Bring back Ogrim!

Ogrim may have repeatedly stepped over the line, but one thing that sets him apart in my mind is his willingness to be corrected. Look at node 5637, the "support our troops" thread. You can see that he shows a willingness to be corrected by changing the word "retarded" to the word "dumb". This is a prime example of your current philosophy functioning quite well. Students learning from each other what is and is not acceptable is a very powerful thing. That philosophy could have been applied to the post that Ogrim was banned over, but something got in the way of that. 

Anyway, what I hear you saying is that Ogrim won't be coming back because of anything we say, and that is acceptable. I feel like you have heard my concerns and I appreciate your consideration. I look forward to meeting with the advisory board in the fall. 

Hi Pete,

I'm not commenting on Ogrim specifically - on whether he should have been banned.  I don't know/care enough about it to have an informed position.  My sense is that he was not banned over a single rape joke, but that's neither here nor there.  I'm also not commenting on whom should be banned or specifically under which conditions.  I have my own opinions about what is "acceptable", but it is not my responsibility to make those calls.

I'm just more concerned with people hiding behind "free speech" to justify rude or even hostile behavior.  For example, yes, you can tell a rape joke in Red Square.  It is not against the rules.  However, that doesn't mean it is necessarily "OK."

There is a disturbing trend of confusing legality with morality.  That is, there seems to be a growing belief that if something is not against the rules, then it must be fine.  Just because one "can" do something, does not mean they "should" do it.  A community needs to create rules to govern what one may and may not do, only when people fail to self-govern by doing what they should and avoiding what they should not.

This forum (for example) wouldn't need moderators if everyone was just respectful and sensitive to other members.  Sure, not everyone will be happy all the time, but that's OK.  So long as everyone sincerely tried to consider others, the community would function without moderators.

Of course, that's not what happens.

-B

So you're saying that despite ignoring multiple warns and even a ban, that because he was willing to change the word "retarded" to "dumb" that everything's ok and he should be unbanned?  Are you trolling by purposely saying something blatantly absurd?

PS: I hear Gary Ridgway saved a kitten once.

I am just saying that if we are going to uphold some kind of moral standard here, on this forum, we should either be pretty explicit about what those standards are, or we should work with students that tend to push the envelope of appropriate discussion as long as they are willing to work to better themselves. Ogrim showed a willingness to correct himself based on other forum users responses to his posts. That is the ideal way to deal with inappropriate behavior, imo. It may not as quick and easy as direct censorship and expulsion are, but it shows a commitment to working with students which is something that a university forum should put at a high priority.

I am also saying that in cases where words are censored, and or students are banned, a dialogue should be opened up to discuss what is an is not appropriate. An inclusive, transparent policy does not have to be an "anything goes" policy. 

It is very cute of you to make the green river killer reference, I don't really know what you are trying to say... I suppose it is a comment regarding one right decision doesn't make up for a bunch of wrongs? I think a policy that holds people responsible for what they say and at the same time provides mentorship for people that have trouble expressing themselves without pushing the envelope of acceptable behavior is a good policy.

Look Jasper, if it were your head on the chopping block I would advocate for you and use your choice of words as an example as well. You are a fellow student and as long as you are willing to discuss the issues with me, or anyone else, I don't see why allowing you to freely express yourself is an issue. 

Freedom of speech has come up a few times, and even if the constitution and all it's amendments have no jurisdiction here, the principles that it stands for are true everywhere. It is better to err on the side of the free market of ideas, it is better to make a mistake and discuss it then to live in a world where words are interrupted by some (be they in the minority or the majority) who would choose to impose subjective limits on the ability for humans to express themselves. Controversy is nothing to fear, it is better to work with those who cultivate it then to push them aside. 

No, In fact I think that if Ogrim has really made so many offenses he probably has some explaining to do. After he hijacked his buddies account to say his goodbyes, well I certainly don't think that everything is just ok. He clearly made some bad decisions and he should probably deal with them.

I wish I had time to make you a little diagram to show you that I said that I accept Ogrim being banned, but I have to go cultivate my garden. I will just have to let you go back and read what I have written. Hopefully you will see that I am trying to have a dialogue, with anyone that is interested, regarding the policies of censorship and banishment by using Ogrim as an example. I am not trying to spring him from the pokey. While I disagree with the decision, I accept it. I also think you should take a look at the guidelines, because I don't think anything I have said was completely absurd, and you should probably give me the benefit of the doubt that I am sincere in my position.

Also, Brent-
The only issue I can really bring up about where you stand is that the word "moral", to me, is rather vague and subjective. It also has some real ties to modern christian values. I think that we should be really careful about how we define that word and how we carry out its implementation. Do you think that the forums should uphold certain christian values? Which ones? Why?

p

Yeah, the rules suck: they are comedically inadequate and even fail to blanket as there are many holes.  While there are many things wrong with them, the policies/staff conduct is what seems to be the issue here, not the rules.  If that is truly your concern, you should probably make a thread about it, instead of using/warping the Ogrim platform as such.  Keep in mind that has been tried once before and while the forum may have somewhat changed since then, I would say the result would probably be the same.

Again, no, he didn't.  I think it's been well established he was warned many times and yet, his conduct didn't change and he is now banned.

Yes, that is what I'm trying to say.  Oddly enough, I agree with your second point.  Having your account linked to your Universal login makes you pretty responsible.  Ogrim's behavior wasn't acceptable.  Now he's banned.  Policy looks good to me.

And if I had conducted myself in the same way Ogrim had, you'd be equally wrong.

What are those principles?  Are you thinking "free speech" or actual free speech, where you can only say stuff that's not unallowed to be said?  The former is just semantics and not just the principles, the latter is applied here.

I agree with the main point here.  Unfortunately, those disruptive few hinder progress; this is a great concept, but due to the disruptive nature of some, this isn't actually pragmatic.

Not sure how we made the leap from morality to Christianity.

Yes, morality is vague.  In fact, I would argue that ambiguity is at the core of morality.  I am not speaking of morality as a set of rules to be obeyed.  This is compliance, not morality.  I consider morality more closely associated with motive than action.  That is, I see morality as doing one's personal best to act in the most "right" manner possible.  What is "right" behavior?  Well, this is contingent on one's conscience.  I think that if one acts according to one's own conscience, this is the best any person can do in synthesizing morality.

So, when I speak of morality, I am speaking about this - a system of determining "right/wrong", "good/bad" - not a specific set of rules defining what is "right/wrong", "good/bad."  (The words right, wrong, good, and bad are in quotes because I reject the idea these mean anything specific.  They are simply conventional words for distinguishing useful from not useful, desirable from undesirable, productive from unproductive, helpful from harmful, etc.)

Parenthetically, but since you brought it up ... the Chrisitian model of morality emphasizes compliance with a set of rules (action over motive).  A person need not consider motive.  One simply needs to follow the rules set out by someone else.  So, according to this model, I really don't need to be a "good" person - I simply need to behave as if I were.  I don't consider this morality.  I see this as simply acting a certain way in expectations of a reward or to avoid a punishment.

So, if I refrain from stealing a candy bar only because I am afraid of being caught and punished, this isn't morality; it is compliance motivated by fear.  Similarly, if I find a wallet in a restaurant and return it to the owner expecting to get a reward, this is not morality; it is self-serving.  Christian "morality" is essentially based on governing actions with a heaven/hell, reward/punishment, self-service/fear model.

I'm not saying that Christians can't be good people, just that being a "good Christian" does not make a person good.

Back to the point I was making, people are prone to confuse legality with morality.  That is, there is a reliance on rules to define what one should and shouldn't do.  As I described, following rules is not what I consider morality - it is simply compliance.  By doing this, one is consigning to the rulemakers the responsibility of determining how one should act (the Christian model since you bring it up).  I am advocating that one should think for oneself and self-govern.  This involves taking on the personal responsibility to avoid doing things that you know to be "wrong" and doing what you know to be "right" - regardless what rules are or are not in place.  (This goes back to the idea that just because you can do something doesn't mean you necessarily should.)

Most people understand that you don't go around saying offensive things in public places (and yes, Ogrim certainly understood that he was being offensive - and deliberately so).  We don't need a rule to tell us not to do this, we simply don't do it because we understand that it is a harmful action.  We really only need a rule when people stop self-governing.  Then, though we would rather not have the rules, the rules allow the majority to self-govern without being victimized by those who refuse to do so.

-B

Seriously?  I really don't want to get into this argument too far, but that's kind of an offensively bad summarization of Christian morality and completely ignores Jesus, pharisees, legalism and Paul... It is sort of like summarizing a math textbook by saying 2+2=dog...

Anyways, I've got to agree with one of Pete's earlier points:  Ogrim has been trying to change, and I think he's been doing a pretty good job of it.  We all come from different perspectives and upbringings and I believe that he has shown a willingness to change his behavior on this forum, and sure, while he does still take it a step too far sometimes, he has generally been willing to accept it, apologize, and move on.  On several occassions he has written something in a frustrated/angry mood, and then quickly edited it to be less obscene/more compliant with the guidelines.  He was making positive strides towards what the admins wanted, and was then subsequently banned.

Jasper-
     I am having a lot of trouble following what you are saying. What rules suck? I think that this is a great place to discuss policies regarding inappropriate behavior, because we have a specific case where the policies have been enacted. Other then that, the only thing that is keeping me from starting a new thread is a fear that you will find it entertaining to post a really juvenile video that mocks my ability to follow some unwritten electronic forum etiquette of which you are an expert.
     I disagree with you, I think that Ogrim had shown progress in being more respectful. If you have specific instances of his conduct that cause you alarm then let's discuss them. Otherwise let's try not to make sweeping generalizations, ok? 
     I am talking about the concept that people, including forum users, should be allowed to speak freely, in language that they understand, and in mannerisms that they are familiar with. I have not come across anything that Ogrim has written that I felt needed to be censored. Again, if you have some issue with that let's talk specifics. I don't think that any of his behavior leading to his banishment was deserving of it, and I can't say I hardly blame him for digging his hole deeper by thumbing his nose at the system when he hijacked his friends account. Still, we are dealing with a student... where is the commitment to his education? Should students not be permitted to make mistakes? 
     To make an equally ridiculous comparison of your green river killer analogy, the policies of Mussolini were harsh, but the trains ran on time. To where are we progressing? Why is it so urgent that we get there, that we must step on students who are making an effort to conform to ambiguous policies that are unfamiliar to them? Why not take some extra time to teach students  to grow into more mature people? Why not give them the benefit of the doubt that they are trying to contribute?

I have no idea why any of you continue to argue about this.

Multipurpose forums are like daycares and should be moderated like one. This is a good example the right thing being done pretty half-assed.

I encourage all of the mods and advisory members who make decisions to join, or at least watch a forum and watch how real moderators work.

Truth: When you moderate, only a few people complain. These people are not respecting the fact that you are just doing your job. You're moderating a forum, not killing people. So nazi comparisons are not appreciated, nor even the same magnitude display of power. And because this is just forum moderation, it's really not a big deal to punish the insubordinates as well. (Or discuss how to deal with them at next week's meeting, lol). I mean, I thought it was funny watching the moderators drown, but it's pretty sad now.

The problem with this forum is how big of a deal it is made out to be with 'advisory members' having meetings about how to moderate this place. Seriously? Most relevant discussion needs to be made in real time. I have no idea how things are 'moderator side', but I hope that there are hidden forums for all of you to talk about things related to moderation. The meetings are ok, but not exactly neccessary. Especially when I see very few advisory members as active participants. It doesn't really make sense to have someone create rules for things when they have no idea how they work.

I've been part of communities where users help choose mods, and where administration chooses them. The latter usually means that they have been watched for a while and have been deemed a responsible user who can keep order. I usually like this better than users choosing, because it just becomes a popularity contest where assholes get power because they have a lot of friends. A lot like high school.

Starting to get unfocused, so I'll cut this message short.

Browse through Cole_Edward's posts. Upon close examination, you'll notice he doesn't violate the rules, mostly because the rules are incomplete.  The make attempts in laying down guidelines, but fail because they are too specific.  On a related note, no real forum has more than two lines that cover all of those guidelines, usually simply saying "no trolling/flaming, no illegal stuff."

I would say based off what you seem to want, you belong in Red Square, where you can discuss whatever you want, no holds barred.  Viking Village is a more structured and governed environment.

So, if this is where the forum is trying to progress, that is, to a structured and governed environment, then I think that we all should be very hesitant to support any policy that is ineffective in addressing issues that disrupt that goal. I have no idea what you guys are talking about when you say "real forum", frankly I don't care. This forum (as it is, open to all students with no requisite ability other then basic computer literacy) ideally, should be proactive and transparent in its policies and procedures that deal with inappropriate behavior.

I can't believe you guys are still arguing about all this. 

It's just retarded.

I mean dumb.

Wait, no.  I mean retarded.

it's been pretty boring around here since Ogrim's been gone... 

No, that's what it is, not where it's trying to progress.  I'm not sure where this forum is trying to progress, that's the decision of the Advisory Board.

It shows.  To give an incomplete definition that really just highlights the main difference, a real forum is one where most of the users and more particularly the staff are experienced in generally accepted forum conduct.  For starters, it's a place where you don't have to put up with people who clearly have no/minimal exposure to the Internet/Information Age complaining about how something offends them simply because they've been living in a hole.

Yeah, they should.  But that's not the point you've been making this whole time.  You've been saying we should basically be allowed to say whatever we want (see "this isn't Red Square").  Decide on what point you're even trying to argue.  (Also: proactive policy would have meant Ogrim's first ban shouldn't have been temporary.)

Let's unban someone because you're bored.

We obviously do not post on this forum because it entertains us, but probably because it's required by a class or something...

Man it's been a bit since I've been on...

Anyways, I went to high school with Ogrim, along with Wyatt Jarvis.  In fact, the three of us, along with a few others, were on the same Knowledge Bowl team that took 4th in state... He's a really cool guy if you know him in person, and if you did you would know that he would never condone rape.  He'll make jokes about anything and everything, and I actually started keeping a book of all of the funny things he would say during senior year.  He was quoting an internet meme with the rape bit, though in arguably the wrong place and at the wrong time.  Don't judge him by that comment alone. 

I don't know what kind of point you think I have been making, but I am pretty confident in where I stand. Again, I would take the time to make a diagram for you, but I invite you to re-read my posts and ask yourself if I have been insisting on an anything goes policy.

I disagree with you about the way you are using the term proactive. but, I'm not going to argue with you anymore. 

maybe we can agree that a policy that allowed Ogrim to come back to the forum only to be banned once more is a failing policy. I can let you think about what kind of incentives would be needed to make a policy that works.

see you in red square my friend.

na-noo na-noo

And the point of bans is....?  To continue the theme, I think the world is boring, we should let Gary Ridgway resume what he does best.

CTRL + F this page for: "censor", "policy", and "free speech"  gg no re

Has he acknowledge that he made the comment at the wrong place?

He made the comment to try to lighten the conversation. It was an attempt at humor. I think if he had the time to discuss it with someone who really felt like it was the wrong place he would have acknowledged it. If you look at his pattern of behavior it was not one of ultimate defiance. He was just a little rambunctious. 

Oh well, he is gone now.

his name was robert paulsen... his name was robert paulsen... his name....

Before we get carried away here, I would just like to comment quickly that I don't care if Ogrim lives or dies, much less if he can post on the forums.  That is all.

firstly...kudos to Ranae, i had a Literal LOL (LLOL) when i read this.

and you see guys, isn't that what this is all about?  obviously the forum exists because we all derive some form of entertainment from it, one way or another.  whether you enjoy moderating the forum because it makes you feel powerful, or if you enjoy pissing off other people on this forum who obviously care too much (because it's funny), or if you enjoy debating heated topics and showing your net worth of all your intellect online (almost zero), then that is why you're here!  let us not forget this, people!  ogrim was having his fun, as should we all on this forum!  hang loose, people.  Namaste, yin and yang, peace, pride and prejudice, this is western.  we're known for being chill, anti-conformist smartasses.

According to the Western Front? They're reporting on forum bannings now? Maybe I should get myself banned so I get a spot on the paper!!!

Dear Sir/Madam:

That may be true speaking from your personal introspective experience, but please don't generalize for the rest of us. Thank you.

Miborovsky

http://westernfrontonline.net/2009062611155/news/online-forum-user-ogrim...

they quoted me and Andrea too...

Thanks for the link.

Leave it to western to be completely mystified by an internet forum.

The story is similar to every report on CNN, FOX, <any other international news conglomerate> which cites their main source from a tweet from user 'AmericanIdol30692938620'. Very credible and balanced.

Y'know, you weren't the only one who was asked for a quote. Frankly, I brushed it off because IT IS NOT NEWSWORTHY. But go ahead and pat yourself on the back because you really made a difference...

The western forum is not any different from any other forum on the internet, despite the fact that a number of you would like to believe it is.

What makes it more 'unique' from others is that it is heavily populated by snobby college students who have never talked to other people on the internet (point I'm trying to make is that they are uncomfortable talking to people from different social backgrounds). Because of this, theres a lot of miscommunication that gets misinterpreted, and people get their feelings hurt (boo hoo).

Also, it isn't difficult to moderate a forum. Get rid of the fucking 'advisory board' meetings and operate similar to this:

• Anyone with decision making power has to visit the forum themselves. Posting in general boards where everyone can see is not relevant, but it means that they understand what the atmosphere is like.
• Moderators get to exercise their power for what their moral compass says is right and wrong.
• Admins can have the Mods change focus when there are inconsistencies, whatever that means. This way, we can stop getting robotic moderation. And certainly stop with public complaints about when the forum actually gets moderated. If you wanted free, unmoderated speech then go outside.
• Create some explicit forum rules with harsh penalties to go with the abstract that I have a good feeling will exist. That way when the robots come and point at the rules, there will actually be a point to make. This is how successful, real-OMG-WE'RE-NOT-A-REAL-forums work.
• Examples of some good ones that we need right away: No posts complaining about bans, yours or others, this is why PM exists so talk to the mod or an admin. No evading bans under any circumstances. USE THE SEARCH BAR.

That's a pretty big assumption, not to mention that it's totally false and unappreciated. To apply it to what a lot of people have been saying and what I interpreted as the general angle of the Western Front article, I'm pretty tired of being labeled as one of the bad guys here. We're not here to ruin your free speech or whatever, or to censor you just because we like to. It's getting ridiculous, the number of times we have to restate things like that to get it through fellow forumers' thick skulls. I like posting here. I feel like being a moderator has, in a way, helped me sorta grow as a person in small ways. I'm aware that sounds silly. And for the record, we post "robotically" and always quote the guidelines basically so that people don't get a "SAYS WHO?" attitude. Now I'm starting to blabber, and I'm afraid I'm going to start repeating myself, but, like most human beings, I don't like being seen as evil. Or. Something.

Sleepy-time for me.

In all my discussions about this issue I have always referred to you as an exemplary moderator. Your perspective on this forum is at least appreciated by me.  

TJ: it is amazing how you are able to type, and yet sometimes...I doubt your ability to read.

There is a big difference between complaining about something, and questioning policy/procedure. I happen to think both are valid forms of expression, however if I were only interested in complaining I probably would have started a 'top ten reasons banning users sucks' thread.

I have so many questions for you.

I don't understand where you are coming from, but if you are not interested in hearing a discussion about policy and procedure and how it was enacted in this instance, why are you here? Is it simply to let everyone know how you think the forum should be ruled with an iron fist, with no input from people who are not engaged in the discussion? Do you think that somehow using this forum and being an expert on civility, tolerance, and pedagogy are mutually exclusive? If you are so committed to other models of forum administration, why do you come here? I have never met the advisory board and yet I am respectful and intelligent enough to understand that a committee that was established to monitor the success of this forums as it pertains to it's original intent is a good thing. Also, having people that are not directly involved in discussions, involved in policy decisions is probably an excellent way to keep things in check. It is very easy for a human being who is directly involved in a debate to allow their personal feelings to get in the way of an important decision. 

IMO, your logic fails on so many levels. I can't help but wonder if you are just trying to be a mean spirit in this discussion. Read the guidelines, I am not 100% sure you are trying to follow them.

On a side note, you could probably get a spot in the paper if you hang out near the bathroom down the hall from the presidents office. Just a hunch.

lol hypocrisy.  Careful there Pete, it appears you're coming apart at the seams.  That's twice you've been hypocritical.

We've covered this.  Public forum.  Stop questioning why people are here.  Nobody has to answer to you; you aren't going to be successful in driving away people who actually challenge you with legitimate arguments.

We've covered this too.  (Successful) forums work a certain way, tried and true.  Any forum that doesn't work that way is doomed to fail. Three guesses on which this currently is.  Your hippie/anti-authority interpretations of proper moderation don't change any part of that.

Good call, let's have the people in charge be so completely removed from what they're in charge of they don't know how the environment works, because that keeps them objective, right?

Where both of this 'discussion' are wrong.  Different reasons obviously.

Pete and the free speech side:

Pete, whether you realize it or not you have been arguing from the free speech side.  You have attempted to obfuscate this by saying that the punishment is inneffective (which you have done before I think).  However, several of your posts indicate that you do, in fact, think this is about the right/ability for Ogrim to say what he wants (within subjective reason) and not be banned.

Now, I will agree that it is an issue of free speech while at the same time disagreeing with your perspective on it.  The intent of this forum is to allow a free exchange of ideas.  However it does not, in any way, present the idea that anything goes.

There are many ways to monitor/manage forum content.  At one extreme you have an 'anything goes' policy, warnings to indicate that the forum is essentially unmoderated with disclaimers and usually an electronic agreement that your participation is at your own risk.  Still, this bears some potential legal repercussions (with threats, etc.), likely moreso for an environment like this one where anonymity doesn't exist and it focuses around individuals you could, potentially, find, meet, or otherwise engage in person.  With no protections for it's members it result in a populace existing of those who willfully engage in sociopathic behavior, or those that can tolerate that behavior.  Genuine discussion rarely occurs without insults and assualts on the persons character or other non-related characteristics of the individual or their opinion.

The other extreme is the hard line, hard set, unforgiving moderation.  Moderation with an iron fist with little to no recourse for banning.  This, lilkewise, creates a suppression of free ideas, because the expression of free ideas may offend someone and with the forum policy being so restrictive, the mere potential of offense is enough to result in punative action so words like 'rape' cannot even be used in genuine discussion or when contextually appropriate.  Punishment is mechanical and errs on the side of caution.

The other possibility is in between somewhere.  This, I think, is what the moderators and advisory group are looking to create.  An environment where the free exchange and expression is encourage, but where the individuals are protected, for the most part, from both directed and indiscriminate verbal attacks and or abuses.  This is the most difficult way to do things, because it requires more trial and error, more balance with regards to what the University wants compared to what the users want.  Punishment is judiciously applied and affects a very small percentage of the populace.  Where there are gaps in the policy or forum guidelines, they will get adjusted, where mistakes are made, they get rectified.

Part of the major difficulty is that a great number of the participants here believe they are right without having the wisdom to realize they may be wrong.  The result is a discussion like this one, where both sides adamantly believe they have the winning hand, and both are holding a pair of 2s.

The forum is also a reflection of the University since visitors may read it, meaning prospective students and their parents may see what goes on here.  It benefits them to both allow the free expression of ideas while simultaneously acting upon the more aggregious offenses that cross certain boundaries.

In the case of Ogrim specifically, the joke he made was offensive.  More than that, and this is the crux of it, is that it, essentially condones the idea of rape.  While there may be times and places where that joke is fine to the people hearing it, this forum isn't, and shouldn't be, one of them.  Furthermore, it degrades and diminishes those people who have experienced that particular violation of their person.  By joking about it, with the implication that essentially there is no such thing.  If anyone close to you has been put through it, or if you yourself have been raped, those words don't form a joke, they form an insult, or even possibly a threat.  At the very least they potentially create an oppressive atmosphere where stereotypical frat-boy-date-rape mentality is viewed as OK, because it's all in good fun for those making fun of rape.

This kind of speech isn't what this forum should be about.

To the 'Sense' folks and all others implying some kind of fourm expertise:

Your side fails on this issue for an entirely different reason.  While I agree with much of what is said on this side of the issue, your method for conveying the message is almost wholly bad.

There are several people in this thread who have made statements almost as absolutes -- all forums should be run a certain way, or that if a forum policy isn't working the way you think it should, then it's a failed policy....these kinds of things. This isn't constructive, and, in my opinion, it isn't accurate.

First, to SenseThisMakesNone I find your attitudes and forum practices unconstructive.  You essentially insult the creators (or diminish their efforts) of the forum and it's moderators for not following a policy that you think would be successful, while having a personal policy that is, what I would consider, contrary to the guidelines.  You've even made the statement that 'forums' are a place where idiots get shat on for being idiots.  Your last post title is someone hypocritical as well, since it would seem that you, too, have something to learn about how forums work.  There are a lot of different kinds of forums out there, varying from private low pop closed membership to those wide open, wholly public, and poorly modded.  Each forum operates in it's own way, hopefully within the boundaries of the designers/moderators intent.

This forum is not intended as an arena where the likes of you get to shit on people you think are idiots.  Even a single reading of the guidelines reveals this.  Pete did an excellent job of quote harvesting some of your more offensive comments, some of which seem, to me, to be in direct violation of the guidelines.

Insulting people you don't really know or agree with (including those people you label as idiots) are almost always be a better indicator of the person casting those insults than the recipient.  More importanly, it detracts from what otherwise might be a valid argument.  When you make statements like 'Stop questioning why people are here' followed by 'Nobody has to answer to you' you appear to me to be a hypocrite, or at the very least, you are projecting your own issues on to another user.  Pete's questioned seemed like an honest one, in asking what purpose you had for participating in this discussion given what you said previously.  Your response, whether you realize it or not, accused him (incorrectly) of taking a position which you immediately assumed in your post by telling him to stop.  You're hoisting yourself on your own petard.  To be clear, I'm not even telling not to, I'm just pointing out the impression you're leaving with me.  It further elaborates how your intent or message can be lost when you choose this kind of method for interaction.

T.J. characterized 'Western' as mystified by an 'internet' forum. First, personification is both innacurate and inappropriate.  Secondly, it isn't an 'internet' forum in any truly connotative sense of the word. We could literally cut ourselves off from the internet, and the forum would still function on campus, with almost the same participant pool.  The internet merely allows us to access it from remote locations.  It isn't anonymous, and it isn't open for anyone's participation. It is closer to a closed community than an open one (though a large one) since, as I noted before, it's possible, if not likely, that you may meet some of these people in person.

Similarly, attacking the moderators, like Weih did, doesn't indicate a true understanding of what's actually going on.  He constructed multiple strawmen arguments for the moderators motivations (power, intellectual displays for status, or pissing people off), while either intentionally or unintentionally missing the entire purpose for their existence as if it's some kind of status.  From my limited experience, moderation of other peoples grievances is a pain in the ass.  Personally, I wouldn't want any part of it, as would take the fun out of participation.  I'm appreciative of them and their efforts at the same time I'm glad it's not me.  Good on you folks for giving your time, effort, and maybe a little bit of your sanity to try to keep on top of things.

The Viking Village is still a fledgeling effort and it's fairly rare (few Universities even try this kind of thing).  To me it seems unnecessarily intolerant to be so hyper critical of both the effort and the people who work to keep it functional.  I'm not speaking of anyone in particular, just the idea that this still reasonably new dialogue tool is being criticized with such an abrasive tone by the very members that participate heavily.  Stop expecting it to be the best possible solution out of the gate, and drop any expectation of it being a perfect solution for everyone.

The real essence of the matter is that communities work best when the members of that community attempt to function in the manner which is most beneficial to that society.  That usually starts with, amazingly enough, taking responsibility for your own behavior, treating individuals and groups/organizations with respect in dialogue (even if you think they're unworthy), maintaining intellectual honesty, and contributing in a manner that is tempered by reason, without threatening, hostility, specifically demeaning.  If you must be critical, be critical with reason and explain why you have arrived at that opinion, provide examples of behavior you don't like, but above all else, try to remain reasoned in your responses.

Most of these things aren't things that the moderators would even want to enforce (with the exception of the cases of threatening/insulting/demeaning behavior), primarily because the responsibility for these things lies with the user.  The mods should only step in when someone cannot control their own behavior to the point where it is affecting others.  Ask yourself...are you trying to be a responsible user?

If people would make the effort to understand what the other is saying, there is legitimate ground to be covered.  In essence BOTH of you are arguing for some kind of policy review, whether or not you fall on the side of greater or lesser admonishment.  If you'd relax a bit and stop trying to 'win' the discussion by whatever means necessary (whether your argument has merit or not), there might be a little more constructive contribution.

Try not to make it personal, and try not to take it personal.