
"Another thing that I have noticed with other forums is that when there is a moderator whom is very active (moving threads to their respective forum, openly calling out certain posters for their posts, deleting posts, etc.) they give out the impression that the forums are of a parent of child who does not know any better and cannot learn from mistakes. They correct mistakes even before the poster realizes it and does not give the poster a chance to realize it." You have contradicted yourself again. First, you said that what is wrong with other forums is that they act like a parent. We are lead to believe you are saying this is a BAD thing. Forums shouldn't act like parents. Then you have said, it should"allow" the 'child' to learn from it's mistakes. This is parenting. Make up your mind. You either want a forum moderator to be a parent, or not be a parent, you can't argue BOTH ways as though it is the same point.
"for Most people would realize that a thread they started was posted in the wrong forum" Most people - again, how do you know? And what to do with the ones that don't realise this?
" and realize it and try to correct it" what if they don't know HOW to try and correct it? "by posting it in the proper forum." If they knew what the 'proper' forum was, they wouldn't have posted in the wrong one to begin with. Afterall, 'everyone on this forum is well educated, no?'
...
About Lala:
I did read her posts in the teaching forum. As I am not formally a teacher, " 'Formally" You either are or aren't a teacher. Which one is it?
"I visit to see how teachers teach because I am a student." how is this relevent? Are you aspiring to be a teacher? 'because I am a student' does not tell us WHY you visit the teacher's forum.
" My personal philosophy is that I am more than the sum of my experiences (because of transferrence principles of understanding) and that ANY point of view greatly adds to my own experience" Here's my point of view: you're pretending to know what you're talking about, but you haven't a clue.
" even if the general public says that it is useless, uninformative, wasteful, etc. Unfortunately, those that think they fall into this category will chose not to post their thoughts/opinions" Okay .... "whether or not they have posted." WHAT? You've just said they've chosen NOT to post. You don't need a 'whether or not' on the end of this sentence.
"Back to those specific posts said to be "demeaning" to the teaching processes:" I've read those posts too. There was nothing demeaning about the 'teaching' processes. There was a lot about the 'teachers'.
" I thought some of Lala's opinions were funny" Yeah, I'm sure that's what her intentions were, to make you think her ideas were fuuny.
"because they called on specific teaching techniques, which at first seems laughable because it is so unconventional, but it is more effective than the conventional method." How do you prove this statement? Have you compared all her students to all the other students of teachers on this forum? Boy, you've been busy!
"Teaching is not about just what works but what is most effective for the task." HELLO!! 'what works' and 'effective' is the same thing! Don't waste words in an argument. Don't use the word BUT for the exact same point.
" This is one point of view about teaching. Another POV is the conventional way of teaching - teaching the way one was taught." Teaching the way one was taught is NOT a conventional way of teaching.
"Lala's comments is of this point of view. To comment on her comments: one reason why she commented on the unconventional method was because this unconventionality threatens the conventional method, no?" NO. Methods cannot be threatened - only people.
"And what happens when someone is threatened? One defensive response is sarcasm, which was used. Another, verbal personal attacks. Another physical attacks." You must have good eye sight if you saw a punch up!
And usually in that order.
Someone made sarcastic remarks.
Someone responded by wanting that person to shut up.
"And no insight is provided within this context" Maybe not by you. How do you know others did not find it insightful?
Conclusion faulty damper. You 'debate' terribly.
I couldn't care less if this forum has a moderator or not.
Others obviously do.
A mature person knows when a subject should be debated, and when a subject should be left alone.
I don't believe the person who began this thread was looking for a 'play with words'. It appears to me, that they wanted the attention from whoever it is that makes the rules in the first place.
My only input about this subject is, Why bother having any rules if there are no consequences when those rules are broken? If we have no moderation, then lets have no rules. A free for all if you like. Oh, I know another word for it
CHAT ROOM
Topic: Civility