Poll: should the Autonomous Vehicles forum have a moderator?

[strangecosmos]

Currently, there is no moderator assigned specifically to the Autonomous Vehicles forum. The only people who have moderator powers here are the site-wide Lead Moderator and the site admins.

Do you think the Autonomous Vehicles forum should have a moderator besides the Lead Moderator and the admins?

 

[Tam]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

[strangecosmos]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Make sure to vote!

 

[Tam]

Make sure to vote!

I am not going to do an un-informed vote as I don't know whether there's a problem or not.

 

[zmarty]

I offer myself as tribute.

First order of business: ban Bladerskb
Second order of business: quit

Awaiting my coronation.

 

[PhilDavid]

It should be moderated by AI.

 

[strangecosmos]

I am not going to do an un-informed vote as I don't know whether there's a problem or not.

I didn’t want to bias the poll by stating my opinion, but I guess I should explain why I think there’s a problem since not everyone has all the same information.

There was one thread where things got pretty ugly. Someone signed up and started making super trollish comments, calling people “autistic” as an insult, swearing and calling names, etc. It went on for days and only stopped because I messaged the Lead Moderator and asked him to intervene. If I hadn’t done that, maybe nothing would have happened.

I realized after that incident that there is just no moderation on the Autonomous Vehicles forum. I’m not aware of any other instance where a moderator moved or deleted a post, or warned, suspended, or banned a user.

There are still instances on the forum where people make personal attacks and insults. They snarkily or bitterly call into question someone’s honesty, intelligence, etc. rather than addressing the substance of their argument using evidence and reasoning. In other words, there are many cases where there is no civil discourse, and instead people are making it personal and instigating interpersonal conflict.

I’ve helped run a few online communities over the years, and my view used to be that freedom of speech was fundamental, and that moderators should be as hands-off as possible. Over time, my view has evolved: now I think some speech destroys other speech. For example, if spambots post ads for fake Gucci sunglasses ten times a minute, that prevents humans from using the forum as a platform for speech. That’s an obvious example everyone agrees on.

Less obviously, if just one, two, or a small handful of people insult, disrespect, antagonize, defame, troll, or provoke others on the forum, the atmosphere of the forum becomes hostile and uncivil. This discourages new members from joining, and discourages old members from sticking around. It makes it unpleasant.

Lex Fridman posted here — literally an MIT researcher and lecturer on autonomous vehicles — and one of the first comments was “this is BS”. Maybe we aren’t welcoming the best people to engage with us...

 

[Tam]

...I didn’t want to bias the poll...

Thanks a lot! You just knocked off my objectivity a few feet away from the balance scale so I have no choice but voted

 

[Bladerskb]

I'm sorry but didn't you join this forum and immediately try to siphon members and advertise your own forum? now you come begging for mod powers? you of all people?? Seriously?

In addition; there is a report button which people can use to address posts involving personal attacks/insults.

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

I said no as I think it works fine as it is.

If there is a mod then I nominate Blader because that would be funny.

 

[iTech]

In addition; there is a report button which people can use to address posts involving personal attacks/insults.

What he said. This poll is useless.

 

[strangecosmos]

What he said. This poll is useless.

As far as I can tell, the reports aren’t handled by anyone. The Autonomous Vehicles forum doesn’t have a mod to handle reports, and I’m not sure if the Lead Moderator or the site admins look at reports from this forum. Like, if someone used a racial slur and 20 people reported it, I’m not sure if the post would get deleted. I don’t think there is a mod reviewing the reports.

I know from experience that a user can call someone “autistic” as an insult (plus use other clearly not okay language I won’t repeat here), and if you report it, nothing will happen. I don’t think the rules are enforced here.

Most if not all of the other forums on TMC have at least one moderator assigned to them. Maybe one of those moderators would be willing to take on the AV forum.

 

[electronblue]

I for one welcome good manners and upholding them for sure. But not at any cost or with ulterior motives.

The issue for me with this poll is that I do not consider @strangecosmos a seeker of balance on this. His past here has shown desire to promote ignore listing and banning those with opposing views as well as to promote his own competing forum. Therefore I voted No on the poll.

As for the one thread that got derailed (just one!) — even that has color to it. The person who subsequently left showed proof of being probably the biggest AI/self-driving expert and professional ever to visit this subforum (sorry @Bladerskb for losing the title). Their frustration with the amateurs here shone through but their insight was super special and valuable. Too bad @strangecosmos had them driven away too and we are without that insight. They had no patience for the silliness.

In my view our debates should in the end be won on the merits and strength of our arguments, not on our ability to ignore list or moderate those who disagree with us.

If I thought this poll was in good faith, I would have voted differently. Unfortunately I do not think it is in good faith.

 

[BinaryField]

I don't get this. We're all adults here, we don't need babysitting. I don't even see the problem with someone being hostile - we should all have the faculties to respond appropriately. The real discussion killer is the presence of comments that are extremely assertive but completely uninformed. I've seen a number of users push hard on technical outlook when they themselves clearly have a pop culture "understanding" of the field at best. Just because one knows some words that the field uses doesn't mean that one is qualified to make statements about it. For areas under my expertise, I'm near the point where I don't participate because it goes nowhere and benefits nobody except them; i.e. "it might look good on your resume, but it doesn't look so good on mine".

 

[strangecosmos]

Too bad @strangecosmos had them driven away too and we are without that insight.

I didn’t drive them away. Either they chose to leave or their account was suspended/banned for breaking the rules. It’s pretty obvious that attacking someone based on personal characteristics — gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, neurotype, etc. — is not okay, and it certainly doesn’t add any insight to a conversation about machine learning.

If you call someone “gay” or “autistic” as an insult, use a racial slur, a sexist slur, or swear and call names, and then a moderator takes action, you are not being censored because of your opinion on machine learning. You are being censored because you clearly violated the rules TMC has set out, and you are detracting from TMC being an environment where helpful, informative civil discourse on topics like machine learning can take place.

If you behave in an anti-social, abusive way, and then claim your voice is being quashed because other people can’t tolerate disagreement — you’re wrong. You’re avoiding accountability for your behaviour. You are making up a reason for why people are upset with you that has nothing to do with the actual reason. You are abusing someone, and then pretending to be the victim of abuse.

If an MIT expert on autonomous vehicles posts here under his real name and verified identity, and people just immediately respond with “this is BS”, that’s the sort of behaviour that discourages real, meaningful engagement between verified experts and the vast majority of us who are not experts. Isn’t the purpose of the Autonomous Vehicles forum to learn about autonomous vehicles? I don’t think its purpose should be a platform for trolling, flame wars, or for people to litigate their personal grievances.

Maybe we can have one forum for people who want to learn about autonomous vehicle tech, and one forum for people who want to fight. Two separate forums: a moderated one called Autonomous Vehicles and an unmoderated one called AV Fights. There, I solved it.

 

[strangecosmos]

I'm sorry but didn't you join this forum and immediately try to siphon members and advertise your own forum? now you come begging for mod powers? you of all people?? Seriously?

It’s easy to verify this is not true. Look up my history on TMC. I was a member for 1.5 years before making my forum. 1.5 years is not “immediately”.

I made my forum largely because I wasn’t hearing back from any TMC mods about giving attention to the Autonomous Vehicles forum. Because I never heard back, I mistakenly thought they just didn’t care.

I tried to ask the mods whether it would be okay to put a link to my forum in my signature, and I never heard back — even after a month there was no response. I wasn’t sure if it was against the rules, so I asked, and I didn’t get an answer. You are allowed to put a link to your website in your signature, just not “competing sites”, and I wasn’t sure if TMC would consider my forum a “competing site”. It certainly doesn’t compete with the main Tesla forums, the TMC community, or any of the marketplace and aftermarket stuff. Would a SpaceX forum compete with TMC? Hard to say. A climate policy forum? Again, unclear. Since no mods seemed concerned with my inquiries about the Autonomous Vehicles forum, I assumed they weren’t worried about it.

I also didn’t ask for mod powers. I don’t think I should be a mod. I don’t want to be one. TMC already has plenty of mods. It’s just that none of them are assigned to the Autonomous Vehicles forum.

So:

didn't you join this forum and immediately try to siphon members and advertise your own forum?

No.

now you come begging for mod powers?

And no.

 

[electronblue]

I didn’t drive them away. Either they chose to leave or their account was suspended/banned for breaking the rules. It’s pretty obvious that attacking someone based on personal characteristics — gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, neurotype, etc. — is not okay, and it certainly doesn’t add any insight to a conversation about machine learning.

If you call someone “gay” or “autistic” as an insult, use a racial slur, a sexist slur, or swear and call names, and then a moderator takes action, you are not being censored because of your opinion on machine learning. You are being censored because you clearly violated the rules TMC has set out, and you are detracting from TMC being an environment where helpful, informative civil discourse on topics like machine learning can take place.

If you behave in an anti-social, abusive way, and then claim your voice is being quashed because other people can’t tolerate disagreement — you’re wrong. You’re avoiding accountability for your behaviour. You are making up a reason for why people are upset with you that has nothing to do with the actual reason. You are abusing someone, and then pretending to be the victim of abuse.

If an MIT expert on autonomous vehicles posts here under his real name and verified identity, and people just immediately respond with “this is BS”, that’s the sort of behaviour that discourages real, meaningful engagement between verified experts and the vast majority of us who are not experts. Isn’t the purpose of the Autonomous Vehicles forum to learn about autonomous vehicles? I don’t think its purpose should be a platform for trolling, flame wars, or for people to litigate their personal grievances.

Maybe we can have one forum for people who want to learn about autonomous vehicle tech, and one forum for people who want to fight. Two separate forums: a moderated one called Autonomous Vehicles and an unmoderated one called AV Fights. There, I solved it.

As I said, I welcome good manners and upholding them. However, my personal feeling is that you are not so much interested in them than in skewing the debate in one direction hence my vote accordingly. I would welcome a more balanced and a more gentler approach to this question. I fear your approach would lead simply to an echo chamber.

Being personally one of those people you said you ignore listed and advocated others to ignore list over one single message you disagreed with underlines the ease at which a too heavy handed approach lacking balance can really harm the ecosystem of diverse opinions and free discussion.

As for the expert we lost (who made it clear they left because they considered the moderator intervention you called for too much), I still have to wonder if the intervention really was necessary in the way it happened. The cost for us in losing that expertise was high. There could have been a gentler reminder first and then we could have just let it slide and let the debate speak for itself.

 

[strangecosmos]

Being personally one of those people you said you ignore listed and advocated others to ignore list over one single message you disagreed with underlines the ease at which a too heavy handed approach lacking balance can really harm the ecosystem of diverse opinions and free discussion.

I put you on my ignore list because you insulted me personally— you demeaned my intelligence and said I was being dishonest. Why? Simply because I stated my opinion on autonomous vehicle tech. And apparently you disliked that opinion so much you felt you had to make it personal — make it about me — rather than stay civil and discuss the ideas on their merits.

I don’t care if people disagree with me. I enjoy it when people disagree with me— I actively seek it out. I want people to give me new information and new ideas I don’t have. What I don’t like is when people insinuate that I’m stupid or lying simply because they disagree with my opinion on machine learning, or autonomous cars, or whatever.

This isn’t about disagreement at all. It’s about being civil. It’s about focusing on the ideas, and not insulting the person.

Also, I just saw that your post was removed from the forum by a moderator (probably the Lead Moderator), so clearly they agree you violated the rules.

As for the expert we lost (who made it clear they left because they considered the moderator intervention you called for too much)

So that person — who, by the way, never provided any evidence to support the claim that they are an expert — voluntarily left because they didn’t think they should have to follow TMC’s rules. Which include, for instance, not calling people “autistic” as an insult and other things so abusive and beyond the pale they could get you fired from a professional office job. Well, to me, if you believe you shouldn’t have to follow the rules even to that minimal degree, then it’s not TMC’s fault for having rules and not the mod’s fault for enforcing them.

We could probably have verified experts — using their real names — participate here more if there were an atmosphere of civil discourse. If the verified experts who did post here (like Lex Fridman) didn’t get instantly trolled.

One great thing about the Internet today is experts are amazingly accessible. I personally asked Amnon Shashua (the CEO of Mobileye) a question about imitation learning and got an answer. Same with Oriol Vinyals from DeepMind (one of the creators of AlphaStar). Plus several other people. If you want expert insight, you don’t have to trust random anonymous accounts that claim, without evidence, to be experts and who behave in trollish ways. It would be easy to falsely impersonate an expert — some people do — so you shouldn’t automatically trust what someone says more just because they say they’re an expert.

If you want experts to talk to you... Don’t call them stupid. Don’t say they’re lying. Don’t call their work or ideas “BS”. Experts might not want to talk to us on TMC because that’s the norm we’ve established here.

 

[electronblue]

@strangecosmos

I disagree with your assertion of our past but I do agree I felt strongly about what I viewed as major misinformation in your message back then. In my view it was worthy of even stronger disagreement than I did. We can agree to disagree on that.

But then this perfectly outlines the problem with subjective interpretations and overreactions to them. One single message of disagreement and you cut our dialogue then and there because you felt insulted.

As for the expert — they did provide pictoral evidence of their connections in the field and their insight was interesting. One single intervention that was quite heavy-handed and we lost that voice.

This is no way to run a diverse conversation. This will kill it I fear.

 

[strangecosmos]

But then this perfectly outlines the problem with subjective interpretations and overreactions to them. One single message of disagreement and you cut our dialogue then and there because you felt insulted.

It wasn’t just my interpretation. Your post was removed by a mod because it violated the rules. You should address the ideas you disagree with, rather than say that a person is less intelligent than you or less honest than you because you don’t share their opinion on a technical topic. If you make it personal — about someone else’s intelligence or integrity — then it isn’t about “disagreement”. It’s about incivility.

Insulting someone personally and then pretending they can’t handle impersonal disagreement isn’t right. That’s avoiding the real problem with your behaviour. That’s deflecting responsibility for your actions.

If you think someone is wrong, just cite evidence and reasoning to prove your point. Don’t call them stupid. Don’t call them dishonest. This is basic civility.

As for the expert — they did provide pictoral evidence of their connections in the field

I don’t recall seeing that evidence, or any evidence. But after multiple rounds of that person not responding to the technical questions or technical points I wanted them to address, and instead just piling on more personal insults, I stopped reading.

In that thread, I cited multiple experts who stated their opinions on the topic publicly, using their real identities. It’s not necessary to rely on anonymous sources who can’t prove their credentials. Real, verified experts often give their opinion openly, especially if you ask politely.

Maybe most interestingly, Drago Anguelov, head of research at Waymo, recently gave a talk at MIT that contradicted some of that anonymous person’s claims about Waymo. Centrally, Anguelov said he believed it would be better if Waymo could do imitation learning for every aspect of driving, but they simply don’t have enough training examples. You’ll recall that anonymous “expert” insisted that Waymo didn’t want to do imitation learning because Waymo believed it wouldn’t work, no matter how more data Waymo’s vehicles collected. (But they never cited anyone from Waymo actually saying that...)

Who should we trust more about Waymo— an anonymous person, or Waymo? I think this just gives us yet another example of why we should be highly skeptical of any anonymous person online claiming to be an expert.