I know it’s all good intentions but as it happens this illustrates my concern at best: I just might not want someone else to decide in wich context I should speak. Taking control over people out of a strong opinion what should be should not be. And if anyone sees a request he may not see the people who don’t see a reason to request anything from the Superviso…
i really appreciate your points. i think you might be missing one of mine, which is basically that this:
taking control over people out of a strong opinion what should be
… is almost by definition what a moderator has to do. the only question is where to draw the line. we can all agree that there “should” not be advertising spam or pure hatespeech, and we’re fine with mods directly “controlling” that content, even thought it was also presumably made by “adults.”
so, there is a line of “should” somewhere.
so where i’m hearing you, is when you say that it feels bad to have things moved when they are not obviously spam or hatespeech, and i am agreeing with you, and agreeing that a) the “line of should” is maybe a little on the “heavy” side, and b) that other options should be duly considered probably more than they are right now.
but i am also offering two considerations pulling it in the current direction: one is kind of prosaic - the fact that moving things too late leaves a sticky mess.
[i’ll speak for myself here. the great majority of my forum interactions are in a technical role. it is _vitally important_ that topics are neither too muddled, nor too diffuse, and that timeline be maintained as much as possible - otherwise it makes it hard for me to participate fully and - i hope - valuably. if we had to take a poll before splitting/merging technical topics i would simply give up.]
the other is about social norms - treating eulogy content as requiring particular attention and remaining aware that all of this is in the public record, and that death brings in a lot of new readers through search. (i’m speaking from experience when the death of a loved one is also the death of a semi-public figure.)
There is a faint memory of you asking if I do acknowledge your points as you do with mine - I thought I have read it during a sleepless period oft last night and felt I had to respond but now I cannot find it. So maybe it was just an urgent dream.
Anyway, taking that experience serious, of course I do acknowledge your points. And also I do really appreciate that we can discuss these things here, as this is hardly possible with the moderation over at MW. It’s what makes Lines a different place.
I find this is a bit polemic as spam and pure hatespeech are not meant to be mutual communication but simply a manipulative attack. I would not consider both as adult behavior in the intended sense here.
I can understand your point regarding the more technical discussions though. I would also prefer those threads to be focussed and not somehow muddled. Especially since I do not understand most of that talk but nevertheless, due to the opensource/diy development philosophy of monome devices, need to somehow participate or at least follow those discussions to get my set-up working. I really appreciate your commitment and want you to have an environment where working on things is fun and practicable for you, knowing that it’s sometimes me deranging things with uninformed questions and concerns, not having a tech background.
Maybe my point is just that heavy handed content management might not work that good with non-technical or broader subjects. Now we have a commemoration thread that with a discussion of the appropriateness of his nickname and a thread about the situation over at MW that seems a bit cold-hearted in its focus regarding the sad circumstances. People are people I guess…
my decision to split the discussion was done out of respect and compassion. to mix the two topics seemed to me a tragedy. the goal of moderation is to make better discussions. there is not room for eulogizing and contentious critique in the same thread. people should have the choice to read/participate in one and/or the other separately.
i have no intention of censoring the MW topic (provided it stays within the COC)
i fully understand your discomfort with splitting. we’ve attempted to be minimal and transparent, and we’re always listening and responding to feedback. please let us know how we can do better.
Wondering why this thread
is separate from this one…
They seem very similar…
The “//// pictures …” topic is not modular specific. At one point someone wanted a place to specifically share modular system photos, and it took on a life of its own.
Since there is a high volume of modular photos I can see why having a separate topic for that makes sense, so they won’t completely drown out the pics of other types of “sound-making machines”.
Open to other perspectives…
Thanks, just curious, not trying to move anything in a specific direction…
It seems to me that the “show us your modular system” thread started as a “modulargrid plans” sharing place, with some room for evolving/envisioned systems and discussion/feedback about it, and did not feature much photographs (in the beginning).
Also pictures there tend to be taken with the intent of making it legible what modules constitute a particular system, whereas the general pictures thread features some plants and feels more about providing context around the gear, or an “artist’s impression” of it.
Just my synthetic perception of the two topics.
Yes, that’s absolutely true. The “modular system” thread didn’t start out as a photo share at all, it was to share modular grid or images of your system for discussion and sharing system building ideas.
It’s sort of evolved into more photos, but still feels different than the more widely scoped photos thread(s) which are more akin to our own private instagram in some ways