HELP: What kind of moderation should Twoism.org adopt?

[Aesthetics]

Dear Twoism members,

Since its beginning, Twoism has been a space where people come together through a shared love for Boards of Canada and related topics. Over the years, this forum has always embraced a wide range of conversations, sometimes sharp, sometimes philosophical, sometimes deeply personal.

But times change, and so does the internet. That’s why we'd like to hear from you: how should Twoism approach moderation in the future? There’s no right or wrong answer, this is an opportunity to reflect together on what we want this community to be, and how we interact with one another.

Please take a moment to vote in the poll. Your input will help us shape the future of Twoism in a way that reflects the values of its members.

Help we’re fighting,
Twoism crew

[2020k]

We welcome conversation. There's been some strong opinions about what goes and what doesn't in the Post-Tomorrow's Harvest era.

[Orbited insanitarium]

I chose stricter moderation, on the basis that in the past few years, not all of the sub-forums are checked over by the moderator team as frequently as I would like. Quicker action has been taken on the main Boards of Canada based sub-forum, as it is the most read by moderators, but I believe there could be a moderator in place who can keep a closer eye on all areas of twoism.

I often call attention to issues in The Playground for example, to which it would take some time for deliberation and action on users who...
(1. Have returned on many accounts that have been previously banned, but the user persists with a new name, shows no effort to respect the forum rules which dictate that controversial issues may be discussed in a calm way quite freely, yet however continues to bend and breaks the rules (coincidentally in an area that is not monitored as much.)

and

(2. Members whom their previous accounts reputation proceeds them, even if their concurrent account isn't breaking any rules per se, duplicates I'm guessing are generally discouraged.

There's also the tad smaller issue of bots spamming links in topics and creating topics, though I see that mostly forum-wide when it happens (and yeah is pretty much a given, with the recent rise of AI on the internet and scams etc etc etc. Don't click those links!!!)

I believe, for twoism, a moderation system should exist with a balanced approach in dealing with new accounts that cause some trouble, but for me, not all bases are being covered in the day-to-day.
I seek improvement in the ground you cover, the action you admins and mods take is overall always agreeable with me with a few exceptions in my 4 years of being on twoism.

Also I'm somewhat regularly messaging Fredd-E about re-occurring users, with my suspicions, or just to notify about topics that are up and antagonistic in nature, and containing pretty abhorrent subjects matters to be frank with you!
He's a busy fella though, with bocpages being his main interest to attend to in his free time, and participating/moderating on twoism as a smaller part of that. I would like you to keep me in mind for your improvements on moderation if you choose to make them, and if you wish to take another member onboard your team, I would be reciprocal to the idea of further moderators if you think my issue is important in this thread.

Cheers for opening this for discussion btw!

[Orbited insanitarium]

I really like reading the spiritual conversations, I can participate and encourage in them and have done over the years, making friends through this forum, and it still excites me to see topics get bumped for renewal. I don't wish for that to change and I don't think it will either. My timeline here and the history of twoism that I still keep discovering, our regulars, are what makes me so enthusiastic about this forum. There's always something being said.

[steeldancer-x]

I find solace in balance. If things get more strict, people are afraid to speak. If things get more lax, things get off-topic quickly.

There is nothing wrong with disagreeance, but that has to come with the ability to recognize how that disagreeance came into existence to begin with. Things/Words don't just randomly enter this reality without a good reason. If something is misunderstood, pressing the 'mute' or 'block' button won't progress anything or anyone. HEAR PEOPLE OUT! LISTEN TO WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY! If you don't understand or agree, that is okay, but it isn't right to deny or reject it without an attempt at recognizing or understanding the concept itself. We are human! Our collective of ideas have been clashing for centuries, which by the waaaaaaaaay................ DOESN'T and HASN'T felt like it's been about BOC or their music for awhile (here and a few other BOC-spaces at least). I have met a lot of individuals on this forum that have shifted away or even been banned from certain spaces simply because they didn't align themselves with a certain narrative/concept. Beautifully good people are being pushed out and away. That's wrong!

And word of the wise to everyone; if there is a troll or a bot fucking with this forum, why the hell would you respond? Giving them fuel and reactions insures that they return. I can NOT believe I have to say this in TWENTY-TWENTY-FIVE but do not start a feedback loop with these individuals. Report and move on with your life. They will not touch you as long as you don't let them in (and that could go for a lot of other things too while people are at it).

[zeoevil]

“Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care whole heartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas-that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year if not every day we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.”

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

[2020k]

I'd be interested in hearing from those voting for more permissive speech most, as it pertains to how Twoism operates. It's the option I'm least likely to choose as a person and from what I've seen since my registration here, the more things get off topic and devolve, the faster the topic actually dies and the less likely members are to return to the forum.

I think that it's telling if we get a vote for something that potentially allows for chaos, but then nobody explains their rationale. If there is one thing I do want to preface with this, it's that this place will not become 4Chan, so if anybody is looking for that they should go infiltrate a Subreddit or something. And for the love of God, please no one appropriate One Very Important Thought.

For the record, I would choose the middle ground and have always operated this way as a mod. I love a good conversation, pop popcorn for intense discourse, live for dramatic quips, but I really don't like it when things get purposefully disrespectful, hateful, or belligerent.

[Radiobuzz]

I vote for strict moderation in regards to trolling (like the user that only posts youtube videos that have nothing to do with the topics) and against homophobic or transphobic speech. Other than that, I don't mind a little off-topic diversion within threads.

[Burning Shadow]

Zero tolerance for racism, homophobia, transphobia, “R” slurs

It would be good if threads stayed more on topic - not everything needs to be posted in the new release speculation thread if it isn’t new release speculation

[Davism]

What would the broz say? ;^)

I'm all for keeping everyone on topic, but freedom of expression is paramount. I hope people would not take advantage of that and purposely try to be provocative. That said, I've seen a few anti-Christian comments throughout the years, and nobody seemed to bat an eyelash– which is fine.... but you can't have it both ways.

[zeoevil]

I do feel like I made my position known in my previous post, but I realize the language is a bit archaic by modern standards, so I will reiterate my position here. If your opinions cannot exist in the free marketplace of ideas or you cannot defend your beliefs, then perhaps your opinions and beliefs are wrong or have no merit. There is also the issue of what is and what is not hateful or harmful speech. To some, the mere discussion of these topics is taboo, and any opinion that goes against the established status quo is hateful and harmful. These topics include race, gender, religion, and politics, but are not limited to just these sacred cows. Perhaps a more specific example is the ease with which people in modern society will criticize Christianity but are completely unwilling to engage with Islam or Judaism. Another example would be the topic of gender identity and the difference between legitimate gender dysphoria and sexual fetishism. Would it be forbidden to discuss the correlations between the two? During the George Floyd protests, I expressed the opinion that the protesters lost any and all moral ground when their actions directly caused the death of a human being. While there was some pushback, the discourse was amicable. Would that be the standard, or would I be silenced for a dissenting opinion? When discussing politics, do you resort to personal attacks or do you discuss policy? Often the opinions of the people involved trump (pun not intended) any actually discussion of the merits or cause and effect of said policies. Do we embrace discussing the harmful effects of unfettered migration or do we shut down any discussion of the topic based on emotions over facts? The challenge lies in balancing empathy with a rational examination of the evidence.

Perhaps a more subtle distinction should be made in the poll. Given the three choices, I cannot vote for anything but free expression. However, if I were given the option, perhaps I might vote for a slightly less polarizing option. But as it stands, free expression will always be the correct answer.

[jcnporter]

Always happy to debate in good faith. I think it's interesting that sharing opinions with the current majority of governments, corporations and dominant media in the western world (at least) might be considered dissenting or against the status quo, but there you go.

[hexagonFox]

Freedom of speech.

Don't go out into the world trying to hurt peoples feelings

Don't go out into the world expecting to never be offended by anything.

If you can be told what you can see or read
Then it follows that you can be told what to say or think.

[zeoevil]

If you can be told what you can see or read
Then it follows that you can be told what to say or think.

And for the love of God, please no one appropriate One Very Important Thought.

[2020k]

If you can be told what you can see or read
Then it follows that you can be told what to say or think.

And for the love of God, please no one appropriate One Very Important Thought.

My point's been proven, really.

[ASYMPTOTE]

I've posted some questionable stuff. I don't hate a single organism on this planet though, even mosquitos have their place. I don't think we can grow as a species if we don't challenge each others' beliefs. I voted for greater freedom of expression, even if I say something that I later regret. Life hurts sometimes. Find your own center.

[Alvin]

I think the moderators are doing a good job here. It must be difficult task making some of these decisions. Only on rare occasions have I seen obvious rule-breaking posts being left up for hours (some lapses are understandable, we can’t expect 24/7 vigilance from a small crew).

I did vote for a more permissive approach though. Not that I want to see more trolling or offensiveness. It’s that if I had to pinpoint something that inhibits discussion, it’s an attitude of over-seriousness, where one feels the weight of the world hangs on each word. Not that moderators are enforcing seriousness as such, I just think we could do with some more light-heartedness in general. Hopefully, that would grease-the-wheels of discourse and put us in more of a collective flow-state where the deeper, incisive posts are more likely to get written along with the throw-away quips.

[vitriolie]

This topic has been a rollercoaster. At first—wow, a new BoC ARG? It’s happening! Then—oh no, Twoism.org is shutting down like WATMM. Lol.

Anyway, let’s play a game: express your point of view as strictly and sneakily as possible. Because here’s the thing—the stance of “no transphobia, no anti-gay” is just another form of viewpoint enforcement, only masked by entropy.

The internet should stay as wild and uncontrolled as possible. Why?
    1.    If people build safe spaces online and ban certain views, how do they react when those same things happen offline?
    2.    Does the internet even correlate with real life?

If the answer to #2 is no, then maybe censorship online is pointless—real-world rules don’t necessarily apply here.

[unplugred]

hello
ive mostly been lurking around the new release and speculation thread, so it is quite shocking to see people talking about how trans people are sexual fetishists in this thread, and the general anti trans sentiment coming from this thread.
ive felt unsafe and unwelcomed at many parts of the internet, and i did not expect a forum about an electronics band being one such place.

to put it plainly, a place that is tolerant to intolerance is an intolerant place, and if this talk about sexual fetishism and freeze peach will continue, all of the queer and gay people will simply leave.
i have been facing bs at work and online and at family gatherings and so when i get to actually choose the places i get to be in i wont choose one that is actively hostile towards me.
things have been depressing enough as it is and places like this forum should offer an escape.

if u wanna act like a prick towards queer ppl, there are plenty enough places to do that on the internet as it is
leave us alone

[Fredd-E]

I voted for stricter moderation.

Why? I think our current rules are already more than lenient and reasonable enough.

Rule 5, 6, and 7 are what it's all about in the current discussions it seems:

5) Do not set up multiple accounts, sign in to spam, or post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, racist, sexually-oriented, or any other material that may violate any applicable laws.

6) Do not post provocative messages to purposefully cause disruption and arguments. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned (and your service provider informed).

7) Do not post off-topic messages inside of forum threads

I don't see why we shouldn't be strict with regards to these rules. Do we really need toxic behaviour that makes people feel unsafe or even stay away? That's not the Twoism I signed up for in 2004.