A Small Announcement

DavidPS

@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.

NotShanalotte

@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.

lisan al gaib

@NotShanalotte said in A Small Announcement:

@lisan-al-gaib

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.

ThinPicking

@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.

lisan al gaib

@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.

DavidPS

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.

ThinPicking

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)

NotShanalotte

@lisan-al-gaib

@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.

NotShanalotte

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:

NotShannalotte's Zoo

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.

Sugar

So we're RayPeatForum 2.0 now. Got it. Don't step out of line guys. You might catch a ban hammer.

NotShanalotte

@Sugar

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.

Peatful

@NotShanalotte said in A Small Announcement:

@Sugar

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 guidelines

None of these contraindicate the other- afaik

My concern is your approach
Not your intentions
They are clearly good
But banning
Micromanaging
Being subjective

These things concern me

Thx for being a champion for Ray
Tread lightly on the “authoritarianism”

NotShanalotte

@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.

Peatful

@NotShanalotte

Oh
I see

NotShanalotte

@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.

Truth

@NotShanalotte said in A Small Announcement:

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:

NotShannalotte's Zoo

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.

@NotShanalotte said in NotShannalotte's Zoo:

Here I will be collecting posts of users who technically haven't broken the rules, but serve as an example of bad behavior. If you have to ask, the answer is "Don't post in such a manner." Brad wants us to govern ourselves and not to have to invoke his status as a reason for doing things, so let's all build a welcoming forum culture that avoids the posts I'll be moving here.

Posts are preserved as-is and may be offensive.

Remember, if I moved a post here, I only didn't delete it so others can observe what not to do, and that I have notified the user(s) of the expectations upon them.

You called it a zoo, implying that the people whose comments you have, or had posted in this thread are animals in captivity that are under your control, that's bad.

I read the comments of the people you put in your "zoo",

Excluding your posts, there is no threat in the posts you have included in your "zoo", so no broken rule, saying "niggers", being "off topic" according to your criteria, having an alt account, evoked or recommended ideas that according to you are not Ray peat nor bioenergetic ideas, this is against no rule, so claiming that this is bad behavior legitimate for banishment according to the rules that Brad has defined, is false.

Is it forbidden to recommend things against the law, if so, the laws of which countries/states?

you praised a post, which evoked sexual slavery as positive because "it reduced Muhammad's stress", and you said it was an example of a good post, that's about your ability to moderate anything at the moment.

His post:

@VehmicJuryman said in Muhammad Pbuh, The original peater?:

This is just the natural diet of a pastoral culture like the Arabs, plus fruit due to living in the tropics. Not sure what makes Muhammad unique in this regard. Although I'm sure having a harem of slave women and captives, plus living off the profits of predation and banditry against his neighbors helped reduce stress. Still his inability to father sons and his personality disorders including psychosis and anger issues may indicate some metabolic issues.

What you Said about his post:

@NotShanalotte said in Lisan-al-gaiband noodlecat59's offtopic slapfight:

You didn't participate in the thread. Period. The topic was diet. User VehmicJuryman has made since made the same point as you but without the antics. If you had edited your post, you could have learned from his example.

You said that the comments of the user reading Al gaib and VehmicJuryman had the same point. the first is condemning pedophilia, the second is talking about sex slavery in a positive way because it reduced Muhammad stress, totally different.

@Peatful @ThinPicking

NotShanalotte

@Truth I just got done composing my reply to you in the other thread. There is no need for you to post the same message in multiple places, I saw it the first time.

Truth

@NotShanalotte said in A Small Announcement:

@Truth I just got done composing my reply to you in the other thread. There is no need for you to post the same message in multiple places, I saw it the first time.

Better here

Truth

@NotShanalotte said in NotShannalotte's Zoo:

@Truth Any user could do nearly the same just by copy-paste instead of moving posts. It's not against the rules. that's your whole issue right? Likewise you have no right to complain about what I post.

Your reasoning states that I could call you every name in the book right now if I desire simply because it isn't in the rules. I will never do that, but I want you to think about it.

It isn't in the rules that I have to answer your questions either. But I try to do so to foster understanding by my own choice. Would you like me to ignore you instead?

Do you have any idea what would happen if every user treated each other that way, using racial slurs and God knows what else because there isn't a specific rules? It wouldn't take being a moderator to get users to leave the forum. I've watched forums die overnight that way.

The only user that I moderated outside of those rules, DoomerZoomer, was a user who was only asked to stop using slurs (not a moderator action). Then he went on a tirade of personal attacks about Peat being a charlatan. Upon his return he didn't even make a thread or compose a post.

I'll tell you what, DoomerZoomer would be done with a short cool-off timeout soon. I'll make a poll and see what the forum at large thinks.

We'll see what the will of the people is. My concern is that a casual observer sees bioenergetic/high metabolism == racism. Reputation is important.

As for the Muhammed thread my only post was to the two users arguing to stay on topic before that devolved. Your claim is a blatant lie you just told. I see by your numerous edits that you're still wrong.

IME letting threads devolve whether about Islam, Christianity or otherwise just makes it impossible for any related topic to ever be posted.

Still, I intended to move merge lisan-al-gaib's posts into one, and put that back in the thread. That is not why the user was banned.

lisan-al-gaib was put into what was supposed to be temporary containtment. They broke a rule but didn't know it. I spent all day dealing with that user when I could have banned immediately, who also seemed to hate me.

According to you, it's not in the rules I needed to do that and you have no leg to stand on.

Yes, all that matters right now is you banning people who haven't broken any rules, so you're wrong on that score, I don't give a damn about your personal preferences in terms of what's good or bad.

According to the rules of this forum yes, you can call anyone any name you want as long as it's not a violent threat, if you have a problem with that, you send a message to Brad and say you'd like new rules.

You don't have to answer, I don't care about your answers, they're mostly incoherent and/or wrong, it's just to expose your non sense.

You're starting to contribute to a list of forums that are dying over night with your bad moderation.

Calling someone a quack isn't against the rules, whether it's Ray peat or someone else.

I didn't lie, you told lisan Al gaib that he.could take the other user's post as an example because he makes his point without enthic, the post this other user talks about sexual slavery in a positive way because it reduced Muhammad's stress, i linked the posts. You're wrong about absolutely everything, because the standard is Brad's rules, and no rules were broken in the posts in your zoo.

The thread about Muhammad is already "islam", it didn't "devolve into islam", the name of the post is"Muhammad Pbuh(wich mean peace and benediction upon him, formula that Muslims believers use) the original Peater", it talk about his attributes in Islam, so this post implies the OP's belief in Muhammad(pbuh), and in Islam and the stories of Muhammad's life, because he believes elements of those stories, and uses them as arguments.

Simple question, is it forbidden to recommend things against the law, if so from which country/state?

This post is deleted!