A Small Announcement
-
In the interest of transparency, I'd like to detail a few ways I intend to handle unspecified rules from now on. When possible, I will not (immediately) use moderator powers, because I don't want to have a chilling effect on discussion.
I have bolded the most important parts for convenience. I don't really think these things will be an issue, but it can't hurt for me to be clear.
Remember, our admin Brad has asked that we handle ourselves well, that we self-moderate and treat each other and bioenergetic ways tactfully and with respect.
-
I intend to be more vocal about slap-fighting, peacocking, that sort of thing, viewing it the same as spam. For such users, both will be asked to stop and if needed, block each other. This is not a forum for rivalries that are unproductive, and it takes two to tango. I will reserve threadbanning as a temporary way to sort things out or for truly disruptive users, if I ever need to use it. Competing bioenergetic ideas are fine and expected, such as coconut oil vs stearic acid. Those sorts of discussions push forward good ideas and help weed out bad ones.
-
Generally, ideas not necessarily advocated for by Ray are fine if they are bioenergetic. However, if a user looks like they're forum sliding or spamming the same reply everywhere, I'll talk with the user to find out what's going on. I will try to be patient and allow time for a response (a day or so), but if the issue is severe, as in altering direction of, or chilling discussion, I will act more swiftly. If resolution can be found afterwards, I am open to that.
-
For example, Ray never suggested larger hormonal doses especially of androgens, or use of anabolics but such threads here are perfectly fine and allowed. Broda Barnes spoke of corticosteroid use for thyroid therapy, yet Ray generally opposed it. These are examples of something bioenergetic that are expected. remember, this isn't a hard and fast rule, it is to address questions I've gotten about and seen.
-
If you have questions, please send me a chat and I'll respond next time I'm able. This is because I have asked users not to tag me for moderation reasons because that interferes with my personal use of the forum. So the use of chat keeps things private and is a nice go-between from that and Reporting.
Thanks for reading this, let's keep it virtuous and fill this forum with great posts!
-
-
@NotShanalotte said in A Small Announcement:
-
Generally, ideas not necessarily advocated for by Ray are allowed if they are bioenergetic. However, if a user looks like they're forum sliding or spamming the same reply everywhere, I'll talk with the user to find out what's going on. I will try to be patient and allow time for a response (a day or so), but if the issue is severe, as in altering direction of, or chilling discussion, I will act more swiftly. If resolution can be found afterwards, I am open to that.
-
For example, Ray never suggested larger hormonal doses especially of androgens, or use of anabolics but such threads here are perfectly fine and allowed. Broda Barnes spoke of corticosteroid use for thyroid therapy, yet Ray generally opposed it. These are examples of something bioenergetic that would be allowed
-
If you have questions, please send me a chat and I'll respond next time I'm able. This is because I have asked users not to tag me for moderation reasons because that interferes with my personal use of the forum. So the use of chat keeps things private and is a nice go-between from that and Reporting.
Thanks for reading this, let's keep it virtuous and fill this forum with great posts!
What is a "bioenergetic" idea? Who defines it? Why should ideas that aren't "bioenergetic" be banned? Do you think "bioenergetic" ideas are the solution to absolutely everything?
-
-
@Kilgore and @ThinPicking what do you think? I wanted to take the initiative but should have tagged you two in at the beginning and I apologize for that. Please leave me a chat or a message here if there's something you'd change. It's not to make new rules, but how we'll handle moderation and it's best if we're in agreement. Users handling themselves will always be the expectation and further that we only step in with moderation powers when needed. IME, many forum users aren't familiar with forum sliding and other disruption tactics which was my main focus.
"Bear...Seek...Seek...Lest."
-
Reads and seems fine to me @NotShanalotte. It's sensible. And I appreciate the thought.
@lisan-al-gaib We're probably doing that right now. Join in and keep it real I guess.
-
ThinPicking has the right idea, to grasp the essence of your questions, the easiest way is to jump in and participate.
The following is more detailed, as I want to be sure to address your questions comprehensibly, even if it mainly aids users reading this later seeking the same info. I do not wish to be patronizing.
The point is I wish to use mediation before moderation and how that would look. I could go iron fist but that tends to suppress discussion and that's the worst thing possible for a forum. I intend to only moderate, as in threadban, ban (including timeouts), and so on to resolve situations and only as needed. For a non-bot user, it would have to be a pretty big and obvious situation for me to outright ban someone without much discussion!
It's to make users comfortable with expectations and so they don't feel powerless if something does occur.
Secondly, my main concern is the need to gatekeep to a degree lest this forum lose its identity like the RayPeatForum. I can't simply act as Empress even if I were the only mod or even the admin. It's a delicate process, and I saw while lurking the RPF how destructive and chilling it was for the admin and moderator to be secretive of how they handle matters. There are even posts there where users didn't know what to report, or not, and the admin and mod just said "report it, we'll take a look, but don't backseat mod and don't question our decisions."
My attempt at transparency is to involve everyone else, in order to develop a strong social fabric where all users know they can freely speak and have expectations in order to function, but not to the point of suffocating things. Like creating our own miniature culture.
I'll try to answer your particular questions as best I can.
First question if I had to pick, it would be anyone like Ray Peat so guys that inspired him like Barnes, Selye, and so on and new guys inspired by him like Danny Roddy, Haidut and Mike Fave. People that work with the material in some way and understand it and seek to further understand it. Even an average Joe or Jane posting a study to look through suits this, to me.
Like i
f someone said "I have discovered a paper adding more nuance to serotonin, let's discuss how this might have affected Peat's ideas." then that's a great discussion starting point. Similarly, if someone asks "hey, is there anything to 'vitamin A toxicity'?" that won't be banned. Ray even warned about vitamin A and thyroid using the same transport molecule and to be careful of concurrent dosages, amounts, etc.The point is someone causing chaos, posting mainstream talking points, not participating, etc is opening themselves to the start of moderation.
How I attempt to moderate is necessarily a reflection of the forum users. I have changed some wording in my post that should be more clear. Plus I try to encourage users to see a different perspective to avoid trouble. I might say to a user, "Do you realize all your posts look like they advertise a particular idea? With AI getting better this concerns me." Some people just get hyper-focused, it's not a big deal, but bots and shills are.
So if I see an odd influx of users trying to do that without engaging otherwise, yeah, that's called forum sliding and topic dilution. Trying to redirect established discussion, that sort of thing, is the same as spam it's just not from bots or a specific advertisement.
Or more succinctly, to use an old catch phrase, if someone is Perceiving, Thinking, and seeking how to Act, there should be no issue at all.
The last question won't affect how I moderate, but personally, yes. It saved my life. To be able to act in the world requires good health, simple as. It's not just ideas, it's a whole paradigm.
-
@NotShanalotte said in A Small Announcement:
The rules I was given as a mod are:
No threats of violence, including coded terms or otherwise being cheeky
No spam
This defines acceptable behavior on the forum rather nicely. I am reminded of a pornography lawsuit that made it to the US Supreme court in the 1960's. The court did not go into the nitty-gritty of the matter but rather wrote:
My elementary school teachers had a nice standard of review. They would write on report cards "does not play well with others". Here on the forum, bots do not play well with others and schills can cross the line.
If someone repeatedly provokes another user, I suspect that they are most likely planning to leave the forum anyway.
@NotShanalotte said in A Small Announcement:
Please use the Report function if you need me or another mod to take a look at something.
This is nice reminder. My tendency is just to not respond to rude people.
The best way to cure a dietary disease is to improve the diet.
☂︎ -
@DavidPS I like your quote choices. "I know it when I see it, but do others?" would be a good way to sum up my second post. Longer than I'd like but I do try to be thorough and transparent.
-
@NotShanalotte said in A Small Announcement:
ThinPicking has the right idea, to grasp the essence of your questions, the easiest way is to jump in and participate.
The following is more detailed, as I want to be sure to address your questions comprehensibly, even if it mainly aids users reading this later seeking the same info. I do not wish to be patronizing.
The point is I wish to use mediation before moderation and how that would look. I could go iron fist but that tends to suppress discussion and that's the worst thing possible for a forum. I intend to only moderate, as in threadban, ban (including timeouts), and so on to resolve situations and only as needed. For a non-bot user, it would have to be a pretty big and obvious situation for me to outright ban someone without much discussion!
It's to make users comfortable with expectations and so they don't feel powerless if something does occur.
Secondly, my main concern is the need to gatekeep to a degree lest this forum lose its identity like the RayPeatForum. I can't simply act as Empress even if I were the only mod or even the admin. It's a delicate process, and I saw while lurking the RPF how destructive and chilling it was for the admin and moderator to be secretive of how they handle matters. There are even posts there where users didn't know what to report, or not, and the admin and mod just said "report it, we'll take a look, but don't backseat mod and don't question our decisions."
My attempt at transparency is to involve everyone else, in order to develop a strong social fabric where all users know they can freely speak and have expectations in order to function, but not to the point of suffocating things. Like creating our own miniature culture.
I'll try to answer your particular questions as best I can.
First question if I had to pick, it would be anyone like Ray Peat so guys that inspired him like Barnes, Selye, and so on and new guys inspired by him like Danny Roddy, Haidut and Mike Fave. People that work with the material in some way and understand it and seek to further understand it. Even an average Joe or Jane posting a study to look through suits this, to me.
Like i
f someone said "I have discovered a paper adding more nuance to serotonin, let's discuss how this might have affected Peat's ideas." then that's a great discussion starting point. Similarly, if someone asks "hey, is there anything to 'vitamin A toxicity'?" that won't be banned. Ray even warned about vitamin A and thyroid using the same transport molecule and to be careful of concurrent dosages, amounts, etc.The point is someone causing chaos, posting mainstream talking points, not participating, etc is opening themselves to the start of moderation.
How I attempt to moderate is necessarily a reflection of the forum users. I have changed some wording in my post that should be more clear. Plus I try to encourage users to see a different perspective to avoid trouble. I might say to a user, "Do you realize all your posts look like they advertise a particular idea? With AI getting better this concerns me." Some people just get hyper-focused, it's not a big deal, but bots and shills are.
So if I see an odd influx of users trying to do that without engaging otherwise, yeah, that's called forum sliding and topic dilution. Trying to redirect established discussion, that sort of thing, is the same as spam it's just not from bots or a specific advertisement.
Or more succinctly, to use an old catch phrase, if someone is Perceiving, Thinking, and seeking how to Act, there should be no issue at all.
The last question won't affect how I moderate, but personally, yes. It saved my life. To be able to act in the world requires good health, simple as. It's not just ideas, it's a whole paradigm.
The Ray Peat forum has not become bad because other ideas than those of Ray Peat are on the forum, it has become bad because ideas that are contrary to low VA ideas are not accepted by Charlie, resulting in bans. Suggesting that ideas that aren't "bioenergetic" aren't allowed on the forum is the same thing that Charlie is doing, which is why the Ray Peat forum has become bad,
and the bioenergetic forum instantly becomes bad if this is applied. -
@lisan-al-gaib said in A Small Announcement:
Suggesting that ideas that aren't "bioenergetic" aren't allowed on the forum is the same thing that Charlie is doing, which is why the Ray Peat forum has become bad.
I'm not shutting you down. This is up for discussion.
As written, I don't think it is the same. Our frame's vast and open to discussion of interpretation. The advisory you're responding to isn't hard and fast.
No "thor" hammer delusions going on here.
-
@NotShanalotte said in A Small Announcement:
Generally, ideas not necessarily advocated for by Ray are allowed if they are bioenergetic.
@ThinPicking I'm mainly responding to this comment.
Implication: ideas that aren't "bioenergetic" aren't allowed, bad. -
There is the Junkyard section of the forum for "Off-topic or unclear threads sent here. But dig around and you might find some gems."
I post some threads directly into the junkyard so as not to burden others with moving them.
-
It reads well (to me). Please, don't panic.
Almost anything could be "bioenergetic" if someone can make a reasonable case for it, in context. We're wading in to the realm of frequency now. We're walking, it's awesome! (to me)
-
@ThinPicking has once again been a big help here, props to him. He's already showing how we want to do things without actually exercising moderation powers. Diplomacy, discussion, that sort of thing.
I used examples in my posts showing what constitutes discussion and what wouldn't. For the third time, these are not rules. They are how I will, tentatively, moderate, while seeking the input of the other mods so we can be a good team that serves the forum.
I've had reports about certain things being "anti-Peat" and resolved those Reports as complete without action, opposite to how you're taking my meaning. Rather than single users out, I wanted to do a write-up to clear the air for everyone.
The last thing I want is for a user to feel attacked. My experience dictates these sorts of write-ups despite how tedious they can be to both write and read. If I didn't think I needed to do this, I wouldn't.
Also props to @DavidPS, use the Junkyard like he said. If needed I or another mod can move things to the correct section, it's not a big deal.
The overarching theme is discussion of ideas, not selling them. Have you seen how Garret Smith interacts on Twitter/X? If not, he's rude, boisterous, talks down to others, insults Ray and those who honor him, and much more. IOW his actions would be mainly under scrutiny here, not questions/concerns about vitamin A.
I can't be more clear than this. Disruptive posters will be talked with for mediation before any real actions is taken, especially because bots are becoming more convincing. Bans are the last thing I do except for obvious situations like spam and advertising accounts.
-
Please see here from our admin himself that calls for violence include telling others to end themselves. This is my oversight for not including it, and I apologize.
Please be advised that I will take swift action on this point as we are all mature enough to know that we should step away from the keyboard for such things.
Likewise, because certain types of users seem to be missing the point overall, I have started my own thread in the Junkyard:
I have two reasons: one, these examples are things that are not explicitly against the rules but are disruptive and mean-spirited; and two, therefore, if Brad wishes to create new rules he will have a "Hall of Shame" to reference.
I will continue to make Junkyard threads of slapfights to quarantine users. It is at my discretion to take further action should the issue continue, as I will not spend all of my free time moving posts.
My current idea is a 48 hour ban for such users to cool off, and I am also considering making this my default response. I do not have thread-banning tools which is where the quarantine idea of moving posts came from.
On a less serious note, posting links to products in general is fine. The other mods and I are looking for spam/advertiser behavior and will move such posts or ban users (typically bots) should the need arise. Please continue to report spam and bot-like behavior that you see. It's fine to Report if you're not sure.
If you have further question, send me a chat or post here and we'll get it sorted. Please know that I make these posts as general announcements to not single-out users. Thanks for your time.
"Bear...Seek...Seek...Lest."
-
So we're RayPeatForum 2.0 now. Got it. Don't step out of line guys. You might catch a ban hammer.
●○ ANTI-SOL BRAH ● ANTI-TRAD WIFE ○●
☆ N I E T Z S C H E A N ★ -
Am I to understand you and many other users didn't read this thread?
@Peatful since you already posted out in the open, I'm singling you out too.The two of you and everyone single other member can have your say here. The whole idea was to make this a community thread. Then with enough interaction I'd make a fresh, locked post just for the guidelines, let this continue, and so forth. then, as a community, we'd be able to work together better and as a bonus our admin would be able to decide if he wanted to make new rules or not. Win-win.
But no one interacted, so I assumed that I what I set out to do was sufficient.
@ThinPicking is also a mod, and you can see his responses here. We'll both see your posts which could be valuable input.
So @Sugar and @Peatful what is/are your concern(s)? Your posts lack substance. I can't try to see your side unless there's something to it. If it's not worth your time to write a few detailed sentences, that lies with you.
Let me also remind the two of you about some examples of recent happenings, and I would appreciate responses to them:
Do you think users should be able to post racial slurs without warning? Or that ban evasion should not be dealt with, which would render moderation in general obsolete? Or that users should be able to tell others to off themselves, which there is an explicit rule against? Or that I shouldn't warn users who are looking for posts to be angry about?
Mind you I let yesterday's situation go the whole day to give the user in question a fair shot to edit out the content. But they were belligerent and spent their last moments in my chat calling me mentally ill.
Let me repeat, *I spent the whole day wrangling a user I could have immediately banned, zero tolerance, and rather than enjoy a game expansion I've been waiting on, put that user first. A user who was nothing but rude to me from our first interaction.
-
@NotShanalotte said in A Small Announcement:
Am I to understand you and many other users didn't read this thread?
@Peatful since you already posted out in the open, I'm singling you out too.The two of you and everyone single other member can have your say here. The whole idea was to make this a community thread. Then with enough interaction I'd make a fresh, locked post just for the guidelines, let this continue, and so forth. then, as a community, we'd be able to work together better and as a bonus our admin would be able to decide if he wanted to make new rules or not. Win-win.
But no one interacted, so I assumed that I what I set out to do was sufficient.
@ThinPicking is also a mod, and you can see his responses here. We'll both see your posts which could be valuable input.
So @Sugar and @Peatful what is/are your concern(s)? Your posts lack substance. I can't try to see your side unless there's something to it. If it's not worth your time to write a few detailed sentences, that lies with you.
Let me also remind the two of you about some examples of recent happenings, and I would appreciate responses to them:
Do you think users should be able to post racial slurs without warning? Or that ban evasion should not be dealt with, which would render moderation in general obsolete? Or that users should be able to tell others to off themselves, which there is an explicit rule against? Or that I shouldn't warn users who are looking for posts to be angry about?
Mind you I let yesterday's situation go the whole day to give the user in question a fair shot to edit out the content. But they were belligerent and spent their last moments in my chat calling me mentally ill.
Let me repeat, *I spent the whole day wrangling a user I could have immediately banned, zero tolerance, and rather than enjoy a game expansion I've been waiting on, put that user first. A user who was nothing but rude to me from our first interaction.
Thx for your reply
In order
I believe I prioritize here
1- Truth
2- Ray’s life work and legacy
3- freedom of speech
4- adherence to Brads guidelinesNone of these contraindicate the other- afaik
My concern is your approach
Not your intentions
They are clearly good
But banning
Micromanaging
Being subjectiveThese things concern me
Thx for being a champion for Ray
Tread lightly on the “authoritarianism”One act of obedience is better than one hundred sermons.
-DB
-
@Peatful I appreciate the nice words, but I'd like a straight answer. The only user who technically didn't break a rule was DoomerZoomer who was given a verbal warning about his racist language and rather than back off, decided to escalate the situation. I didn't do that, he did with his insults. All he had to do was stop using racial slurs in the future.
I hate to even type this, but am I to understand you're fine with the use of racial slurs here because it isn't a formal rule?
I'm open to other ways of doing things, but you aren't offering an alternative. When I lurked RPF you often posted that you didn't like the behavior of some users who were rude and belligerent. Even asking Charlie to intervene. Now you have a mod that does that and you're chiding me for authoritarianism.
Sort your thoughts out and get back to me.
-
Oh
I seeOne act of obedience is better than one hundred sermons.
-DB
-
@Peatful I hope it's clear that I don't think you're racist and that I posed a rhetorical question. Put another way, when I moderate I ask myself "If I were admin, would I want (whatever material) on my forum?"
And if I get it wrong, I'm sure Brad will have words with me, though I wouldn't think his reasoning is "Yes, posting hard-R n-words are fine on my forum as long as no one clicks Report. Schrodinger's N-Word."
My offer for collaboration is always open.
