609. Angel-Five - 2/6/2000 10:43:44 PM
Fack. Scuse the double.
BTW: Out of curiosity, how do you logically reconcile your statement about anonymity fostering unbiased dialogue with your statement that we should all have one login? It would seem that if the former were true and a desirable goal in this forum, you'd be all for multiple IDs. But you aren't.
If the reason you're against multiples is that it allows people to take cheap pot-shots anonymously and can sow dissent in the community without fear of personal or social reprisal or ostracism, then you alternately have to reconcile that position with your desire for anonymous IDs in the first place. After all, that's exactly what anonymous login-IDs allow, you know. Once again, take a look around.
610. Angel-Five - 2/6/2000 10:47:52 PM
I would be very interested to see the results of a Mote-wide poll on whether or not Motiers believe we need these privacy rules. Preferably a poll conducted the day after we wrap up a discussion in which everyone has a chance to speak their mind on the matter and we can all get acquainted with the arguments for and against transparency within the Mote. I imagine many would not be swayed, but I think that the number of Motiers not favoring the current system might be surprisingly high.
611. Indiana Jones - 2/7/2000 9:31:34 AM
A5--I don't think I said anonymity fosters unbiased dialogue. Let me use a concrete example: suppose a poster argues against school vouchers. Do we need to know whether that person is a teacher or not? No. With this additional information, some may react and say, "He knows what he's talking about; he's in the trenches." Others may think "He's just trying to protect his job."
Neither has anything to do with the merits of the argument. Truth stands or falls on its own, regardless of who speaks it.
Your statements on stalking won't hold water. Houses are broken into, presidents assassinated, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't bother to lock my door and the Secret Service should seek gainful employment. If you want examples of what happens with "transparency," spend some time reading the several threads in TableTalk about this topic. Or why not start posting under your "real" name here, and get some experience firsthand?
As far as communities that require real information, when I say they don't work, I mean some people use their real identities and some don't, regardless of the stated rules. Check out CNN, for example, and I bet you can find half a dozen IDs without too much trouble that you know are fake--despite the rule. Today, I see "InternetRider," "von," "Supcat," "Fox Brenden," "Joni Pasquinade," "Biff Callahan," and "Sunny King."
612. Indiana Jones - 2/7/2000 9:36:54 AM
In actuality, you would be asking for a leap from the frying pan into the fire. That is, if the Mote had a rule that everyone used a real ID, that would just be a new rule to enforce, rather than a simplification. Instead of the occasional "outing," how much time would be spent making sure monikers were authentic (now there's an oxymoron)?
If you think everyone would voluntarily use real IDs, you are naive. Enforcing such a policy would be much more difficult than punishing those who reveal personal information.
"Out of curiosity, how do you logically reconcile your statement about anonymity fostering unbiased dialogue with your statement that we should all have one login?"
Well, since I didn't make that statement, how about if I answer this way, instead: "anonymous" ballots are good; giving multiple ballots to some is not.
613. Angel-Five - 2/7/2000 4:21:03 PM
You are now saying that you didn't say
Anonymity has a fine tradition in American discourse.
In fact, I think words are worth more when you have no
idea who wrote them, as they are evaluated entirely on
their own merits.
after all, Jones? How odd. There's no word-lawyering to be done, there -- you say plainly that when the author is anonymous the reader carries no bias on account of their conceptions of the writer. Unless one can evaluate something entirely on its own merit and still give a biased reading (chuckle).
But if it's your position that this is not really the case and not what you meant, then I'll accept that you said something you didn't mean, and that will be that.
If you want
examples of what happens with "transparency," spend
some time reading the several threads in TableTalk
about this topic. Or why not start posting under your
"real" name here, and get some experience firsthand?
Oh, it's a rare person here who doesn't know my name, Indiana, I'd suspect. I've said it several times.
And I know what happens with transparency. You, OTOH, apparently do not, if you can equate it to posting your real name in a community where no one else does. That's not transparency. The difference is between being odd man out and having everyone else within the community as vulnerable as you are, and therefore less inclined to do something damaging WRT someone else's personal information.
614. Angel-Five - 2/7/2000 4:21:49 PM
I do see your point on valid IDs, but you need to know that there are simple ways around that. Require a lifetime membership cost of say $5 on a credit card with your name on it (which you can do through any reputable third party internet biller) which is refunded to the member sometime soon after it's paid out. I'd be willing to do that.
Re: your last lines... I still don't get it. If someone's words are valid, what does it matter if they come from a multiple or not? Why's it matter if one person constructs several arguments and farms them out to fake IDs, or indeed has all the fakes agree with each other, if the words will solely be judged on their own merit? Are you saying that these very same people who will listen without bias to an anonymous man's words and judge those words strictly on their own merit will suddenly stop doing so and start judging according to which position has the most 'votes'?
615. Angel-Five - 2/7/2000 4:35:53 PM
As to whether Internet stalkers really do exist, of course they do. So do lightning bolts and tornadoes, and I imagine you know more people that have had an unpleasant encounter with one or the other than you do who have been stalked out of the blue. Most people who do it know their target. It happens, but I guess I just refuse to live in fear, especially of such a low-probability event, so that it keeps me from doing something I want to do. Your mileage may vary.
616. Indiana Jones - 2/7/2000 7:34:49 PM
"if it's your position that this is not really the case and not what you meant..."
You misunderstood. I'm not even sure what you mean by "unbiased debate," which as your quotation evidences I never said. I said (and I clarified again) that an anonymous statement would not be prejudiced by a reaction to the writer (and used the example of ad hominem). "Unbiased debate," however, I would interpret to mean a debate in which no personal prejudice entered at all. I believe that is rather impossible.
So instead of trying to make my statement mean something I doubt is achievable, why not react to what I have explicitly stated: do you think knowing who said something validates it or invalidates it?
"And I know what happens with transparency. You, OTOH, apparently do not, if you can equate it to posting your real name in a community where no one else does."
My point (see my CNN example) is that you won't achieve such universal "transparency." It won't happen voluntarily, and if you attempt to enforce it through policing you're creating a worse enforcement problem then the current "outing" situation.
"If someone's words are valid, what does it matter if they come from a multiple or not?"
Apples and oranges. My concern is the illusion of consensus, as well as the game-playing that goes on with multiple log-ins. For example, suppose we were to put an amendment to the ROE up for a community vote. Multiple log-ins would get multiple votes.
I also think having one log-in gives a person more of a stake in the community. Part of the problem at TT is caused by people who have "heavy" personas and "reasonable" personas.
617. Indiana Jones - 2/7/2000 7:36:14 PM
BTW, A5, in your original argument you made some statement about driving away posters. I can tell you this: I will never post here under my real name. I think Ace has made a similar statement, and I'm guessing there are other community members who feel the same way.
618. Angel-Five - 2/7/2000 8:09:12 PM
As long as we're going to talk about multiple IDs:
The fact of the matter is that multiple anonymous logins are just like any other tool of online debate -- they can be useful and they can be abusive. They can be useful, ironically, for the very reason you mention.
This forum and others like it have proven that in the absence of hard data about a poster, many people will look at their post and immediately jump to many conclusions about the poster, most of which will be false. Some folks here will jump after seeing just a couple of posts from a newbie -- we've all seen that happen. But for the most part, a brand new name carries with it some of what you're talking about -- most Motiers willing to talk to a newbie will treat them differently and perhaps make fewer assumptions than they would someone else they know well who says the same thing. This is a basic axiom of communication.
So having a multiple ID can sort of purify the conversation you participate in, precisely because there's fewer assumptions and baggage built up. It's often a good way to get an interesting conversation going and it skips a lot of roadblocks. Many people here have positions so entrenched that they're constrained as to what they can say and be taken seriously by the rest of us, and many people here can't say things without being attacked simply because it's them doing the speaking. For many people here, including some of the 24/7ers who are very vocal, it doesn't seem to matter what's right or wrong as much as who's saying it and who's defending it. That can be a lot of bullshit to wade through, and running a multiple ID can allow you to neatly sidestep all that crap. So there's something to your premise of anonymity, you see.
619. Angel-Five - 2/7/2000 8:11:00 PM
How do I know this? Well, I've done false IDs. Two here. Both were one-shot deals intended to provoke discussions, the passwords of which I have long since forgotten. One was even initiated after the ban on webmail addresses, FWIW. And I did what I wanted to -- I conversed about things without a lot of the extraneous bullshit that tends to jump up otherwise, and people agreed with me who otherwise would rather chop off a finger than be civil and honest with me under this name.
So why don't I agree with you overall about anonymity in this format allowing cleaner debate? It's simple, Indiana. This isn't anonymity in the sense you want it to be. Whether or not you run under a bullshit ID and refuse to share any personal information out of some morbid fear of someone calling you to account for your asshole antics (that's the generic 'you', not you in particular, Indiana) people here craft a persona for you based on what you say and how you act. That is a simple, fundamental law of communication. And many people will invest a lot more of that kind of baggage in the people they communicate with simply because those people exhibit such a morbid fear of anyone finding out their personal information than they would for someone like Jay Ackroyd.
And that, too, is a simple law, of human nature. People are curious and they don't like not knowing the answers to some questions, and it's natural to want to know who you're conversing with. And when humans don't have good answers, they make up bad ones. Ask Biener if anyone's made outlandish assumptions about his ethnicity or his background. Ask Pseudoerasmus, he of the cult of personality, if there's a massive artificial construct of false Motier perception that follows him around wherever he posts.
620. Angel-Five - 2/7/2000 8:11:34 PM
Hell, ask me.
People have guessed ages for me that span several score of years, backgrounds that span several countries (PE, early on, told me that I must be a Brit because I used metrics) careers that run the gamut of possibility, creeds that make me wince (someone once accused me of being a frickin' Baptist), practices that make me roll my eyes (Jenerator once insinuated that I was gay and later she accused me of being a Druid I believe), and appearances that make me chuckle (apparently the delectable Diva pictured me as her nervous balding 5'10' ex husband). I've had people tell me I defend nuclear power because it's my career, I've had people suggest that I'm a cokehead because I post so fast and favor legalization, I've had people tell me that I have a vested interest in secular thought because I'm possessed by a frickin' demon. I've lost track of the number of ad hominem arguments leveled against me because I'm obviously a Democrat since I don't like the Republican agenda. I've lost track of when exactly I lost track of the number of times people have dismissed me as some kind of Ivory Tower academic who has no real-world experience, but it was a while back. This sort of misinformation tends to hamper good communication, wouldn't you agree?
All this because this is an anonymous forum. So, Indiana, tell me, where's the real stumbling block to unbiased communication? What we could know if we were transparent, or what we don't know because we aren't?
621. Angel-Five - 2/7/2000 8:19:38 PM
I said (and I clarified again) that an
anonymous statement would not be prejudiced by a
reaction to the writer (and used the example of ad
hominem).
Not quite. What you said was
In fact, I think words are worth more when you have no
idea who wrote them, as they are evaluated entirely on
their own merits.
If words are evaluated entirely on their own merits, then there is no room for bias. This is common logic, Indiana, which is why I asked you if that is truly what you meant. It appears now, judging from your last posts, that it isn't in fact what you meant, as you now allow that some bias will be introduced. I posted the last series before seeing your last statements, but by happy happenstance the two statements dovetail nicely.
FWIW, I don't have a real problem with limiting logins to one per person, although it can't be done in reality. The effort to do so will weed out a lot of crap. Although I think false IDs have their uses, they as I said can be pretty damaging to a community. I should know. I was one once such damaging ID, in the bad old place, something that I really can't be excused for in total despite some mitigating circumstances. I think that although false IDs are neutral, their use in general is overall a detriment to the community.
622. Indiana Jones - 2/7/2000 8:25:23 PM
Fuck it. If you prefer to state my position and then argue with what you've decided it is rather than what I say it is, enjoy yourself.
I also recall from the abortion debate that the length of your posts varies as the square of the number of posts exchanged, so I'll respond only to this:
"I don't have a real problem with limiting logins to one per person, although it can't be done in reality."
Square this statement with your position that the mote should require "real" IDs.
623. Angel-Five - 2/7/2000 8:58:51 PM
If you prefer to state my position and then argue
with what you've decided it is rather than what I say it
is, enjoy yourself.
Yet what I'm doing is instead asking you if that's what you meant. What you've said is a matter of record and if you can't argue with the obvious meaning, fine -- but it's easy to misspeak, which is why I asked you if it was your intent to communicate what you did in fact communicate. If doing so is going to get you into a tizzy, Indiana, then by all means bail out of the conversation and don't answer all the rest of what I had to say. But if you'll just read what I wrote, I think you'll find that I gave a lot more than that to the conversation and there's a lot of things there to discuss.
624. Angel-Five - 2/7/2000 9:16:43 PM
Let me tell you what I DO think your position is, Indiana. After all, you're accusing me of putting words in your mouth instead of taking what you've said and asking for clarification, so I might as well do it, no?
I think that for you the cloak of anonymity is valuable because it allows you to be deliberately provocative. It allowed you to do that bullshine one-man Amos and Andy act you used to favor, and it allows you now to say things as Indiana Jones that are at once much more reasonable, yet still provocative enough that you wouldn't want to stand on your front porch, or the NY subway, and shout them. Am I somewhere close to truth with that guess?
Because if so, then I'd say that that ability is something I also value. I just don't value it so much that I'm not willing to try something new. And I guess I'm just sick of all the personal info crap that goes on here and would like to see a reasonable productive end to it.
625. Angel-Five - 2/7/2000 9:30:03 PM
"I don't have a real problem with limiting logins to one
per person, although it can't be done in reality."
Square this statement with your position that the mote
should require "real" IDs.
I wasn't going to bother answering this, because I've little time for debates where an opponent ducks my questions and refuses to acknowledge my arguments but keeps asking that I answer and acknowledge theirs. But there's no reason not to, really.
You can't limit in reality everyone to one login -- at least, not without resorting to prohibitively expensive measures. And even if you were to use a credit card system, or a background check, or indeed anything short of sending people to scope out every Motier to make sure they're legitimate, 'real' people, there would still be a way for someone determined enough (and imbalanced enough to want to expend the necessary energy to do so) to beat the system and post under a false identity.
We aren't the US Government, with billions to spend against computer fraud, we're a bunch of geeks who like to argue and flirt with each other and our central command structure is a few part time volunteers -- so if people can fool the Fed, they sure as fuck can fool us. But that doesn't mean that we can't make it hard enough to do that very few people would ever bother, without expending too much energy in our effort. And if enough people after hearing the arguments for some form of transparency wanted to try it out, I don't see why we shouldn't try it out.
Let me be plain. If anything less than a healthy majority of Motiers wanted to be transparent, there'd be little point, in my mind, in trying to be transparent.
626. Indiana Jones - 2/7/2000 10:58:07 PM
A5: You specialize in lengthy posts to camouflage a paucity of ideas. It's absurd to say the Mote can't prevent multiple log-ins while arguing the Mote should require a single "real" log-in. If you can't see the inherent contradiction in that argument, there's no helping you.
627. Angel-Five - 2/7/2000 11:17:57 PM
And you, my friend, are blowing smoke. If you can't recognize the difference between 'impossible to fully prohibit' and 'possible to prohibit with a reasonable degree of success' then you're being dumb.
But you aren't being dumb, are you, Indiana? You're just trying to evade the issue by pretending you don't get what I'm saying, so you don't have to address it.
If you don't want to, then don't. But let's not bullshit about how I haven't made good arguments for my case, a good argument against the logic of yours, and suggested means of implementing a solution ... just so you don't have to stand up and debate what is in plain sight in my posts.
628. Angel-Five - 2/7/2000 11:19:59 PM
I take it you aren't going to argue with the words I DID put in your mouth?
629. Angel-Five - 2/8/2000 12:59:39 AM
Ah, forget about it. If you don't want to step up, don't step up. You don't like the idea of going transparent for your own reasons, and that's fine -- it's also fine that you don't want to discuss my reasons for liking transparency and why I feel they're adequate. We can drop it, if you like.
630. Indiana Jones - 2/8/2000 8:50:15 AM
A5 (628): Last night I was reluctant to indulge you in your desire for self-abuse and inordinate bandwidth consumption, so I was content in pointing out the largest hole in your argument. As you seem to be a glutton for punishment, however, let us continue. I responded to your first attempt to put words in my mouth with at least two corrections. You ignored them. Ergo, when you start out saying you're going to put words in my mouth, I see little point in observing what comes after.
Now as to your act of cyber-ventriloquism, if you'd like to post those words in the Inferno, couched something like this: "Indy likes anonymity so he can do an Amos and Andy act," do so. I may respond. In the context of a policies debate on whether everyone should be required to reveal his or her true indentity, they are a red herring ad hominem undeserving of response.
631. Indiana Jones - 2/8/2000 8:50:22 AM
"If you can't recognize the difference between 'impossible to fully prohibit' and 'possible to prohibit with a reasonable degree of success' then you're being dumb."
Return for a moment to your original premise. Something like, the current system requires too much hassle and is turning people off. Correct?
You've described one way in which your idea would work: members give their credit card numbers, incur a $5 charge, the charge is subsequently reimbursed. Hmm...which is more of a hassle? Which has a greater chance of turning people off?
Current system: need to have a real email and you receive a good faith effort to protect your privacy. New system: Mote gets your credit card number, everyone knows who you are, Mote staff has to maintain an accounting/reimbursement system.
Tough choice.
The new system requires much more work from the staff (who you describe as over-worked) and intimidates some people from posting. If adopted, instead of having the rare complaint about someone outing personal information, it will happen all the time. I think you are very aware of a couple of instances of that happening on TT. For example, people threatened with having their cable modems pulled, employers notified, etc.?
Further, requiring actual IDs will lead to complaints. "I looked up so-and-so, and I can't find that name anywhere." Instead of the rare complaint now when personal info is outed, you'll have that occurring more often and the veracity of IDs being questioned.
If you'd like, I can beat some of your ancillary arguments about the head just as thoroughly.
632. Indiana Jones - 2/8/2000 8:50:27 AM
Finally, an analogy: You live in a frontier town in which Indian raids are frequent and outlaws numerous. The sheriff says he can't protect you, but he'd like all law-abiding citizens to turn in their guns and start leaving their doors unlocked (the latter to facilitate "making sure you're alright"). Do you do it?
633. Angel-Five - 2/8/2000 1:57:14 PM
Indiana, your argument would make more sense if you could prove that the sort of witch-hunting you describe would actually take place. In the only real-name community I've been a part of, it never did.
Your assertion that the Mote staff would have to handle the data is nonsensical, as tha majority of people who accept credit card traffic online hire an established, trustworthy third party to handle that data, in exchange for a small percentage of the receipts.
That's the way it would work for us -- an infinitesimal charge paid out to a third party who would relay us a list of members, we would give a password, and someone would be in under their real name. Bingo. A far cry from the sort of ridiclouous slippery slope crap you just churned out.
I would add that most of the people here have already paid once if not twice to remain a part of this community.
634. Angel-Five - 2/8/2000 2:02:00 PM
BTW: I logged onto TT for the first time in months last night, and I'd go there a few times a week before to visit a handful of old threads. I haven't updated my subscription list since the late fall. What are you talking about there?
And your frontier town analogy becomes silly the moment you acknowledge that there are people who very visibly make a point of unlocking their front door and turning in their guns... and nothing happens to you. Have you noticed that, Indiana? Strange, isn't it?
635. Indiana Jones - 2/8/2000 4:51:35 PM
"In the only real-name community I've been a part of, it never did."
What? The Well again? Isn't that also a password-protected community, without lurkers? Hard for anyone from outside to judge what goes on there. Look at TableTalk. Haven't you seen the ribbing that RS has received? Did you see what happened to Audrey Regan? Read the threads in which posters lament again and again that they started out posting with their real names. More than one person on TableTalk has lost a job or been threatened with job loss because people tracked down such information.
"Your assertion that the Mote staff would have to handle the data is nonsensical, as tha majority of people who accept credit card traffic online hire an established, trustworthy third party to handle that data."
No, your original plan stated that the nominal charge would be refunded. So of course I assumed our volunteer staff would have to handle it--hardly "nonsensical," given the parameters you described. Is being a free site now another way the Mote "turns posters off"?
"And your frontier town analogy becomes silly the moment you acknowledge that there are people who very visibly make a point of unlocking their front door and turning in their guns."
Have you ever heard of the Quakers? Pacifists, they existed in the Old West, too, but even Grace Kelly learned you need a gunman once in a while. As Jack Crabbe said in Little Big Man, "The lambs will lie down with the lions--as long as you keep adding a few fresh lambs every now and then."
You want to be a lamb, go right ahead. Just don't ask me to lie down with you.
636. Indiana Jones - 2/8/2000 4:51:54 PM
"BTW: I logged onto TT for the first time in months last night, and I'd go there a few times a week before to visit a handful of old threads. I haven't updated my subscription list since the late fall. What are you talking about there?"
Oh, there's a poster there goes by the handle of D H100 who makes threatening other people with real-life consequences a hobby. Fancies himself a real Torquemada.
BTW, it's bizarre you revisit both TableTalk and the Mote after a lengthy "absence," and the first thing you do is start saying we need to change policies: that the current way of doing things is turning people off.
Settle in a bit. Maybe you need to appreciate how the place is doing before deciding you know best how to "fix" it.
637. Angel-Five - 2/8/2000 5:08:32 PM
Bizarre? I don't know, Indiana. When I left people were bitching about the way privacy rules were being treated. When I returned one of the first things I saw was a privacy debate. It gets old after a while.
I don't know why you put absence in quotes, but that combined with your inference that I know what's been going on in TT leads me to believe you think I haven't been gone at all. Is that the case, mon ami?
Anyway, I don't know why you bring up TT as an example of why real identity communities won't work, as TT isn't a real identity community. I'll have to take your word about people in TT lamenting that they used their real names and that this DH1000 (I think I do remember that name, but none of the threat stuff you're talking about) is trying to target them. But you might as well quote the problems encountered in an AOL chat room and try to relate them to what might happen here should we try transparency. It is, as you said, an apples and oranges debate because all the examples you mention of things that can go wrong are based in a non-transparent community.
So your objection to transparency is no longer about the wonderful benefits of anonymity but rather centering upon two things -- you don't think transparency is feasible to implement, and you're worried about some Internet 'lion' eating you up? IS that a fair characterization of what you've said?
638. Angel-Five - 2/8/2000 5:43:28 PM
I guess part of my thinking is this: if everyone's real name is attached to what they say within the Mote, some people might think a little more about what they say, and we'd have a lot less stuff going on that would ever inspire someone to retaliate against a poster personally. Think about it.
If you, Indiana Jones are aware that people will be able to connect your words to your IRL identity, are you going to make a practice of wandering around pissing in everyone's Wheaties? No. Is it people that wander around pissing in everyone's cereal that makes the Mote an attractive place? No, I'd guess the opposite. Are you saying that you'd have nothing worthwhile to say if you had to worry about people knowing it was You who said it? I don't think so. I hope not. What do you think that sort of community would be like, Indiana, honestly?
639. Indiana Jones - 2/8/2000 9:55:26 PM
"I don't know why you bring up TT as an example of why real identity communities won't work."
Because those who chose to use real identities at TT have for the most part regretted it. As for a totally "real" community, you've already conceded that such a community is impossible. (By the way, I checked the Well's rules and even it allows fake IDs with the sysop's approval. In any case, if the Well is your ideal community, you should help build it up by posting there, rather than its competition. I like the Mote and have discovered it takes a lot of time and effort to do a good job as citizen of one online community.)
"So your objection to transparency is no longer about the wonderful benefits of anonymity but rather centering upon two things."
No, I still maintain that anonymity has its advantages for the kind of debate we have here. There is one kind of conversation that occurs when friends get together among themselves in a living room; there's another that occurs when people write signed letters to the editor in their local newspapers. This situation isn't totally analogous to either...more a group of friends discussing but unaware of who may be listening in. Anonymity allows openness that might not otherwise occur.
I noticed you participated in the debate with RustlerPike in International. Do you think it would be wise for Rustler to say those things with his real name attached? I think not. Does that invalidate them? No--it's helpful from time to time to see what people really think when they aren't constrained by the normal "correctness" of the masses.
Before you continue your assault on the "worthiness" of ideas expressed anonymously you might check into the history of the Federalist Papers.
640. Indiana Jones - 2/8/2000 9:55:33 PM
As a community policy, of course, anonymity is either good or bad regardless of one person's individual prejudice, but since you continue to ascribe hidden motives to me, I would like to point out the following: You originally said you wanted the policy changed because it was too much of a hassle and turned people off. It has become clear, however, that the system you envision would, in fact, be much more of a hassle and far likelier to turn people off.
So instead your new reason (and I think your true reason) you state thusly, "If everyone's real name is attached to what they say within the Mote, some people might think a little more about what they say, and we'd have a lot less stuff going on that would ever inspire someone to retaliate against a poster personally."
Which is in fact, what I've argued all along: You desire to intimidate speech through the threat of real-world consequences.
And with that, I think you have achieved your magical state of "transparency."
641. Angel-Five - 2/8/2000 10:47:56 PM
If that's what you think, I won't dissuade you by reiterating my position, I imagine.
You say You desire
to intimidate speech through the threat of real-world
consequences. like some demogogue thumping a table, like it's a brand new thing, and your choice of words is telling. I don't want to intimidate anything. It's just that so much crap gets slung here and in other communities simply because no one's name is associated with it. I'm not talking about people getting beat with a baseball bat because they say bigoted things, I'm just talking about people here who I know would never be as subversive and needlessly antagonistic if there was a chance that people who knew them would be able to see their name next to the crap they say anonymously. And, really, it's not as though we'd be depriving people of the only chance they had to express their views anonymously by going transparent. Search on discussion forums and get back to me when you get tired of clicking on 'Next 10', Indiana.
And don't start about the Federalist Papers. It wasn't exactly as though no one had any idea who was writing them at the time. Bring up Primary Colors next, why don't you?
Yes, I do imagine that it would take some work to reach a transparent community level, which is why I made it a point several times that it would not be worthwhile unless a good majority of Motiers wanted to try it, yes? This is a very bright community, and it would be interesting to see what all we could do with it if the community were willing.
642. Angel-Five - 2/8/2000 10:50:25 PM
And you didn't answer my question, Indiana. The one about 'absence'. These bullshit games have little interest to me; if you have something to ask, ask it, don't backpedal away from it.
643. CalGal - 2/14/2000 1:11:02 AM
The problem is that a lot of people also seem to highly prize our ability to come in here and do and say things that they don't want anyone to ever be able to link to their IRL identities, and by definition free speech and the sort of censorship necessary to maintain this anonymity aren't compatible.
There is nothing to indicate that a preference for online privacy means that people don't want anyone to be able to link to their IRL identies. What it does mean is that they don't want everyone having that link, especially since everyone can be passers by, lurking psychopaths, sickos, angry violent folks, and so on. To me, putting my name online is akin to putting my name and phone number on a flyer and sticking it in mailboxes. Bleah.
Some people do have a desire to keep their opinions secure from their RL employment, and I see nothing inherently wrong with that.
Online has risks that aren't part of everyday RL interaction. One is that you haven't the same control over who you express your words to--once you post it, it is there forever. You have no control over your audience. It makes sense, therefore, to want extra control over your identity. IRL, it's reversed. You have greater control over your audience and less control over who knows your identity.
THe second risk is that you don't have the identification touchstones that you have IRL. You can't see who you're responding to, can't hear their voice. Allowing multiple ids gives people the ability to hide their online identity from people who know them online, and that just strikes me as an entirely different thing. In fact, the use of multiples allows people to do exactly what Angel thinks is done by the use of monikers--it enables people to escape the normal baggage that comes with regular communication in a way that violates normal expectations. Not everyone who uses multiples has this motive, of course.
644. CalGal - 2/14/2000 1:19:58 AM
I also don't see anything wrong with having these discussions periodically. It's not like they consume the community--policy debates are the near exclusive domain of policy wonks. Most people yawn at the very idea of a policy discussion. I think it makes a lot of sense to revisit these decisions every so often. In this case, there was a violation in an outside forum and it brought up Ace's prior concern about this sort of behavior. We chewed on it, pretty much reached a consensus that nothing should be done, and dropped it.
I certainly don't think these debates tear the community apart. I also think that more of the current community than not would refuse to post if they had to use their own name, and my gut feel is that it would discourage more people from joining as well.
645. JayAckroyd - 2/14/2000 8:46:26 AM
I happen to agree with Angel on this one, in principle.
But it doesn't require a policy change. Transparency can arise by unilateral action. The fact that so few of us use our names makes it clear that transparency is not a feature that is widely desired.
646. Indiana Jones - 2/15/2000 4:21:59 PM
And I agree with CalGal.
Those who opt for real-world IDs do enjoy many benefits, BTW, so I also think if a poster's willing to forego that in the interest of maintaining privacy, he or she should be able to.
647. Angel-Five - 2/15/2000 9:42:44 PM
Some people find the 'anonymity' of the Mote to be pleasant and useful. It's important to remember that transparency in the Mote would in no way deny those people the ability to do any of those things online. Whereas transparency in the Mote would allow Motiers to do a lot of things they can't do right now, in an environment that the Mote doesn't currently offer. This is an unusually bright group of people, enough so that people of average intellect who come in are often perceived as being stupid in comparison when they aren't at all. There's a unusually wide range of nationalities, competencies and knowledge available here given that we're such a small and insular community. I happen to think that it would make an excellent transparent community.
The flip side to the freedom that 'anonymity' brings is the garbage that it brings along with it. I'm not talking about things that are valuable and offensive at the same time, like Rustler's admission that he'd like to nuke 60 million young Germans and the subsequent debate, but rather things that are just pointless and offensive.
Transparency is the ultimate democratic means of balancing this out for all that are concerned, because with a transparent community the very fact that it's transparent serves to discourage the garbage, but allows everyone to post whatever they will at the same time -- it allows them, and not a central set of rules, to dictate what's apropos for them to say, while at the same time serving as a natural barrier to a lot of the ankle-biter nonsense that gets said otherwise.
And if I may, I'd like to use CalGal to make a point. She's probably the most visible proponent for anonymity in this forum and certainly has had some strong things to say about why her personal information ought to be protected (even though no state or federal law anywhere protects that information). Yet I would venture two guesses regarding public knowledge of CalGal's identity.
648. Angel-Five - 2/15/2000 9:43:05 PM
The first is that even though I and others have been in this community longer and been much more open WRT our identities, the places we live and what we do, etc., than she has, I'd guess that more people know CalGal's full name and similar data -- and have since well before the Mote started -- than know mine. And I've gone so far as to post my real information here.
Secondly, more people know her identity and personal data now, and did back in the Fray, than would have ever known it had she not bothered to try and protect it in the first place and instead chosen to be as open as I have. This is precisely because of the fact that she's so visibly fought to protect the privacy of her own data.
What's that say about the efficiency of the privacy rules (all of which, I believe, are consistent with CalGal's stance on her own privacy)? To me it says one simple and plain thing -- they don't work very well at all, but instead encourage the opposite effect of what was originally intended.
649. Angel-Five - 2/15/2000 9:46:14 PM
The Net is a place in which someone who wants your personal identification can either get it themselves with a little detective work and an open browser or else can have a third party get it for them. Privacy rules strike me as exactly mirroring Prohibition in this regard; not only do they not work, but they bear down equally hard on honest participants in a discussion as they do someone who would intend to use personal information maliciously.
650. Indiana Jones - 2/15/2000 11:46:38 PM
A5--When you set about to write, tape one word over your monitor: discipline.
"Some people find the 'anonymity' of the Mote to be pleasant and useful. It's important to remember that transparency in the Mote would in no way deny those people the ability to do any of those things online. Whereas transparency in the Mote would allow Motiers to do a lot of things they can't do right now, in an environment that the Mote doesn't currently offer....Transparency is the ultimate democratic means of balancing this out for all that are concerned, because with a transparent community the very fact that it's transparent serves to discourage the garbage, but allows everyone to post whatever they will at the same time -- it allows them, and not a central set of rules, to dictate what's apropos for them to say, while at the same time serving as a natural barrier to a lot of the ankle-biter nonsense that gets said otherwise."
I hope you were under the influence of something when cranking out the above.
651. Angel-Five - 2/16/2000 1:14:18 AM
No, just haste. I cut out an opening paragraph that had a few things in it I should have left in.
Tell me, what do you have taped on your monitor? Should I ask?
In a transparent community, anyone who wants to be an asshole is free to do it. The only things holding them back are a) being ashamed to say certain things without the protective screen of anonymity to hide behind and b) the laws regarding free speech. I humbly submit that there's very little loss to a community when people don't post things they'd be ashamed to have linked to their real name. And we've never been in the business of defending libel anyway. Why would we want to be?
I mean, we could have a host of rules as to what can and can't be said, but there's a lot less need for those rules if we're all transparent, for the simple reason listed above. It's the same system of free speech that we are all acquainted with -- nothing more, nothing less -- in a very talented community.
652. Angel-Five - 2/16/2000 1:57:50 AM
I remember the very first time I ever got online. It was through a VAX account and a VMS mainframe on a monochrome monitor and you had to telnet wherever you wanted to go. I ended up in a chat haven called The Coffeehouse. You could use a client program to soften the experience (the ones I used were 'dink' and 'tinyfugue') which ended up giving you a rudimentary interface with some controls like ignore functions and so on -- otherwise it was no holds barred and people wandered around with assault programs they'd use to overload your connection if you pissed them off. And it was brutal. The very first words I ever saw while telnetting into a chatroom were something like
wolfmanjack(34): Take a long hard suck on my hairy hole, you fucking dipshit!
Redneck sheeters would roll in on the hour every hour and start their racist rants. Bored sixty-something men and frat boys would get online and talk about how they were these hot, redheaded green eyed milk-skinned babes with huge hooters and how they were looking for some guy to be their first time. I swear, there were a regular truckload of them trolling around looking for some hard-up geek to screw around with. There were these real antisocial types who would just fuck with peoples' heads because they could. Techies would wander around.pbombing everyone that ever pissed them off. There were a lot of good people who just wanted to bs a little and talk about stuff that they found interesting, but it was a zoo trying to find them.
653. Angel-Five - 2/16/2000 1:58:22 AM
To me, it's been kind of a privileged thing to see the evolution of the net from that time -- it's happened faster than hell. Things keep changing as people try to find ways around the stumbling blocks. You see the progression to regulated chat, and cliented chat rooms where you have every tool at your disposal to deal with ignorant people you don't want to deal with, you have email discussions, you have free forums, and regulated forums: all these little steps up as people get together and come up with something new and then try it out.
I miss some of my old friends from the days I was Ash, hanging around the Coffeehouse. But I'm much happier with the community we have here. I think it would be interesting to jump to the next level as a group rather than have to leave and find some other group one level higher where transparency is the next major change to improve the function of online communities, weeding out some of the senseless bullshit that no one in this forum cares for anyway.
You misspoke of my 'real' motivation before, as opposed to the arguments I was leveling against you, Indiana -- well, if there's a hidden agenda, that's it, I'm curious to try transparency out. Not much of a hidden agenda, really, other than a blend of curiosity matched with a like of the people in this community (yes, even you, Indiana, though sometimes I wonder why.) The arguments I've made are good arguments as far as I'm concerned, and they are what inform my desire to try transparency, but I'll admit to being motivated by curiosity and a simple desire to have a more meaningful online community as well.
654. JayAckroyd - 2/16/2000 9:20:10 AM
So, Angel, why don't you just drop the handle? If the transparent participants start to outnumber the anonymous, it will create pressure for greater transparency.
I agree that anonymity is hard to preserve; I've made no effort whatsoever to know who anybody is, and know who a lot of people are. And this was before we set up the site. I got one email from someone trying to keep the Fray group together that listed all the other email addresses in clear. Many of those addresses were not public ones, either. I've deleted that email; there were people on that list who had strong privacy concerns, including, oddly enough, the sender, whose name was in clear.
655. CalGal - 2/16/2000 9:59:54 AM
Well, that's because the sender is a tech weenie.
656. CalGal - 2/16/2000 10:05:09 AM
I didn't say that in dismissal, btw, but just as a fact. Although I'm pretty sure that there were no private emails on that list--and I was the one passing the addresses to the person in question. All the ones I passed on were ones that had been posted online or that had been given with that permission.
657. CalGal - 2/16/2000 10:25:10 AM
Angel,
Secondly, more people know her identity and personal data now, and did back in the Fray, than would have ever known it had she not bothered to try and protect it in the first place and instead chosen to be as open as I have.
This suggests that you still don't know my reasons for keeping information offline.
Angel, more people know my name than know yours for two reasons: 1) I probably email more people than you do and 2) I'm more notorious than most, so more people dislike me and make a point of getting my name, thinking that this bothers me. If I understand you correctly, you assume that my reason for not being open with my name online has to do with attempts to prevent those in category 2 from getting the information they want.
No.
I'll try an analogy:
Suppose I hang out regularly at a bar IRL. I know all the regulars, I like a lot of them, a few of them can't stand me. There are also a lot of people I don't know at all. Most of the regulars know my name, because I have told them my name. Some of the regulars don't know my name--although they know me as the chick with the loud voice and the yen for Wild Turkey--but they could get my name if they needed to, just by checking with a regular who does know it.
But I don't put my name and phone number on a little card and post it on the bulletin board. I don't announce my name in such a way that anyone in the vicinity can hear it, given I don't know who hangs out at the bar and don't feel like letting someone collect names for Jehovah's Witness meeting, a telemarketing campaign, or for his next gruesome murder scheduled for Tuesday at 1.
658. CalGal - 2/16/2000 10:47:37 AM
That's why I don't put my name online. Not for any of the assholes I know. But because of the audience I don't know. Will some of them get my name anyway? Probably. But I see no reason to make it easy for them. I see this as purely sensible safety precaution. "Safety" in the psycho stalkers and telemarketing sense, not the kind that goes along with whether or not assholes I don't like know my name. That's no more avoidable online than it is IRL.
659. CalGal - 2/16/2000 10:53:25 AM
Now. I provided a description of my reasoning for my privacy only because you keep misstating it. But that can mislead you into thinking that if you can prove my preferences to be misplaced, you can change my mind. No.
Your analysis of the reasons for privacy is irrelevant to your case. The forum doesn't have to care why people want to remain private. All it has to do is determine whether or not they will support the privacy. We can't go around determining the individual reasons, since there might be as many reasons as there are members. More members might change the reasons. No, this is something that can be abstracted out to a binary issue: privacy, yes or no?
At that point, it becomes simple: which approach benefits the forum?
If you want the transparency made mandatory, make a simple case: it will improve the quality of the forum in such a compelling fashion that the desires of any individual member are irrelevant.
You haven't even really stated your argument as to why it would benefit the forum, much less tried to convince anyone else. Instead, you've been trying to attack reasons--figuring if you can make the reasons go away, you can make the rule go away.
You could successfully deconstruct every reason for privacy into nonsense (which you haven't, mind you, but I'm just allowing for that possibility) and it would have no effect on my support for a privacy policy.
Why? Because the reason I support privacy has nothing to do with my own preferences. The reason I support privacy is because I feel that this forum is better off for it. I know all the arguments for transparency, and none of them are compelling enough to require transparency instead of allowing it.
It is really that simple, as far as I'm concerned.
660. Angel-Five - 2/16/2000 3:11:37 PM
Jay:
I'm mulling it over, though for me the benefits are in a community change more than in a lone-wolf change. Besides, I'm rather taken with Angel-Five after all these years.
CalGal
Where have I mischaracterized your reasons for anonymity in this debate? Can you refresh my memory?
Because the only thing I remember saying is that you wanted your privacy protected, not why. And all your statements which hinge upon my supposed mischaracterization and attack of your need for privacy are therefore bogus. I know why you want your privacy protected, because you've brought it up before -- you don't want to blindly advertise your personal information to people you don't know at all. You've also inferred that you might not want your employer to link your opinions to your real life identity. I'd guess that you also just don't want your name next to some of the things you say, but if you claim that's absolutely not the case, fine.
Your point about the forum not having to care why people want to be private is, I'm afraid, specious. Every rule that's gone into this forum so far demonstrates a concern with intent as well as action. And people have no means of determining whether or not they'd like privacy rules without first envisioning what those rules might engender.
Furthermore, I have never once spoken of forcing transparency, so the bit about 'making a case that outweighs any individual's desires to the contrary' doesn't apply here. I've lost track of the number of times I've said it now --it's pointless to try unless a strong majority want to try. What I have done is give two good reasons why people might want to try transparency -- fewer barriers to understanding communication, and a better signal to noise ratio.
661. CalGal - 2/16/2000 4:02:07 PM
Where have I mischaracterized your reasons for anonymity in this debate?
Here:
Secondly, more people know her identity and personal data now, and did back in the Fray, than would have ever known it had she not bothered to try and protect it in the first place and instead chosen to be as open as I have.
and here:
This is precisely because of the fact that she's so visibly fought to protect the privacy of her own data.
Incidentally, that last is untrue. The reason that people post the information is because they don't like me personally. Many other people could have been extremely adamant about their personal information and it wouldn't have gotten the same response. Were someone to post Wabbit's picture online, she would ask that it be removed immediatly. I doubt that anyone would continue to post it in another forum just to bother her. That is because Wabbit is a good and gentle soul, and I'm disliked. I'm not complaining, but let's not confuse the issue.
BTW, I didn't say that you mischaracterized it. I said that you seemed not to understand it. I said that because of this comment, here:
Some people find the 'anonymity' of the Mote to be pleasant and useful.
And I am not the most visible proponent of privacy. That would be Ace. There are also many people here who sensibly refrain from stating their opinions on privacy because it gets the attention of punks who then will post it just to bother them.
You've also inferred that you might not want your employer to link your opinions to your real life identity.
No, I did not. I said that I find it reasonable that people might not want them linked. I am self-employed, and anyone I've ever worked with knows my political views and know I post at this forum.
662. CalGal - 2/16/2000 4:02:36 PM
Your point about the forum not having to care why people want to be private is, I'm afraid, specious.
No, it isn't. It is entirely relevant. The forum doesn't have to care why people want to be private. They can make it as abstract an issue as they like. And right now, like it or not, it's at the level of privacy or no privacy. There is no real debate over whether or not its reasonable to want privacy. You and Jay are welcome to try and change the debate, but let's not pretend that you can set the terms. The forum as a whole sets the terms, and it's pretty clear the forum as a whole values privacy. I certainly think it safe to say that the forum as a whole will refuse to require transparency.
Furthermore, I have never once spoken of forcing transparency
Must be a misunderstanding. Why have this discussion, if you don't think it should be forced? Do as Jay said, change your own name, and be done with it. Otherwise, make the case for requiring it.
663. Angel-Five - 2/17/2000 1:41:42 AM
No, CalGal, you're still missing it. We didn't just up and decide on a whim in the Fray about privacy and blackmail, just because people wanted it. We analyzed why, and what could come of it. There was a very specific thing that happened, we all remember it, it scared more than one person (needlessly, I might add) and that's the root. All the privacy arguments since in the Mote have centered on intent, mitigation, and justification as regards the use of personal information, and the punishment due for using that information in a specific infraction.
That necessarily leads back to the question of when someone in the Mote can reasonably expect to have his or her personal information protected from 'inadvertent' first slips, like mentioning what someone's husband does for a living. Because absolute privacy is not supported by the Mote rules in and of itself, but instead limited privacy is granted to Motiers based on some system of mitigation. So we have to construct some big rigamarole argument (remember those multipost legalistic documents Ace was writing?) saying what could be said by who and why. And that is ENTIRELY about whether an 'aggrieved' party has the right to expect the enforcement of privacy in any particular instance. So don't tell me about there's no debate in the Mote about whether it's reasonable to want privacy, because there is -- and since privacy in the Mote must be justifiable under Mote rules, it's legitimate to question that justification.
664. Angel-Five - 2/17/2000 1:47:58 AM
AS to the email thing -- yes, Radio Free CalGal was what we called it for a while, it got forwarded around some. You have a point WRT name recognition there, certainly. But I don't think you can fairly compare yourself and Wabbit (who did post a picture of herself unless I'm much mistaken) because I've never seen Wabbit post the way you do about privacy, at all. She might be as personally adamant about it, but she's nowhere near as vocal as you are. And that's what attracts attention. Do you think Klyce would have ever posted what he posted if you weren't vocal about your identity?
665. Angel-Five - 2/17/2000 1:49:20 AM
vocal about your privacy, that is.
666. Angel-Five - 2/17/2000 2:12:12 AM
Gotta do this.
667. Angel-Five - 2/17/2000 2:28:42 AM
Let me put it like this; although I've never done the large scale emailing you do, I've emailed a lot of people in this forum at one time or another; whether or not my emails have ever been forwarded by the intended recipients, I don't know, but one way or another schloads of people have gotten my name from my email address (it's my sig file). And while I'd imagine you have some edge in the personal dislike sweeps, I know that I've raised the ire of a few folks myself. So why is it that you have had personal information and personal things printed against your will several times now, while no one has ever threatened to do it to me that I can recall?
668. CalGal - 2/17/2000 12:52:13 PM
Angel,
I don't wish to revisit old history; it has nothing to do with this. Worse, you are incorrectly stating old history, but if I correct you I play into your game.
So I'm not going to correct the inaccuracies, but move to the meta-point. Your entire premise is flawed. You are trying to portray a desire for privacy as a nice dangling carrot for people to use as a weapon. And you are using my experiences as an example to bolster your case.
Even if you were correct about my desire for privacy (and you are not), you can't prove anything by me.
Why?
Because I am a special case. Yes, people dislike you. Some people dislike you a lot. But in general, people don't dislike you enough to bother. You're not worth it, apparently.
Me, for whatever reason--I'm worth it. The CalGal Syndrome has been noted by many--most recently PseudoErasmus and JoeZan (whose mullings about a potential boyfriend named Guido remains my favorite analysis) and it causes otherwise sane and rational people to act like obsessed psychopaths. Some of those people cross the line from ranting about me online and in email to getting information and doing what they can to bother me, on the grounds that I deserve it. No doubt I do. A few people have gotten banned for revealing information about me--and the spooky thing is, I'm sure they think it was worth it. That's fixation, baby. You can't buy that kind of dedication, and it ain't garden variety dislike.
So there isn't much point in comparing you and me--or, in fact, me to anyone else when it comes to "dislike". We just aren't in the same league.
669. CalGal - 2/17/2000 12:55:56 PM
In short, the use of privacy against me is nothing more than a symptom of the degree to which people despise me. They'd use any other rule that came to hand as well, or in fact any not a root cause of a problem with the privacy rules. If you can only make your case with me, you've got no case.
And, as I've already said, even if you did have a case, it would only be the case as to why you don't think privacy is important. You don't have a case for removing privacy as a means of benefitting the forum. And that's really the only case that matters.
So I won't be responding to any more posts about why you think the need for privacy is illogical, nor am I going to respond to your posts about why you think I'm plagued. As I said, you've been wrong far more than right.
But I'll be interested in reading any case you have for it benefitting the forum as a whole. And I'll let you know up front that the occasional policy debate or fracas due to exposure isn't something I consider a pain, so you'll have to come up with a pretty big benefit to offset it.
670. Angel-Five - 2/17/2000 6:12:32 PM
What old history am I wrong about? I'm not, but if you don't want to engage on it, it's fine with me. I only brought it up to illustrate a point, and that point has been illustrated -- and it IS old history. And we don't have to engage over whether this CalGal syndrome is as one sided as you portray it, because, well, both sides have worked that argument pretty well and no one ever proves much.
But the usage justification and defensibility of privacy in this forum is very much a point of debate, and your bizarre insistence that it is not bewilders me. How else can we draw comparison between the results and the influences of privacy and transparency?
And we might as well get something straight: I'm not out to convince you, CalGal, of anything. Your mind is already made up and you've staked a lot of yourself on the privacy rules. It would be wonderful if you decided to come around, but you will not, and to be honest that doesn't matter at all to me. You jump into the discussion as per usual, announcing that you've already made up your mind, and then you tell me that I have to convince you? Why on earth would I bother?
The purpose of having a dialogue on transparency, as I stated clearly at the beginning and as you've apparently chosen to conveniently misunderstand twice now, is to let people read and decide for themselves -- to at least make decisions that are more informed than if they hadn't read about it at all. Not to 'force' anyone to a decision, as you've tried to infer twice now. Not to fool people into defending transparency. Not to do anything but slowly raise the consciousness about the transparent option. It takes a lot of courage for a whole group to be willing to make that step together, and it will probably not happen in the Mote anytime soon. Yet if any small community I know of can make the step, despite your campaigning and specious arguments against it, it's here.
671. CalGal - 2/17/2000 6:51:50 PM
Your mind is already made up and you've staked a lot of yourself on the privacy rules.
Not at all. I would leave if the decision were made to do away with them at this point in time, but I'm not particularly concerned about that possibility. However, times and norms change. I don't see them changing that much, but you never know.
I do note your continuing attempts to describe my motives and frame of mind. Whatever jerks your chain, I suppose.
I'm not out to convince you, CalGal, of anything.
I never thought you were. You are out to convince others. I'm out to ensure that the debate isn't framed incorrectly.
And we don't have to engage over whether this CalGal syndrome is as one sided as you portray it,
You're quite right. We don't. Mainly because I would never be so foolish as to debate such nonsense. It is irrelevant to my point whether or not it is onesided, so I didn't even bring it up. Read again, and note that the only thing I said was that I was hated, and that no doubt I deserve whatever I get.
672. Angel-Five - 2/17/2000 7:27:12 PM
(me)Your mind is already made up and you've staked a lot of yourself on the privacy rules.
(you)Not at all. I would leave if the decision were made to do away with them at this point in time, but I'm notparticularly concerned about that possibility. However, times and norms change. I don't see them changing that much, but you never know.
I do note your continuing attempts to describe my motives and frame of mind. Whatever jerks your chain, I suppose.
Whatever do you mean 'not at all'? When your very next sentence is that you'd leave if someone ever decided to do away with the privacy laws? Please, that doesn't make sense. As for your mind not being made up, please, compared to
The reason I support privacy is because I feel that this forum is better off for it. I know all the arguments for transparency, and none of them are compelling enough to require transparency instead of allowing it.
It is really that simple, as far as I'm concerned.
we have a really big contradiction. I'm not characterizing your frame of mind and your motives, CalGal; I'm saying what you yourself say, at least part of the time.
(me)I'm not out to convince you, CalGal, of anything.
(you)I never thought you were. You are out to convince
others.
Then why should I present a case tailored specifically to you, as you ask, when you say
But I'll be interested in reading any case you have for it benefitting the forum as a whole. And I'll let you know up front that the occasional policy debate or fracas due to exposure isn't something I consider a pain, so you'll have to come up with a pretty big benefit to offset it.
673. CalGal - 2/17/2000 7:37:36 PM
But the usage justification and defensibility of privacy in this forum is very much a point of debate, and your bizarre insistence that it is not bewilders me.
I'm not surprised it bewilders you. But that's how it goes.
The RoE is not a constitution. It is a set of rules that we all put in place because the consensus of the forum is that these rules make the forum a better place. You want to change a rule, you really do need to start there.
How else can we draw comparison between the results and the influences of privacy and transparency?
Who says we need to compare them? As far as I'm concerned, you only need to compare them if you wish to argue that a transparent forum would be a better place. Then you can set up the criteria. But you are starting from the premise that the privacy rule is causing a problem that requires fixing. I think you should state the problem, state how it's hurting the forum, and state how this problem could be fixed by removing the rule. At that point, people can discuss the advantages of privacy in comparison to the benefits of transparency vis a vis its impact on the forum.
Then, if enough people decide "wow, Angel's right! The forum might be a better place if we were all transparent! But before we make up our mind, we should think about the rationale for privacy. Why do people want privacy? What are the advantages?"
And then you could go ahead and analyze the reasons, pro and con.
It is much easier, of course, to ask people to justify a rule, then analyze their reasons. If you can make the reasons disappear or seem irrelevant, it can often fool people into thinking you've made the case for the change itself.
Unless you run into someone who doesn't fall for that approach, and requests a justification for considering changing the rule in the first place.
674. CalGal - 2/17/2000 7:43:11 PM
The purpose of having a dialogue on transparency, as I stated clearly at the beginning and as you've apparently chosen to conveniently misunderstand twice now, is to let people read and decide for themselves
No, I haven't tried to misunderstand it. The dialogue on transparency is nothing more than a debate over a rule change. You wish to let people read and decide for themselves. I support you in your effort.
But just as you want people to read and decide, I want to remind people that we have the rules for a reason, and the reasons are because we like it that way and we think the forum is better off for the rules. I want to remind them that the betterment of the forum is a perfectly valid reason for having rules, and that we don't have to justify the rationale behind any rule other than saying, "We think it works best that way." And that anyone who wants to change a rule, or debate a change in rules, should start from that premise and demonstrate how a change will make the forum better.
675. CalGal - 2/17/2000 7:57:37 PM
When your very next sentence is that you'd leave if someone ever decided to do away with the privacy laws?
You said I have "staked a lot of myself" in the privacy rules. Perhaps we have a different definition of "staked a lot of myself". I assumed, based on context, that you meant I was personally vested in the privacy rules, that I would take it as a personal defeat if they were changed. I am not and I do not. If a majority of people here wanted to be open and transparent, I would wish them well. I would not try to prevent the change--as if I could. But I would not stay, since I don't feel it is safe. I do not consider that to be "staking a lot of myself" in the privacy rules, but rather my own determination of what is best for me.
You also made it sound unique, which also supported the interpretation of "staked a lot of myself" that I describe. But there are many people here who would leave if they were required to use their real names, or if any of their private information could be revealed without any problems. You are saying that these people, too, have staked a lot of themselves on the privacy rules?
Then why should I present a case tailored specifically to you, as you ask, when you say
Again, I see no demand for a specifically tailored case. I said that if you continued to make the argument about me, I wouldn't respond. But if you wanted to make the case for an improved forum, I'd be interested. If you had no desire to make the case, then you of course don't have to. I see nothing in there that implies a demand for you to convince me, an assumption of your goals, or anything else. Merely a statement of interest and intent. You get to be Mr. Phelps and choose whether or not to accept it.
676. Angel-Five - 2/17/2000 8:59:31 PM
I'm not the one who made the argument about you, CalGal. You did, which I'm sure is shocking to all. All I did was use you as an example, and I used you correctly for that example. I pointed you out as someone who was vocally in support of privacy who tried to restrict their private information and who had had much less success than other people who had never visibly bothered in the first place.
You answered with a quibble that was completely unrelated to the thrust of the point (that I'd misunderstood your reasons for wanting privacy) and a fallacious retort (that people outed you because they despised you, even though lots of unliked people here never get outed). Then after the several posts in which you yourself use yourself as an example, suddenly you don't want the argument to be about yourself anymore.It never was, until you made it so.
The RoE is not a constitution. It is a set of rules that we all put in place because the consensus of the forum is that these rules make the forum a better place. You want to change a rule, you really do need to start there.
What's this 'we' and 'you' crap? Who drafted the ROE? Who implemented the ROE?
Who says we need to compare them? As far as I'm concerned, you only need to compare them if you wish to argue that a transparent forum would be a better place. Then you can set up the criteria.
Yes, of course. Why then did you just say that the influences and results of privacy, indeed, anything at all about privacy, is unimportant? Your analysis of the reasons for privacy is irrelevant to
your case. The forum doesn't have to care why people
want to remain private. Remember?
You were so bizarrely insistent on that point that I hit it several times --we don't just decide we want it or we don't, we decide based upon the causes and effects and our observations and deductions of those causes and effects become our reasons.
677. Angel-Five - 2/17/2000 8:59:41 PM
Every rule we've considered in this forum so far has been debated in those terms. And now suddenly you've come around?
But you are starting from the premise that the privacy rule is causing a problem that requires fixing.
Not at all. You're mistaking an introductory, related point for a starting premise.
But before we make up our mind, we should think about the rationale for privacy. Why do people want privacy? What are the advantages?" And then you could go ahead and analyze the reasons, pro and con.
I rest my case and you prove my point. We should either think about the rationale for privacy or we should not thing about the rationale for privacy, CalGal; make up your mind, because we can't do both and yet that's what you're advocating.
Unless you run into someone who doesn't fall for that approach, and requests a justification for considering changing the rule in the first place.
Why, exactly, should anyone follow any rule that no one can give a defensible reason for? No, wait, I'll rephrase that. Why exactly should anyone expect others to follow any rule that no one can give a defensible reason for? If there's no reason to expect others to follow the rule, then, well, hell. Why should anyone follow it, much less order others to on the pain of banning et cetera?
No, I haven't tried to misunderstand it. The dialogue on transparency is nothing more than a debate over a rule change. You wish to let people read and decide for themselves. I support you in your effort.
That's good. Glad you've grasped that. But just a short while ago you said
(me)Furthermore, I have never once spoken of forcing transparency
(you)Must be a misunderstanding. Why have this discussion, if you don't think it should be forced? .
Nuff said, I trust. Your positions in this matter migrate a great deal -- if you're going to sustain an argument, you ought to sustain your position.
678. CalGal - 2/17/2000 9:46:03 PM
What's this 'we' and 'you' crap?
We = The Mote.
You = anyone who wants to change policy.
I pointed you out as someone who was vocally in support of privacy who tried to restrict their private information and who had had much less success than other people who had never visibly bothered in the first place.
Yes, that's what I understood you to say. And this is incorrect.
As for the rest, your translations defy credibility and I've got better things to do. I think you got the point--and if you didn't, anyone reading will. So we'll see what happens next.
679. Angel-Five - 2/17/2000 10:29:01 PM
What point? You say I don't give any reasons for transparency, when I have (and if you still insist not, CalGal, I'll tell you what: I'll bet you twelve days of my silence on this forum against twelve days of yours that I have, and if you'll take that bet, I'll be happy to point them all out --otherwise, I believe, you should cease going on about how I don't give positive reasons for transparency). You say first that there's no reason to argue about the rationales and reasons for privacy, and then you change your mind and say that those rationales and reasons should be examined. You claim that you understand the reason I bring up the point, then show you haven't, then claim you have all along. So what is your point?
That we should compare privacy with transparency? No joke. If you'll look back, that's how this discussion started. That's mostly what's been happening, until you came in, claimed I didn't understand why you believed in privacy, talked about how all your troubles are because people despise you, and wrapped yourself up in the conversation.... never once acknowledging the simple fact that I used you as an example to prove -- the privacy rules do not work.
The fact is simple: whether or not you're the most despised Motier, in quantity or quality of loathing generated, is irrelevant to the fact that the privacy rules demonstrably have not worked in your case.
680. Angel-Five - 2/17/2000 10:30:37 PM
And you can talk about people like Wabbit who don't get trespassed against because they're well liked, but somehow you manage to miss the obvious correlation to those statements: there's no need for us to have a privacy rule to protect the people who aren't going to get outed anyway!
The only reason we have any need to have a privacy rule is to protect the people who are disliked enough that people will out them for revenge, and if that privacy rule isn't going to protect them, then there's no need for it to be on the books at all.
Especially when it means that someone can be banned or suspended for a simple slip of the fingers. It's important to remember that the privacy rule isn't a harmless thing.
681. Angel-Five - 2/17/2000 11:20:52 PM
I pointed you out as someone who was vocally in support of
privacy who tried to restrict their private information and who
had had much less success than other people who had never
visibly bothered in the first place.
What's 'incorrect' about that, CalGal? That you're vocally in support of privacy? That you have tried to restrict your personal information? That you've had much less success at that than other people who have never visibly bothered to restrict their information? All of these are things that you have acknowledged already. There's nothing funky about their union.
682. Angel-Five - 2/18/2000 1:49:38 AM
BTW:
In retrospect, using you as an example might not have been the most tactful thing in the world for me to do. I also don't suppose I needed to comment on 'making yourself the center of debate', because that's incidental to the discussion. I think that discussion between the two of us is liable enough to generate heat without me spiking it, and I'd really like the discussion of transparency to be something other people are comfortable to participate in. So I'm sorry if any of my commentary indirectly heated your temper -- whether or not it bothered you.
Given that your main point -- that transparency and privacy should be analyzed together if one wants to choose wisely and fairly between one and the other -- is one that's already in evidence, did you have any further objection?
683. Seguine - 2/20/2000 5:10:35 PM
A-5: "The only reason we have any need to have a privacy rule is to protect the people who are disliked enough that people will out them for revenge, and if that privacy rule isn't going to protect them, then there's no need for it to be on the books at all."
I almost agree with this, but a) absent some such rule I do think women may perceive themselves to be at some disadvantage and b) my take on the RoE topic has always been somewhat different anyway.
Sometimes the intent of a rule is not to prevent a particular outcome but to signal the inadvisability of certain behavior for any number of valid but unspecified reasons. I think the no-outing rule need not protect anyone's identity in order to be valid. But that leaves A-5's implicit question: Well then, what is the point(s) of the rule?
684. Seguine - 2/20/2000 5:11:34 PM
I have advocated privately for a different set of rules than the Mote is governed by currently. (I should add here, re Message # 678 that "We" manifestly does not include those animals that are less equal than others. I don't recall that "The Mote" ever voted on the RoE fait accompli.) The point of prohibiting outing and disclosures of personal information should have nothing to do with whether that kind of behavior does or doesn't result in actual injury, or whether identities can really be kept secret on the internet. It should have everything to do with the limits of incivility, which should be the fundament of the Mote's RoE.
It should be unacceptable for someone to insult or bait a person using personal information. For instance, in a recent argument with RPike I could conceivably have made ugly remarks about his wife's ethnicity (which he has disclosed), tied those remarks into his sense of aggrieved Judaism, etc. Had I done such a thing, the remarks ought to have been summarily deleted and I should have received a canned warning. Subsequent similar attacks ought to have merited a banning.
The same should go for disclosure of any other personal information not clearly put forth in the context in question by the person being discussed--and that should include RL ID, email or physical address, photographs, and so on. None of this stuff, even if it has been disclosed before, needs to be brought up in most discussions, and it should probably never be brought up in argument.
685. Seguine - 2/20/2000 5:12:04 PM
In short, there should be no distinction between the existing Rule #1 (which is sophomorically written) and Rule #2 (which sounds like an invitation to transgression). As far as I know, the only reason there is a distinction at the moment is because CalGal thinks it essential to deem outing of identities more egregious than verbally asaulting people on the basis of what has been learned about them over time. I figure the latter is at least as bad for a forum; probably worse, as there are many forums that operate transparently, and many fewer that maintain an interesting level of conversation in the midst of raging, intimate flame wars.
Finally, lest someone object that my version of the Rules might depress a certain amount of creatively hostile levity, I submit that it will not. It should still be possible to lampoon handles, insult opponents' mental acuity in all sorts of ways, and generally behave imperfectly. Those who aren't up for all that might be advised that some days you rape the cossack; some days the cossack rapes you.
686. Seguine - 2/20/2000 5:22:54 PM
Correction: I hadn't looked at the RoE lately and failed to see the revised version!
Rules 1-4 should all be compressed into one:
Do not make threats or use personal information to bait, insult, abuse, or put at risk other forum participants.
There should, I think, be few or no caveats; that is, it shouldn't matter whether the personal information had ever been disclosed "legitimately". And it should not matter whether the info is exploited (per the rule) in the Mote or elsewhere.
687. dusty - 2/21/2000 12:06:07 AM
I'm not sure I know why we need to discuss thread host criteria. I think there are more pressing issues.
We did have a prior minor controversy over a thread host (Niner), but it was resolved easily. Other than that, I'm hard pressed to think of a situation other than the present one, where we've had any controversy over the selection of a host. (Yes, we did have a host "go bad", but that's a different issue).
As the lawyers say, "Hard cases make bad law". It would be better to debate the issue (if it needs debating) when we don't have a particular situation staring us in the face. Of course, like the guy who won't fix his leaking roof during the rain because it is raining, and won't fix it when the sun shines because it isn't leaking, if we wait till this incident blows over, we may never revisit the issue. (Which might illustrate that we don't need a general rule, we need a solution to a specific problem.)
Having said that, I think we are making far too much of the situation. A thread is not a scarce good. Giving a thread to Cazart doesn't mean someone else has to give it up. We aren't committing any special resources if the thread is assigned. In fact, I suggest that we are wasting more precious resources debating why Cazart shouldn't get a thread. Had we done it a few days ago, we'd probably know by now whether Cazart would do a decent job, or continue to screw up. And we would have wasted less time.
688. CalGal - 2/21/2000 1:14:36 AM
As far as I know, the only reason there is a distinction at the moment is because CalGal thinks it essential to deem outing of identities more egregious than verbally asaulting people on the basis of what has been learned about them over time.
The reason there is a distinction is because the distinction existed at the Fray. While I support and agree with the distinction, it was not one that I instituted or demanded. It was a model that worked well there, and when we created this forum it was first tacitly and then explicitly agreed to use this model. Did everyone agree? No. A consensus was reached. Who determined that a consensus had been reached? You seem to think it was me. You might want to think again.
As far as "verbally assaulting" people with information that they've already made available on this forum, I'm not sure where Wabbit would make the call. Frankly, I think this would be unenforceable--which is what I believe was said by others (including me) the last time we had the debate.
I must say I wish I had all the power that some of you think I have. It'd be a great world.
689. CalGal - 2/21/2000 1:18:44 AM
Ha, ha. You think that the Niner flap was a problem, but a host "going" bad wasn't? Please.
I'm not sure what you think is a more pressing issue, but I'm not claiming that this one is all that critical.
I've basically said my piece on it anyway. BTW, when I said "it's done", I was referring to the conversation with you. I really don't care how long the discussion itself goes on.
690. PelleNilsson - 2/21/2000 2:37:58 AM
From time to time we have heated discussions on some aspect of policy. But underneath there is a basic loyalty to the forum. We want the Mote to be a good place. Cazart has no such loyalty. I'm quite sure he's out to do harm. To give him a thread may be the worst decision in the short history of the Mote.
691. JudithAtHome - 2/21/2000 9:38:51 AM
I agree with Pelle...if someone came to my place of business and repeatedly trashed it and went next door and spoke negatively to all and sundry about me and my business, then came to me and asked for a job in my store, I would have no problems in saying "No, I don't think so!"
Dusty, your attitude is very admirable (give him a chance, etc.) but unfortunately, it is wasted on someone who is out to do harm to this place. Past actions speak louder than words.
692. JayAckroyd - 2/21/2000 9:58:27 AM
I don't think this is a difficult case at all. The thread proposed is just plain silly. A thread about the discussion area at a single internet site, where the discussion area is so trivial that in a NYTimes magazine article about the site, that content is never mentioned? The obvious place to discuss such a discussion area is on the site itself. Think about it. Television and Movies; Physics, Economics, History; Arts and Music; and the Table Talk Forum at salon.com.?!?
Moreover, it is really just a ploy. If we put up the thread, we're ninnies. If we don't, we're exclusionary. It would have been a better ploy if it had been a good suggestion.
693. Seguine - 2/21/2000 11:00:36 AM
"The reason there is a distinction is because the distinction existed at the Fray."
This is not the Fray. That is, it is not a commercial site run by third parties for their own purposes but a volunteer site run by participants for their own purposes. The Mote's purposes and the concerns of its participants have evolved away from those of the Fray--and they had done, as of the Mote's inception. There was never any particular reason to hew to Fray policy in particular.
"While I support and agree with the distinction, it was not one that I instituted or demanded. It was a model that worked well there, and when we created this forum it was first tacitly and then explicitly agreed to use this model."
On the contrary, you advocated quite vocally for continuing Fray policy, in almost the same words you're using now. Some people agreed with you. Others didn't. The position you advocated was the one adopted. Naturally, I'm not sure how "it was first tacitly and then explicitly agreed [that all-purpose passive voice at work!] to use this model". You'll have to forgive my assumption that the policy's most vocal proponent had something to do with its adoption, but given that decision making here is not exactly transparent, I don't see why I shouldn't conclude your opinion carries at least some of the weight you wish it did.
694. Seguine - 2/21/2000 11:01:04 AM
"Did everyone agree? No. A consensus was reached. Who determined that a consensus had been reached? You seem to think it was me. You might want to think again."
I could think all day about it and come to only provisional conclusions. But my uneducated bet is that Wabbit shares your concerns about privacy (for very different reasons) and Alistair, who probably doesn't care one way or the other, needs Wabbit to consent to moderate this place, so you got to write (at least) the first version of the rules because they were close enough to what Wabbit agreed with and because you were eager to take on the task, in order to have some control of nature of this forum. Which you prefer allow for certain kinds of nastiness and not others. All of this does not suggest that "the Mote" made decisions about what the RoE should contain.
"As far as "verbally assaulting" people with information that they've already made available on this forum, I'm not sure where Wabbit would make the call. Frankly, I think this would be unenforceable..."
It's not unenforceable at all, and in fact Wabbit has made the call adroitly in several cases already. In fact, not only is the rule eminently enforceable, but violations of it tend to be obviously out of bounds by most anyone's lights.
695. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 11:16:10 AM
Seguine more or less has the right of the ROE from what I remember.
I implicitly trust Wabbit to maintain discipline and choose threads and thread hosts, and she has done a stellar job thus far.
696. Seguine - 2/21/2000 11:18:48 AM
In any case, the Rules of Engagement should not be about especially accommodating CalGal, or anyone in particular, and so your input or the lack of it is actually beside the point. The point is establishing limits on behavior that make the forum conducive to intelligent discussion and creative antics without making the place a beach head from which cabals and idiots can operate at everyone else's expense. Abuse and harassment using personal info should be off-limits for the same reason disclosure of IDs should be off-limits: it violates privacy, which many people apparently consider very important.
As for more general "abuse", one can only hope that moderators will exercise sound judgment, since that is always the part of the RoE which is subject to the greatest interpretive lattitude.
697. CalGal - 2/21/2000 11:22:21 AM
It's not unenforceable at all, and in fact Wabbit has made the call adroitly in several cases already.
As has been mentioned several times before, these are covered as "abuse", not "privacy". That's fine, and I support it. The nice thing about "abuse" is that it is deliberately open ended.
But if I understand you, you are seeking to make these sort of violations a matter of the privacy rule, not a matter of abuse. As such, I don't see how they are enforceable.
But my uneducated bet is that Wabbit shares your concerns about privacy (for very different reasons) and Alistair, who probably doesn't care one way or the other, needs Wabbit to consent to moderate this place, so you got to write (at least) the first version of the rules because they were close enough to what Wabbit agreed with and because you were eager to take on the task, in order to have some control of nature of this forum.
Oh, I see. Wabbit wants privacy for "good" reasons, I want privacy for "bad" reasons, and I jumped to take on the job because it suits my overall fell purpose to control the forum.
A few problems--Harper volunteered to do the RoE, she couldn't get it done before she went to Ireland, and I wrote it up when we had the problems with privacy violations in the first few weeks (you might remember them?) and it became clear we needed to articulate policy. I specifically wrote them up to mirror what we had at the Fray, since this had been something that the majority of members were comfortable with and had been used to for some number of years. As I've said, I also support them. But I didn't change them.
698. CalGal - 2/21/2000 11:23:31 AM
But really, Seguine, why make this about me? Clearly, since I'm doing this all by myself--using Alistair's apathy and Wabbit's "good" privacy reasons as cover--there must be plenty of people who resent my imposition of personal values on this forum. Go start an insurgency. Demand an RoE rewrite. Expose the evil purpose of the wicked CalGal and return the Mote to the control of the dominion of righteousness and goodness.
Otherwise, quit blaming me. Like it or not, I don't run this forum. You can try to single me out but the fact is that I could not stop an RoE change by any means other than arguing against it as a Mote member, just like any other.
If Wabbit agreed that the RoE was to be changed because she felt the consensus was in support, then they'd be changed. Probably by me, it's true, but that's because we don't have a lot of people standing in line to write things up.
So if you want a policy change, get the masses moving. Otherwise, accept the fact that I'm not the one standing in your way.
699. Seguine - 2/21/2000 11:31:33 AM
Re Cazart, Jay has it right in Message # 692. It's a ploy. The subject matter is too thin to warrant considering the thread seriously. If it weren't, I'd advocate letting Cazart host (perhaps under close scrutiny), but his idea is dim and the moderator ought to feel comfortable excluding dim thread topics that no one is seriously interested in. The basis of her exclusionary rule should be that creating such a thread would be a waste of her precious time.
700. Seguine - 2/21/2000 11:40:36 AM
CalGal, you have spent the last two posts misrepresenting me in quotes. I didn't say, nor did I intend, the good vs. evil nonsense you attributed to me.
Perhaps there should be a rule about repeated and deliberate misrepresentations of others' remarks.
Of course, that would take out half the Mote...
701. Seguine - 2/21/2000 11:42:37 AM
"If Wabbit agreed that the RoE was to be changed because she felt the consensus was in support, then they'd be changed. Probably by me, it's true, but that's because we don't have a lot of people standing in line to write things up."
Really?
Who has offered? Who has been asked?
702. CalGal - 2/21/2000 11:48:38 AM
The "good vs. evil" was sarcasm, and I note that you completely ignore the substance of the post, so I'll restate without the "good and evil" offense.
You have represented the RoE as my design, and speculated that I wrote them to maintain control of this forum. You have speculated that I am able to achieve this because Wabbit supports my policies (but for different reasons, whatever that means) and that Alistair doesn't care, but he needs Wabbit.
My response is that I have no more control over this forum than you do. If you want the RoE changed, form a consensus that supports change and get Wabbit to agree. That's all you have to do. I have nothing to do with it.
Instead, I suspect that some of you would rather bitch about me than try to get things changed. If you failed at effecting change, you'd have to accept the fact that it's not really me in your way.
Much easier to skip all that and just complain about me. And it must be me, of course. Wabbit and Alistair--to say nothing of JJ and Jay--are so easily manipulated.
703. CalGal - 2/21/2000 11:52:54 AM
Who has offered? Who has been asked?
Well, in this case, you'd have to start with, "Have we agreed a change is necessary?"
After that, if my rewrite was unpopular, I'd happily work until it was popular--or I'd turn it over to someone else if that was necessary.
One other thing, Seguine. You continually ignore one key point--the model we are using is the one that was in effect at the Fray. I didn't make it up out of wholecloth. You never bitched about this model at the Fray, although I'm willing to believe it bothered you. But when you represent the RoE as my own personal agenda, rather than a modified writeup of the Slate RoR, you make me wonder what the hell your point is. Why not acknowledge that much, at least?
704. dusty - 2/21/2000 12:18:04 PM
CalGal
Ha, ha. You think that the Niner flap was a problem, but a host "going" bad wan't? Please.
That's not what I said. Saying something is a different issue is not the same as saying it isn't a problem. Try reading again. Please.
I'm not sure what you think is a more pressing issue, but I'm not claiming that this one is all that critical.
Well, you're the one who proposed it was time to have a debate over thread host selection. You say it's not all that critical, I questioned the need. Sounds like we agree.
705. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/21/2000 12:27:44 PM
I haven't read through this thread in a while, and had a lot of back posts to wade through, er, consider carefully.
One thing A5 said in Message # 638 requires a response:
I guess part of my thinking is this: if everyone's real name is attached to what they say within the Mote, some people might think a little more about what they say, and we'd have a lot less stuff going on that would ever inspire someone to retaliate against a poster personally. Think about it.
If you... are aware that people will be able to connect your words to your IRL identity, are you going to make a practice of wandering around pissing in everyone's Wheaties?
Two points:
1) The reasons for wanting privacy can be very different from any you consider. I, for one, live in a country where the things I say could quite easily be used against me, and I'm not about to post things under my real name to give ammunition to those who might wish to do this. If you recall, I was in fact threatened with just this situation at the old place, which scared the shit out of me.
2) It isn't only the people who go around "pissing in everyone's Wheaties" who are at risk. I think you'll agree that I have been one of the more civil participants in this and the previous forum. But that didn't stop me from having to deal with a serious threat. Sure, it's easy to say the threat was meaningless. But I was the one facing the possibility of getting in trouble with the authorities in a nation I would never want to leave.
I am confident that the vast majority of participants here value the ability to use an anonymous ID if they choose. Anyone who wants to use their real name has the ability to do so, also. This situation allows everyone to do what they're comfortable with, and that's all that really matters.
706. CalGal - 2/21/2000 12:56:49 PM
Dusty,
Well, you're the one who proposed it was time to have a debate over thread host selection.
I was trying to separate the two issues: whether or not we have a TT thread, the issue of thread host "standards" has not reached consensus. There are those who believe that anyone should be allowed to host, and those who believe that past behavior towards the forum is relevant. And I'm sure there are those who think the popularity of the host should matter.
I just didn't want that distinction to be lost. It's not so much that I think it's critical--although I'm not sure what you think is more critical--as it is I'd just as soon not revisit this again without a policy.
707. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/21/2000 1:05:20 PM
I think Seguine's Message # 699 covers the situation nicely (and by happy coincidence, says basically what I said in the Suggestions thread).
If we need a policy, here it is:
-----
Everyone is eligible to be suggest a thread or volunteer to be a thread host. If there is interest in a thread, the topic is a reasonable one, and there is a host, the moderator will start the thread. The Moderator has the final approval on thread topics and thread hosts.
-----
I really don't think we need to define it further than that. You open up a can of woms when you try to define all possible situations, and write a policy to reflect the latest issue. Leave it up to the moderator. That's why she gets the big bucks.
708. JayAckroyd - 2/21/2000 1:05:22 PM
Actually, Seguine, Irv feels quite strongly about privacy issues as well, and I think he, as much as anyone, is responsible for the resemblance to the Fray rules.
I happen to disagree; I'd prefer a transparent forum, but that is not a majority view--or even a plurality view. What is really making this work is wabbit, not the policies. Different policies would still only work if they were enforced with the same grace as wabbit.
At the time, I noted that the fearful ones will always win this argument, because the transparency decision removes the anonymity option, while the anonymity decision preserves the transparency option.
That's what happened then, and I'm sure Spence could show us a model for why that was the optimal choice. Ace and CG made a lot of noise, but that wasn't what carried the day.
709. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/21/2000 1:07:07 PM
Well, that works except for the extranneous "be."
710. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/21/2000 1:07:50 PM
(I meant my 707)
711. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/21/2000 1:12:34 PM
Jay:
What carried the day is that we would lose a lot of people were we to adopt a tranparency policy, or eliminate the restrictions on posting personal info.
I think Seguine made some very good points above, worthy of further discussion, and she certainly isn't advocating undoing the restrictions on personal info. Her suggestions go further, into the sensitive area of personal abuse. I like the way she defines things, and I would support more restrictions on abuse, as it is definitely harmful to the forum, and adds nothing to the dialogue.
But every time I brought this up at the old place, I got shouted down, and I expect that to happen again.
712. dusty - 2/21/2000 1:13:11 PM
PelleNilsson
We want the Mote to be a good place.
Agreed
Cazart has no such loyalty.
Agreed.
I'm quite sure he's out to do harm.
The odds are in your favor.
To give him a thread may be the worst decision in the short history of the Mote.
What harm will follow? It's bad enough that Cazart lies about this place in other forums. Cazart doesn't provide links to the lies, because there is no supporting evidence. (At least, none that survives a few seconds inspection.)
Turning down Cazart's request will create a precedent—the first time someone has volunteered to host a new thread, and we've turned it down. For the first time, Cazart will be able to make a claim about this place and link it into relevant factual evidence.
If this sounds like caving to pressure, it is the opposite. I think the thread will fail miserably. It will stand as proof that Cazart is all bluster and no content. And, if by some miracle, it doesn't fail miserably, then we've all gained.
Cazart sounds just like the little kid on the playground who has't been invited to play in the game, and decides to interrupt the game. Sometimes those kids will magically transform when invited in, other times they will continue to be disruptive. In the former case, good results ensue. In the latter, kick the kid out for screwing up. And if the disruption continues, one can legitimately say that the kid has had a chance.
713. CalGal - 2/21/2000 1:19:35 PM
Irv,
Well, I'd always rather a policy. It's the wonk in me. But then, "the Moderator has final approval on thread hosts" sounds like a policy to me--and one I agree with.
Jay,
Ace and CG made a lot of noise, but that wasn't what carried the day.
I completely agree, although I'd like to point out that both sides "made a lot of noise". But I've never thought that my argument for privacy was the reason it was adopted. Rather, I thought it was the fact that most people didn't join in the debate, which indicates a comfort with the status quo. I just happened to be arguing for the status quo in that case.
714. ChristinO - 2/21/2000 1:21:22 PM
I'm not looking for pats on the back here or anything but both Harper and I were involved in drafting the RoE. Harper had to leave town before they were finished but I passed on her ideas to CG along with my own and there were numerous e-mails back and forth between us and plenty of visits to the open forum where policy ideas were being hotly debated. Anyone who believes that CalGal acted alone is mistaken.
Forgive me or don't if I get irritated with the paranoid view that CalGal has dominated this forum. Anyone and everyone who volunteered to help in creating theMote was allowed to do so. People participated according to their time and abilities. Had we sat around and waited for those people who spend so much time whining about CalGal to get it together and do something we'd all be posting in TableTalk right now.
715. CalGal - 2/21/2000 1:30:21 PM
I didn't mention you because I wasn't sure you wanted to be drafted in defense (Harper had mentioned it online). Thanks for chiming in, though.
716. ChristinO - 2/21/2000 1:32:29 PM
I didn't think you were slighting me. Anyone who paid attention at the time was aware of the fact that both Harper and I were involved. Funny how the facts screw up a perfectly good conspiracy theory.
717. ChristinO - 2/21/2000 1:33:29 PM
Okay, sorry. that was snotty of me. I'm cranky this morning. I will endeavor to be either helpful or silent.
718. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/21/2000 1:34:56 PM
Cal:
Well, I'd always rather a policy. It's the wonk in me. But then, "the Moderator has final approval on thread hosts" sounds like a policy to me--and one I agree with.
Hey, what I presented above IS a policy, and one I think we could all live with. If there isn't any opposition, let's make it an addition to our policies. Now is the chance for all assembled to speak up.
719. CalGal - 2/21/2000 1:41:09 PM
Hey, what I presented above IS a policy, and one I think we could all live with.
I realize I'm often unclear. But I'm agreeing with you.
720. ChristinO - 2/21/2000 1:42:54 PM
It's got my vote.
721. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 1:54:09 PM
I agree with Irv in theory about strengthening the rules covering abuse, but in practice I find that deletion and moving posts to the Inferno work well to keep discussions from devolving into full-blown meltdowns.
Oh, and CalGal doesn't run this forum. Remember all the grief in the early days about that?
722. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/21/2000 1:59:42 PM
A5:
I don't know how it could be done, or even if it's possible. But I thought the ideas Seguine raised deserved discussion. I would love to see a more civil Mote, but I don't really have a problem with the level of civility in general. It's much better than the old place.
I like to see differences of opinion, and I like to see good arguments and reasoned debate. And flaming throws all that out the window. When I think of the greatest debates I've read here and in the old place, they all involve mutual respect and a commitment to keeping to ideas rather than personalities.
723. Seguine - 2/21/2000 2:02:20 PM
CalGal,
Note that I'm no longer interested in attempting to converse with you.
Christin, Jay, et al.,
My objection to the original RoE has not been that it prohibited violations of privacy but that it was poorly written and so allowed for certain kinds of loopholes while expressly closing others, thereby privileging one set of concerns (e.g., concerns about privacy of RL names) while deprioritizing others (concerns about privacy of other kinds of info, about attracting newcomers, about egregious abusiveness of various sorts, etc.).
As to who wrote the rules, I've said what my impression was. If it's incorrect, fine, but why should I or anyone else (and my impressions are as much a result of gossip as anything) not be absolutely certain of who wrote the rules, under what circumstances, and whether opposing views were duly considered? Moreover, why should anyone believe that a consortium of Harper, ChristinO, and ultimately CalGal--who according to Christin did indeed, finally, write the rules--truly took into account the diverse views of people like Irv, Jay, or A-5? Sounds like a partisan effort to me.
The way I see it, the RoE should have been written summarily, with input from any and all sources as they saw fit, by Alistair and/or Wabbit. Failing that, several competing and very succinct drafts should have been written by a disinterested designated writer after a STRUCTURED debate. A vote of the membership, with deciding power accorded the moderator, should have determined the outcome of the rules.
724. Seguine - 2/21/2000 2:02:53 PM
I also think the RoE should be modifiable any time the moderator changes, and should, to accommodate changes in the membership, be open to ratification or ammendment periodically (every 12 months?); or whenever the moderator deems there to be a suitably pressing reason for a review (i.e., an emergency of some sort). Otherwise, existing rules should prevail and changing them should not be a matter of stirring up foment and gathering constituencies and so on.
725. CalGal - 2/21/2000 2:13:31 PM
I don't really see any problem with the civility in this place. Yeah, things get ugly on occasion, but I think overall the level is far higher than at the Fray--at least that I recall.
I think the specific issue that Seguine raises is the use of information in one context (a debate or discussion) that was revealed in another (social interaction).
I've had this occur to me often, and pretty much figure it par for the course. In the two situations where I've been accused of it, I was genuinely surprised, and apologized.
I see no reason why repeated use of certain information couldn't be considered abusive, after the participant requested that it not be used. But if the information was available, I don't see how the first use could be considered a privacy violation. Subsequent use after a request can be deleted for abuse. I'm really not clear why that isn't enough.
I am not clear, though, if this ban is to go even further.
Suppose I regularly mention that I have a son in the Cafe, and in some other discussion a person insults me by saying that I'm a lousy mother (this happens reasonably often). Should this be considered off limits? The person shouldn't be able to refer to the fact that I'm a mom because I haven't mentioned it in that discussion and we must keep personal information out of debates?
That seems unworkable, unenforceable, and hell, I'm not sure I'd want it even if it were.
726. CalGal - 2/21/2000 2:29:06 PM
Moreover, why should anyone believe that a consortium of Harper, ChristinO, and ultimately CalGal--who according to Christin did indeed, finally, write the rules--truly took into account the diverse views of people like Irv, Jay, or A-5? Sounds like a partisan effort to me.
The reason you should believe it is because the discussion took place in this thread. Please start at Message # 348 and continue. Anyone who wanted to participate could do so. Note the consent and involvement of Wabbit.
And next time, Seguine, try reading back first.
727. Seguine - 2/21/2000 2:33:16 PM
Now that Calgal is addressing something substantive:
"Suppose I regularly mention that I have a son in the Cafe, and in some other discussion a person insults me by saying that I'm a lousy mother (this happens reasonably often). Should this be considered off limits?"
Why not? It's certainly puerile. Worthy of a Cazart or a Stone, whom everyone seems ready to ban.
"The person shouldn't be able to refer to the fact that I'm a mom because I haven't mentioned it in that discussion and we must keep personal information out of debates?"
No, the rule I enunciated was that personal info should not be used to harass or abuse. The moderator, of course, would have sole authority to determine whether such a violation occurred and what to do about it (i.e., which punitive sanctions to apply or not apply), but standard policy should be, as it is now de facto if not precisely de jure, to delete such remarks immediately.
728. Seguine - 2/21/2000 2:41:39 PM
"I've had this occur to me often, and pretty much figure it par for the course. In the two situations where I've been accused of it, I was genuinely surprised, and apologized."
Perhaps you were surprised because you didn't know no better; or perhaps you were surprised because you didn't expect to get caught. Either way, an explicit rule would have lessened your shock. (As for your apologies, they were surely given about as much credence as you give mine.)
729. CalGal - 2/21/2000 2:45:20 PM
No, I was surprised because the information was regularly referred to online, so I didn't consider it any more of a privacy violation than I would a reference to my son.
730. CalGal - 2/21/2000 2:46:25 PM
No, the rule I enunciated was that personal info should not be used to harass or abuse.
Well, calling me a lousy mom is technically abusive, and that's what I was referring to. As such, I think it's unworkable and unenforceable.
731. SpenceMirrlees - 2/21/2000 3:08:56 PM
Speaking of the existence of children doesn't seem very personal to me, and calling someone a lousy mother doesn't seem more abusive or personal than calling them an idiot.
732. Seguine - 2/21/2000 3:11:12 PM
"Well, calling me a lousy mom is technically abusive, and that's what I was referring to. As such, I think it's unworkable and unenforceable."
Yes, it's abusive, but abuse alone has never been taken seriously as an offense in this forum; abuse alone is tough to legislate against. Abuse that employs private info is, I think, recognized by almost everyone as being pretty clearly actionable.
Or perhaps not everyone. You claim that you have only been accused of violating this standard twice, but I can think of more than two instances. This, for example....
733. Seguine - 2/21/2000 3:14:11 PM
Adrianne, msg 545 addressed to Wabbit:
Recently, some of my personal information was revealed here on The Mote - stuff I had revealed on another forum. The motive was pure malice, it couldn't have been inadvertant, coming as it did from out of the blue and appropos of absolutely nothing being discussed.
I went to the RoE because I remembered (I thought) that we had made this a no-no (bringing up personal information that had not been revealed ON THE MOTE without express permission). I see that I misremembered, that that policy was not adopted.
I'd like to see that issue addressed again, iffen we're going to have another round of adjustments to the RoE.
734. Seguine - 2/21/2000 3:14:39 PM
CalGal's courteous response (msg 552):
The motive was not pure malice, you little piece of pompom fluff. You regularly discussed your spouse's occupation on the Fray, and refer to your spouse as a "Officer Friendly" on this forum. It most certainly was appropos to what being discussed--you just didn't think the connection was relevant.
I had no idea you considered it private information. As I said to you in the Inferno, if it had been, I would have apologized immediately.
We made it clear that we could not put the genie back into the bottle. If someone releases the information at any time, it is no longer private. I have already mentioned this as a relevant data point with Stone, who used his name as a login at one point. The mere use of the name does not entail a violation, IMO. What does constitute a violation, IMO, is the malicious use of information about another person that the poster knows is no longer openly available. That is the category that Cellar's use of Stone's real name falls under.
Continued use of private information after requests not to use it can be considered abusive, and there is still an out in the RoE for abuse.
Were you to publicly request that you didn't want your spouse's occupation referred to ever again, then I would comply with that request out of courtesy. However, that includes you not referring to his occupation either, so give up on "Officer Friendly".
735. Seguine - 2/21/2000 3:33:35 PM
"Speaking of the existence of children doesn't seem very personal to me..."
A person's name doesn't seem very personal to me. Others of us prioritize various personal info--occupation, affiliations, names of colleagues, photographs--differently still. When making rules, why get into details that privilege exactly one set of concerns, unless the rules are intended to cater to one group of people?
"...and calling someone a lousy mother doesn't seem more abusive or personal than calling them an idiot."
Once again, the standard I propose does not depend on a definition of "abuse" that rises above others, nor on a definition of "personal" that excludes all personal exchanges. It depends on personal information being used to abuse (or attack, or threaten, or insult, or harass).
Honest mistakes will happen, and such references would surely be deleted by hosts upon request in order to protect personal info from becoming ever more broadly disseminated. But the same concerns that apply for revelations of rl ids apply to revelation of other kinds of information, and if they are to be fair the rules should acknowledge this.
736. Seguine - 2/21/2000 3:35:06 PM
CalGal's courteous response (msg 552):
The motive was not pure malice, you little piece of pompom fluff. You regularly discussed your spouse's occupation on the Fray, and refer to your spouse as a "Officer Friendly" on this forum. It most certainly was appropos to what being discussed--you just didn't think the connection was relevant.
I had no idea you considered it private information. As I said to you in the Inferno, if it had been, I would have apologized immediately.
We made it clear that we could not put the genie back into the bottle. If someone releases the information at any time, it is no longer private. I have already mentioned this as a relevant data point with Stone, who used his name as a login at one point. The mere use of the name does not entail a violation, IMO. What does constitute a violation, IMO, is the malicious use of information about another person that the poster knows is no longer openly available. That is the category that Cellar's use of Stone's real name falls under.
Continued use of private information after requests not to use it can be considered abusive, and there is still an out in the RoE for abuse.
Were you to publicly request that you didn't want your spouse's occupation referred to ever again, then I would comply with that request out of courtesy. However, that includes you not referring to his occupation either, so give up on "Officer Friendly".
737. Seguine - 2/21/2000 3:44:56 PM
Weird. I did not do that 736 repeat of 734.
738. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 3:56:02 PM
It isn't illegal IRL to learn someone's name, number, address, or their history. It isn't illegal to publicly display that information about another person. It seems strange, no? I mean, after all, you'd think that if this was such a pressing concern it'd make sense to restrict that information from being spread IRL, because the people who would learn it IRL have on average much greater access to you than someone who reads your words in a chatroom. Yet the information is not restricted.
Threats and abuse on the other hand are highly restricted IRL. Strange how that system works, and stranger how we're ignoring it.
739. ChristinO - 2/21/2000 4:16:03 PM
"why should I or anyone else (and my impressions are as much a result of gossip as anything) not be absolutely certain of who wrote the rules, under what circumstances, and whether opposing views were duly considered?"
I'm not sure. I'm assuming it's because you didn't participate in the open discussion regarding the RoE that took place over the course of several days.
"Moreover, why should anyone believe that a consortium of Harper, ChristinO, and ultimately CalGal--who according to Christin did indeed, finally, write the rules--truly took into account the diverse views of people like Irv, Jay, or A-5? Sounds like a partisan effort to me."
Gee, I think maybe the idea that we've been operating under these rules for some time now and that they have been refined more than once when the community saw a need would be a hint. The reason we got to do it was because NO ONE ELSE VOLUNTEERED. Certainly not you. Pellenilsson was interested but had to decline due to lack of time to commit. This didn't take place in some smoky back room someplace. If adjustments to the RoE are desired by the community then let's discuss it but to show up five months after their inception and claim that some sinister cabal went behind the backs of the rest of the forum to make their own rules and dictate to the people who really matter in this forum is paranoid bullshit.
740. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 4:18:26 PM
There seem to be some reasons, specific to cyber-space, for more careful control of real life information. Some of us live in places where punitive action might conceivably be taken against them for their statements in this place. Some of us worry about someone latching onto our name and stalking us or choosing us for their next murder (which seems to be to be false and silly to me, but might genuinely concern some). Their concerns should be voiced and seen to.
Of course, some of us might be more concerned because of their place of employment -- i.e. that a supervisor or a contractor might see them here, later return to the site, and see that their employee or their contracted professional is apparently spending a lot of time they're paid for on-line in a discussion forum. I somewhat suspect that this is of rather pressing concern to a few of our members. beliefs
Personally, I have very little sympathy for that, though I do understand that some other people have genuine reasons to be concerned about the wellbeing of their family and themselves and I'm more sympathetic to that.
Yet here's the thing -- banning the use of personal information will not prevent the spread of that information (as we have all seen) and anyone obsessed enough to use that information can find a way to get it and spread it.
How? Well, this IS an anonymous forum, as you all know. Poster X can come in as Fake Y, cozy up to the people they despise, start emailing them, and eventually suss the info out of them or their friends or pick it up in a slip of the tongue. Who can know the difference? It's happened in the Fray. Especially if the poster in question claims not to be worried about their name being known by other known Motiers, just by people they don't 'know' OL.
741. JudithAtHome - 2/21/2000 4:25:09 PM
But if someone "cozied up to" another via e-mail and released personal info about themselves to that person, it would be on the head of the releasee, wouldn't it?
742. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 4:26:26 PM
to show up five months after their inception and
claim that some sinister cabal went behind the backs of
the rest of the forum to make their own rules and dictate
to the people who really matter in this forum is paranoid
bullshit.
Who is suggesting that?
743. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 4:30:45 PM
But if someone "cozied up to" another via e-mail and
released personal info about themselves to that person, it
would be on the head of the releasee, wouldn't it?
Not in this forum, apparently, which is one of the reasons I scratch my head when I think about the justification for the privacy rules.
Yet the threat to misuse that information is actionable (Christ, now I'm saying that word) regardless of where or how it is learned, and it seems to me that threats, and not the information itself, is the natural focal point for moderator intervention.
744. PsychProf - 2/21/2000 4:32:23 PM
Irv's Message # 707 is fine with me...thanks to Cazart, we are having some reinvigorating discussions.
745. ChristinO - 2/21/2000 4:36:59 PM
Angel,
Valid observations. But we have more options available IRL for dealing with those who abuse our privacy and trust not to mention the fact that people are less prone to those kinds of abuses when face to face. IRL I tend to avoid those I dislike or distrust but it doesn't require me to avoid those I do like. In an online forum we cannot pick and choose who gets to participate according to everyone's personal whims therefore we may associate with those we do not repsect or who do not respect us in order to associate with those we do. Because of this I don't find it unreasonable to have stricter standards of privacy than might be enforceable in the world.
746. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 4:41:53 PM
But we have more options available
IRL for dealing with those who abuse our privacy and
trust not to mention the fact that people are less prone
to those kinds of abuses when face to face.
What other options? I don't think I can agree to this, simply because I've seen a lot more face to face 'abuse' than here in our cozy little OL nest. And you don't have to associate IRL with someone for them to take an active dislike to you -- and it is very easy to learn someone's personal information IRL whether or not you tell it to them.
747. ChristinO - 2/21/2000 4:42:13 PM
Sorry, Angel, 745 is in response to 738 & 740.
Re:742
Seguine seems to be under the impression that if CalGal didn't singlehandedly invent the RoE without approval or input from anyone else in the forum then Harper and I were her henchmen in drafting a policy that everyone here would have to adhere to but to which they were not allowed to contribute.
748. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 4:44:49 PM
I mean, what about work? You go to work where there are people you don't like, right? You go to the store where there are people you don't respect, right? You do any number of similar things and put up with people you'd rather not, because overall you are rewarded for doing so. It is the same here.
749. JudithAtHome - 2/21/2000 4:45:10 PM
I seem to recall y'all almost begging people for input and help with drafting the ROE...
750. cazart - 2/21/2000 4:47:46 PM
Face it, folks, the RoE are so broad and general, they are virtually meaningless. And that's not a criticism; it's merely an observation. Nor is their vagueness a bad thing--it would be impossible to clearly spell out a comprehensive set of rules or policies.
The main problem is that the RoE are enforced unevenly and inconsistently. Furthermore, it is clear that Mote powers-that-be don't understand fundamental concepts of privacy and security or at least pretend not to.
CalGal's "lousy mother" example is just silly. If you bring up your parental status (usually in some effort to demonstrate that you know everything there is to know about parenting), you really shouldn't be surprised if it is used against you. It has nothing to do with privacy and/or security.
In one of my periodic bannings from theMote, my offense was to link to a picture of another Motehead. I was banned despite the fact that this picture had been previously linked to, in this forum, and revealed no RL info whatsoever. When I complained about posts being forged in my name ( a Motehead was posting under my name ), the primary reasoin given condoning this behavior was that even though the posts were forged, my pseudonym 'protected' me.
Different rules. Different folks.
751. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 4:50:09 PM
ChristinO
I didn't pick that up from her reading.
What I did pick up was the sense that the drafters of the ROE represented their own interests and not necessarily everyone else's. I also remember from the time that there was a bit of appeasement going on WRT the ROE. The fact that it's now up for discussion would indicate that they aren't rules (or at the least aren't worded in a manner) which everyone agrees with, especially in the way the emphasis seems to run on them.
752. ChristinO - 2/21/2000 4:50:27 PM
Angel,
Yes it is easy to learn people's personal information IRL. I'm not disputing that. If we could prevent it I'm sure we would.
In real life I can place a restraining order on someone who harasses me. I can sue for harrassment or libel or slander or invasion of privacy. I can also get my boyfriend to go to their house and beat the everlivin' shit out of 'em.
Online without some punishment for abuse of privacy my only option is to quit the forum.
753. Seguine - 2/21/2000 4:56:55 PM
"I'm not sure. I'm assuming it's because you didn't participate in the open discussion regarding the RoE that took place over the course of several days."
An "open discussion" which took place in a register-only subthread. (I'm touched you think I should have participated, but it occurred during the time I absented myself from discussions in the Mote in order to allow bad feelings to die down in the wake of my posting a cipher of CalGal's rl name.)
Look over that "open" discussion and ask yourself, at what point were the RoE composed in essentially finished form? How many motiers had offered their views about the rules before they were complete, in the form in which they ultimately were published? As of Adrianne's and Spudboy's less than sanguine remarks, for instance, it appears to me as though the rules as originally formulated by the first 4 or 5 participants were cast in stone. As of post 545, a grand total of 23 people had remarked at all, and that includes Wabbit, not to mention spurious posts by people like Spiderman and Nostradamus. How many users are registered in the Mote?
754. PelleNilsson - 2/21/2000 4:57:07 PM
I confirm what ChristinO has said. I was interested in helping to draft the RoE but something came up. It was very clear at the time that anybody who thought they could contribute was welcome to do so. The exact wording was discussed in open forum.
It is true that CalGal put the words together, but to suggest that the RoE is a "CalGal product" is ridiculous and childish beyond words.
Now, I suggest that anybody who is not happy with the RoE as they stand now should come up with a comprehensive new version.
755. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 4:57:35 PM
My trust in this forum is pretty much my trust in Wabbit, Irv, Jay and Al (I think I shall call him 'Al' from now on) and now Indiana. I trust the first four implicitly and have just gotten to know the last, so the trust will take a while there. I trust in their ability to fairly and effectively govern far more than I place trust in the RoE. In my experience they have not played favorites and I'm simply content to let them govern with the RoE as vague guidelines, not hard-and-fast-rules. If the RoE are to be the Constitution of the Mote, then they need to be much more exactly written and broken down into concrete terms --that's not a slam at your writing, ChristinO, just a personal observation.
What isn't good, in my eyes, is a bloody lot of argument over a handful of very vague rules where people try to finesse the rules to their best advantage and there's a billion interpretations floating around. That seems to be what we have now.
756. Seguine - 2/21/2000 4:57:38 PM
Some opinions appeared to have been considered. Others evidently were not, for whatever reasons. But throughout the exchange, CalGal did indeed "shout down" (to use Irv's verbiage) views she disagreed with, and used language very clearly intended to convey to anyone who wasn't in the know that she was involved in decision making. So please don't cry "paranoia" now, and please don't invite me to cite the avalanche of examples I could quote to show that CalGal intended to convey about herself more authority than she possessed.
Incidentally, why should it ever have been a secret that you and Harper were involved in drafting the RoE? Why didn't the entire membership of the Mote receive email inviting everyone to weigh in on the topic?
The answer, of course, is that there was an "emergency", precipitated by me, which required that the RoE be clarified. But I think an urgency existed beforehand, and others do too, whether or not you care to acknowledge it. And I think there's still dissatisfaction out there, otherwise this topic would not keep bringing itself up.
757. Seguine - 2/21/2000 5:00:26 PM
Christin: "The reason we got to do it was because NO ONE ELSE VOLUNTEERED. Certainly not you."
That's interesting. How would you know?
758. CalGal - 2/21/2000 5:04:28 PM
Caz,
you really shouldn't be surprised if it is used against you. It has nothing to do with privacy and/or security.
That's actually my position, as well. It is Seguine's position that such information should not be used to "harass or abuse", not mine.
Angel,
What I did pick up was the sense that the drafters of the ROE represented their own interests and not necessarily everyone else's.
I linked to an earlier post in this thread where it was discussed. Everyone was given a chance to respond.
Irv has pointed out the fact that most people want anonymity and privacy. You might want to consider that the drafters, in fact, represented the majority interest. That is certainly my understanding.
The fact that it's now up for discussion would indicate that they aren't rules (or at the least aren't worded in a manner) which everyone agrees with, especially in the way the emphasis seems to run on them.
No, it's up for discussion because you have brought it up. You want less privacy, as does Jay. Seguine wants more privacy. The other people involved have supported the current RoE. The fact that it's up for discussion means that you want to discuss it. Which is fine, but let's not pretend there is some sort of massive movement for change.
It was my understanding that the RoE represented the desires of the majority of forum members. If that is not true, I think we should revise it. I have seen no indication that there is a big movement for change. As I've said a few times to both you and Seguine, please go out into the other threads, encourage people to read this discussion, and see if others desire change--whether to require more openness or require more privacy.
759. Seguine - 2/21/2000 5:06:10 PM
"Seguine seems to be under the impression that if CalGal didn't singlehandedly invent the RoE without approval or input from anyone else in the forum then Harper and I were her henchmen in drafting a policy that everyone here would have to adhere to but to which they were not allowed to contribute."
This is a distortion, and A-5 has read my remarks correctly. (Pellenilson, take note.)
760. ChristinO - 2/21/2000 5:08:02 PM
Angel,
"the drafters of the ROE represented their own interests and not necessarily everyone else's"
And how is that different from CalGal and her cabal (Harper would laugh herself silly over being included in such a group) made the rules they wanted without consulting the rest of us? Please don't anyone mistake that last bit as even an attempt at a direct quote.
Granted your version is less snarky than mine but the claim is ridiculous and it irritated me.
If the RoE aren't working for people then let's discuss it and make better ones. I can't help pointing out that one of the people crying loudest for reform is cazart, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.
On the strength of Irving's posts alone I'd be willing to look at the RoE again. I think it's a good idea as we grow and mature (did I actually say mature?) to review our policies, but Seguine's manner is less than productive. Let's address issues germane rather than manufacturing out of wholecloth once again the fantasy that CalGal runs this forum. There are a number of people who might consider that an insult to their efforts not least of all Alistair and Wabbit.
761. Seguine - 2/21/2000 5:09:58 PM
CalGal: "It was my understanding that the RoE represented the desires of the majority of forum members. If that is not true, I think we should revise it."
This is sensible. I would add that, if CalGal's initial impression turns out to have been correct, then the rules needn't be revised.
762. cazart - 2/21/2000 5:13:30 PM
Angel-Five:
Don't know Irv or Al and I've had less than pleasant experiences with Wabbit and Jay. Except for Jay's threat to release my RL info and some snide remarks, I 've no real reason to question Jay's integrity. Same for Wabbit.
I can, however, attest to Indiana Jones' complete lack of integrity. Many, in TT, who knew him under various handles--primarily 'Stinky'--will also attest to his lack of integrity. He has demostrated, repeatedly, a propensity to release RL information and encouraged and participated in some pretty vile efforts to harrass, stalk, and intimidate people based on this info.
To date, the Mote's biggest mistake, by far, has been to entrust Indiana Jones with RL info. He will abuse this info. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when.
763. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 5:15:26 PM
I linked to an earlier post in this thread where it was
discussed. Everyone was given a chance to respond.
In a register-only subthread where most of the previous action consisted of a horrendously big argument? Where there were doubts raised that were ignored, and where only a very small percentage of the Mote responded at all? Please.
No, it's up for discussion because you have brought it up.
You want less privacy, as does Jay. Seguine wants more
privacy. The other people involved have supported the
current RoE. The fact that it's up for discussion means
that you want to discuss it. Which is fine, but let's not
pretend there is some sort of massive movement for
change.
I'm tired of your convenient inability to read written English and equally impatient with your penchant for distortion.
No one is pretending to represent a massive groundswell for change. And if three people would like a different set of rules in their ideal Mote, then what I said is exactly correct.
764. CalGal - 2/21/2000 5:15:50 PM
So please don't cry "paranoia" now, and please don't invite me to cite the avalanche of examples I could quote to show that CalGal intended to convey about herself more authority than she possessed.
You are whining because you think I gave the impression I was in control and cowed everyone else into agreeing with me? Lord, what a forum of sheep you think the Mote is.
Why didn't the entire membership of the Mote receive email inviting everyone to weigh in on the topic?
Because we can't do everything, Seguine. You want to be involved, be involved. Don't complain because the people who are involved don't kill themselves trying to make sure that those who would rather just complain don't have as much to complain about.
The answer, of course, is that there was an "emergency", precipitated by me, which required that the RoE be clarified.
No, that's not quite true. It was the situation with you, it was the God revelation of private information, it was your questions about information that had been released on the forum but wasn't being used to your satisfaction. In the first month, we had a huge debate about three different privacy issues and we had to get something done in a hurry, since it hadn't occurred to us that the "public/private" situation was going to be questioned.
Also, it wasn't a secret about anyone--I just didn't feel like pulling in other people's names, given the rather poisonous atmosphere. We discussed it here, Seguine. Anyone who wanted to could be involved. What more do you want?
765. cazart - 2/21/2000 5:17:55 PM
A suggestion: Move this subthread to the homepage.
766. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 5:18:17 PM
ChristinO:
You said it yourself, that's a direct quote. And the proper point of comparison is not even between my quote and her quote, it's between her quote, my quote, and your representation of what she said.
You probably do remember that I was in the loop for a lot of the ROE discussion. Hell, you should know because you and I talked about it. I know exactly how it went.
767. CalGal - 2/21/2000 5:22:42 PM
No one is pretending to represent a massive groundswell for change. And if three people would like a different set of rules in their ideal Mote, then what I said is exactly correct.
Well, you certainly are giving that impression. The Mote will probably never have rules to make everyone happy. I don't think there is any reason to revisit the rules based on three people's complaints. Please, go out and see if there is general support for your position. I'm not standing in your way.
It is my firm belief that the anonymity and privacy rules are supported by most in this forum--and that a good percentage of people would leave if they were significantly changed to require transparency. If that's wrong, then let's find out about it.
I am less sure about Seguine's proposal. There may be support for it. My objection to Seguine's position is more a matter of enforcement than majority preference. I see no reason why it can't be covered by the "abuse" rule, rather than the privacy rule. But that's just my opinion. Wabbit--who is the person enforcing things--is the arbiter on that. But the first step is to see if there's interest.
768. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 5:24:00 PM
that's Not a direct quote:
CalGal:There's no need for this to become a discussion about you, so I won't weigh in on Seguine's side regarding the things you were doing and saying at that time, and the power structure of the Mote at that time and who did and did not appreciate it. We should stick to the facts.
It takes exactly four minutes to send out an email to the Mote mailing list, and extensive email lists of Motiers and would-be Motiers had already been compiled.
769. CalGal - 2/21/2000 5:29:28 PM
Angel,
Then why complain to me? If you feel it's a problem that everyone wasn't consulted, why do you continually state your confidence in Alistair, Wabbit, Jay, and everyone except me, who was responsible for this terrible miscarriage of justice?
If you feel that everyone should have been consulted, then criticize Wabbit, Alistair, and everyone else. Tell them how they fucked up.
Go ahead, Angel. Tell them. Quit making it about me.
Never mind. I'll tell them.
770. ChristinO - 2/21/2000 5:32:55 PM
Seguine,
Since any registered member of theMote could subscribe to this thread the only people disallowed from participation were unregistered lurkers. I'd say any discussion that allows the participation of all registered Moties is open forum. CalGal, Harper and I all volunteered in open forum. If you volunteered then it was through e-mail or I missed the post.
The fact that you apparently felt it more productive to abuse someone's privacy rather than just pointing out that the RoE were not specific enough says volumes about you.
771. CalGal - 2/21/2000 5:34:07 PM
Alistair, Wabbit, JJ, Jay? There's a complaint on the table.
Apparently, Angel and Seguine feel that we didn't sufficiently consult everyone, that we should have emailed all members signed up at that time to get their feedback. We should have then had a vote, apparently. You'll have to check with them about what we should have done if a quorum hadn't been heard from.
But nonetheless, they have complained. They feel that we were a trifle high-handed (well, they think that I was extremely high-handed; I believe your sin was omission or inertia) and that the voice of the people has been ignored.
Anxious as they are to only leave this criticism on my shoulders, I feel their complaint about member notification and consultation should weigh equally on all of us. So could you please answer their complaint? As everyone repeatedly points out, I have no authority on this forum, so I feel unqualified to answer for those who do.
Thanks in advance.
772. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 5:34:39 PM
You're the only one making it about you, and you're probably just doing it out of habit. I doubt anyone else mistakes that.
I'm not complaining to you. You're the one who jumps in whenever a complaint is made and makes it your own personal business. You issue a rebuttal and then when someone responds, this happens. It's ridiculous.
What I'm making it about is, instead, your claim that it was all done in plain sight of anyone and no one disagreed, and how that's a bit disingenuous of a claim. That is it.
773. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 5:37:23 PM
Can we just lose the psychodrama and the melodrama and just discuss the policies? Could we do that, please? Wouldn't that be much nicer than twisting what's been done and said around until it points squarely at you, CalGal, and no other?
774. CalGal - 2/21/2000 5:39:04 PM
Angel,
That's such horseshit.
775. CalGal - 2/21/2000 5:40:51 PM
Fine, Angel. It's not about me. Good.
Then the question is on the table. The folks in whom you place such confidence have been asked why there was no vote. Hopefully, their answer will reassure you.
776. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 5:42:41 PM
It's not horseshit at all.
Who exactly asked for a vote?
777. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 5:44:17 PM
Well?
778. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 5:44:21 PM
Well?
779. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 5:44:21 PM
Well?
780. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 5:45:04 PM
I don't know how that happened. The triple wasn't intentional.
781. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 5:52:03 PM
Wabs:
Please delete 778-780 and this post. Sorry to have made the mess.
782. SpenceMirrlees - 2/21/2000 5:54:42 PM
Team,
The procedure for deciding on procedures for deciding on the rules was discussed here. Openly, for all to participate. Not exactly a secret. If you don't like how it came down you have no one to blame but yourself.
I am baffled by the claim that CalGal purports to have special authority, more authority than she has, etc. Especially about the RoE. Indeed my impression at the time was that she went out of her way to get other people involved in that project. As I recall it was something of a project to coordinate volunteer efforts, coordination she was involved in. It probably would have taken less effort to bag that and just write the RoE.
783. CalGal - 2/21/2000 5:55:12 PM
Seguine said there should have been a vote. Also, you said that all members should have been notified and consulted. When I said they were told of this place and encouraged to come here, you scoffed.
You said, "In a register-only subthread where most of the previous action consisted of a horrendously big argument? Where there were doubts raised that were ignored, and where only a very small percentage of the Mote responded at all? Please." and then point out how "simple" it would be to put together an email.
That was a complaint, Angel. And given that Wabbit, Alistair, Jay, and JJ all participated in that register only subthread and concurred in the methodology, it became a complaint to them.
So don't direct it at me. All I did was write the RoE. I didn't put them into production--Alistair did. He did so after Wabbit blessed them. They all did that because they thought the method we used was appropriate.
You don't like it? Fine. The people you just loudly proclaimed your faith in are the people who participated in that decision. So I just asked them to respond to your complaint.
But don't sit there and direct your complaints at me, all the while kissing their ass, and think that's going to fly. You are complaining about them, Angel. It was their decision you didn't like. Not mine. I have no authority around here, as you hasten to point out. So make your complaints to the people who have it.
784. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 6:02:32 PM
Who is saying that CalGal currently claims real power? Cazart?
A few people were involved with writing the preliminary RoE. Harper couldn't, Pelle couldn't, ChristinO did. The RoE were then rewritten, by CalGal. Some people might think that they were drafted in a corrupt manner. I do not.
I just think that all the talk of them now -- and, remember, at first it was 'everyone agreed on the RoE' and then it became 'almost everyone agreed on the RoE' and now it's 'well, anyone who wanted to talk about the RoE could have registered for the Mote Policies thread and discussed them' -- can suffer a little correction. Obviously, as has been proven the last few days. Cut and dried. That is it.
I personally do not like the RoE, as I've made perfectly clear several times. This discussion has little to do with that, however.
785. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 6:09:57 PM
CalGal:
Once again, YOU are the one who made the complaint about YOU. Not I. Go back and read the posts made today. I have. I will once again bet you twelve days of my silence in this forum against twelve days of yours that you can't go back and show anyone where I made this a complaint about you.
I invite anyone to do the same.
You would transfer my criticism of your statements into a criticism of you personally, and then a criticism of the Mote staff personally. That is pure unadulterated fantasy on your part. Go back and read, instead of acting wounded and abused. At least one of us is trying to keep this about the issue and not about you.
786. CalGal - 2/21/2000 6:16:27 PM
I'm not wounded and abused, I'm fed up with this bullshit. Yes, Seguine is most certainly accusing me, yes, she is certainly saying that I have pretended to power. You have tacitly agreed with some of her comments and in other cases you have criticized a response that I've made as if it were my decision.
If I have misunderstood your posts, terrific. I'm glad you're not making it about me. I still think the questions you raise are best answered by someone who has authority, since you and Seguine both feel that the membership wasn't sufficiently consulted.
787. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 6:30:20 PM
I'm not wounded and abused, I'm fed up with this
bullshit. Yes, Seguine is most certainly accusing me, yes,
she is certainly saying that I have pretended to power.
You have tacitly agreed with some of her comments and
in other cases you have criticized a response that I've
made as if it were my decision.
Which of her comments concerning you have I tacitly agreed with? Which of your responses have I criticized as though I were criticizing your judgment at the time and not your immediate logic?
I'm waiting.
After all, everything you've just said hinges on some kind of connection between the above and a criticism of you as a perceived instrument of Mote policy.
If I have misunderstood your posts, terrific. I'm glad
you're not making it about me. I still think the questions
you raise are best answered by someone who has
authority, since you and Seguine both feel that the
membership wasn't sufficiently consulted.
CalGal: My questions were to you, and they centered on your own statements. Please try to understand that, because I think it's key. They weren't about you personally, they weren't about decisions you made, they weren't about Alistair or Wabbit or Irv or JJ or Jay or Indiana or anyone else at the helm. They were about your arguments concerning the RoE discussion. You jumped in and tried fielding statements, your answers were questioned, and then suddenly this discussion between us is all about CalGal yet again. Please understand that I am not the one who did that.
788. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 6:33:07 PM
Oh, yes, and feel free to 'splain to the recipients of that little open letter you just drafted that it was your mistake. I don't doubt that they'll understand that after wading through this but some formal acknowledgement that you may have been in error would be very pleasing to me.
789. ChristinO - 2/21/2000 6:41:48 PM
Angel,
So you didn't agree with Seguine's statements you just wanted to let me know you believed I had misunderstoood her?
790. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 6:53:42 PM
I believed that you had misinterpreted Seguine's statement rather nastily. I'm sorry if you took that as wholehearted endorsement of what she said. Remember, I was around for this the first time; I know how things happened.
I do think that some people's concerns were very prominent in the RoE and others' weren't, though I don't attribute that to a conspiracy or a cabal so much as a response to lengthy advocacy by a few people. I also think that CalGal worded things to best please herself first and others second. That isn't really any agreement with Seguine.
I do agree with something else Seguine stated about CalGal's manner at the time, but this isn't the place to get into that and if you want to discuss it further tell me to meet you at the Inferno. And in any case that has nothing to do with the implementation of the RoE or her subsequent complaints that I was persecuting her unfairly.
791. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 7:06:27 PM
Oh, yes, and after further musing I now support Seguine's call to further restrict abuse. It seems workable to me. I'd like, though, for us to get a real consensus on what is tolerable and what is actually beneficial and what is just useless abuse. We could then establish a benchmark. After that I'd leave it up to the thread hosts and the moderator, with the understanding that their judgment is to be the final court in their own thread unless the moderator decides it is so lopsided that the host is not promoting a good environment for debate.
I of course favor a different means of chopping out abuse, but as it stands there isn't enough support in the Mote now for it, so this seems the second-best option. Note that this would entail more work for the staff, and none for us, so they should get heavy say in it.
792. alistairConnor - 2/21/2000 7:27:27 PM
personal info should not be used to harass or abuse.
I think this would be an excellent addition to the rules of the road. Information that is freely consented in friendly exchanges is completely out of place when brought up in a hostile exchange, and can be very wounding. Just imagine doing that in real life! Although the analogy with real life is obviously faulty, most people would find it pretty offensive to be the object of this, both on line and in real life.
793. ChristinO - 2/21/2000 7:38:46 PM
Angel,
I did not understand that you disagreed with any part of her claims. Thank you for clarifying.
794. ChristinO - 2/21/2000 7:43:16 PM
Alistair,
Sounds good to me although I think it may be a bit tricky. Does this mean we can no longer tease Niner about his llama obsession?
795. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 8:04:22 PM
The one thing I don't want to see come of the rule change is a massive increase in the amount of whining that people are abusing them with references to their personal information. (Of course, I'd rather everything just be out in the open, but like I said if that won't fly then I'd prefer this).
That might be like wishing for Christmas to come three times a year but anything we could do to minimize the frivolous complaint factor would be good -- like a strong statement from staff supporting the decision to let hosts judge within their own threads until it becomes apparent that someone is playing heavy partisan politics in who they delete and who they do not. If it ever does --after all, the decision to give thread hosts a free hand has by and large turned out very well for the forum.
796. CalGal - 2/21/2000 8:19:40 PM
Alistair,
Information that is freely consented in friendly exchanges is completely out of place when brought up in a hostile exchange, and can be very wounding. Just imagine doing that in real life!
Actually, I think it's entirely analogous to real life, and it happens there all the time. That's pretty much how it works.
Angel says:
The one thing I don't want to see come of the rule change is a massive increase in the amount of whining that people are abusing them with references to their personal information.
Which is precisely what I mean when I say it is unenforceable.
797. CalGal - 2/21/2000 8:25:36 PM
Abuse is off-limits, and we leave ourselves the ability to define the terms. Any egregious use of personal information is covered there anyway.
For example, if someone mentioned that they were ill or had disease, someone who mentioned that in a discussion--or for no reason at all--could be considered abusive if Wabbit determined it was hurtful or cruel.
But I'm not sure that anyone who both says they have a disease and that they are in favor of single payer health care should be able to complain if someone points out they may be biased. It might not be fun to experience, but I'm not sure that it's off-limits in and of itself.
798. CalGal - 2/21/2000 8:31:04 PM
Angel,
I do agree with something else Seguine stated about CalGal's manner at the time, but this isn't the place to get into that
This is the sort of comment that makes all your disavowals pointless.
My questions were to you, and they centered on your own statements. Please try to understand that, because I think it's key. They weren't about you personally, they weren't about decisions you made, they weren't about Alistair or Wabbit or Irv or JJ or Jay or Indiana or anyone else at the helm.
My statements were answers based on what had been decided at the time. You were saying loudly and clearly that you didn't like the decisions made, Angel.
I'm not taking back the "open letter". You made it clear you didn't approve, as did Seguine. At that point, I cease to become the person to answer your concerns.
799. wabbit - 2/21/2000 8:39:31 PM
I'm putting this thread on the front page so those who may not know of its existence will be able to participate in the discussion.
fwiw, I didn't email everyone regarding the writing of the RoE because I thought anyone who was interested in helping already knew, and because I just didn't have the time. I have no better excuses than those.
800. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/21/2000 8:48:33 PM
I'm not in favor of putting this thread on the main page, since it is a thread for wonks and doesn't present our best face to newcomers and lurkers... people we are hoping to attract to this forum. I can't see the advantage of this move, and I hope it doesn't hurt the forum. I didn't see a groundswell of support for putting it on the main page.
Anyone interested in policy issues has already found their way here. Most participants, imo, are interested only in participating in an interesting forum, and don't want to know how the sausage is made.
As for the RoE, the answer is quite simple. Anyone who doesn't like the way things are worded can draft a new version and present it here for discussion. The original version was drafted quickly, to fill a need, and we could only gain by revisiting the rules. Endlessly revisiting the original process doesn't move us forward.
801. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 8:51:21 PM
Whatever, CalGal. You can't admit when you're wrong, can you?
You announced at first that 'everyone' agreed on the Mote RoE, and had to be taken to task on that. And then you said that it was too much trouble to email everyone, and you were taken to task on that. If you can't differentiate between your own defenses of what others did and their reasons for what they did, you'd best stop addressing the topic.
Fini.
802. PincherMartin - 2/21/2000 8:52:46 PM
Endlessly revisiting the original process doesn't move us forward.
Here, here!
803. CalGal - 2/21/2000 8:53:34 PM
The reason we created the policies thread was because of the problems it caused by putting these discussions on the front page. I realize that Wabbit put it on the front page to answer the accusation that things are done by sneaky back-room manuevering--and at that point, the whole thing becomes very tiring.
I had developed a two page format that will put Policy and Suggestions on a second page, which should help.
804. dusty - 2/21/2000 8:55:53 PM
I've seen two references to an "open letter". Can someone clarify?
805. ChristiPeters - 2/21/2000 8:57:17 PM
OK, I've waded through today's posts. Now I'll say my piece, then I've got to go do the laundry.
1. I, too, made my comments and opinion known regarding the ROE at the time they were first drawn up/drafted/decided on (you pick your favorite term).
2. If IRL information about me were revealed on The Mote, I would quit.
3. If it was required that I use my IRL name and make available IRL info on me in order to participate on The Mote, I would not participate. (I know I haven't been participating much, but I really do intend to come back after things settle down at my new position.)
4. It would be nice if people were not allowed to use personal info to attack someone. I don't think it is workable. If we were to add this as a ROE, I think it falls under abuse policy.
5. I don't consider anything I have myself revealed about myself here on The Mote to be anything about which I can now yelp "wait, no, don't say that, that's private!" If I was stupid enough to spill the info -well, now it's out.
6. If I, or anyone, hit the "Cast Your Mote" button on a post which revealed personal info and I then regretted it, I should be able to ask the moderator of the thread to delete the post and have that request honored as soon as possible. I don't know if that is something which is already done, but I don't think it is laid out in the ROE. I would like to see that stated explicitly in the ROE.
806. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/21/2000 8:58:43 PM
To support what I said above, the following post was made by Candide in the Cafe:
Am I the only Motie who feels miserable when they read posts like the recent banning 'discussion'?
I don't think it's good for the forum to have this discussion front and center.
On the other hand, I think it's important to have the suggestions thread on the main page, as we want to encourage all comers to make suggestions.
807. cigarlaw - 2/21/2000 9:00:04 PM
anyone who disagees with my opinion on anything is wrong-headed and ought to be dragged into the street and shot down like a rabid dog.
case closed. i would love to see this implimented. it would certainly elivate the level of discussion, if not spelling.
808. wabbit - 2/21/2000 9:00:08 PM
Irv,
In general, I agree with you, and I don't plan to leave this thread on the front page past tomorrow. However, we have new people in the forum who weren't here the last time we had this discussion. They may well not have seen the link on the sidebar. I'll give them a day to spot the thread, then back to the sidebar it will go.
809. CalGal - 2/21/2000 9:00:17 PM
You announced at first that 'everyone' agreed on the Mote RoE, and had to be taken to task on that.
No, "everyone" did agree. I'm not backing off of that. People who don't participate can pretty much figure that silence=assent.
If you wish to change that? Go right ahead and make a proposal. But don't criticize the people here for using that in the past.
. And then you said that it was too much trouble to email everyone, and you were taken to task on that.
No, I did not say it was "too much trouble" to email people. I said "we can't do everything". You interpreted that as it being too much trouble. It's not what I said.
810. Candide - 2/21/2000 9:00:36 PM
Here's a snivelling sycophantic contribution from a Motie not involved with policy.
I do find some discussions a bit more robust, or offensive, or trivial or hard hearted than I might wish.
But when I think of the dedication, hard work and vision that created and sustains the Mote, I feel grateful.
So even my old/young sparring mate CalGal gets my whole-hearted endorsement as basically "a good sport" and a dedicated operator. (Watch it though!)
My view is that some posts might be offensive and if enough contributors agree they should be removed. I haven't followed the antics of the central characters so have no opinion. Banning should surely be for some intolerable crime, not just for tedious obnoxiousness which seems to be the accusation in this case.
811. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/21/2000 9:02:24 PM
wabbit:
I can live with that (barely).
812. CalGal - 2/21/2000 9:09:58 PM
Irv,
I wouldn't have installed the changes without feedback. It may be that two pages won't work. However, I think there is a difference between a big "Page 2" and a subthread.
Christi,
I agree with your post, and thanks for taking the time out from your laundry (g). #6 is a tough one--on a case by case basis, it makes a lot of sense. But what if someone makes a whole series over time and then wants to take it all back?
I do think that anyone should be able to email a host and say, "Could you please delete Post X? I shouldn't have revealed that information." But what if the host isn't around right then? What if it's around for a couple hours and a lot of people read it in the meantime?
That's where things get dicey, and I'm not sure how to write up such a policy. I'm not disagreeing, I'm just not sure how it'd be done. I still think that this sort of thing is best covered by abuse. If someone references it, you ask them not to mention it--explain that you shouldn't have said it and ask it as a courtesy. Further refusals would be considered an abuse violation, not a privacy violation. (Obviously, it goes without saying that you would not have regularly referred to the information again.)
But I certainly would support anyone having the right to make a post and thinking, "Shit!" and asking the thread host (privately) to delete it. If someone abused this courtesy, we could just make that a separate issue.
813. Seguine - 2/21/2000 9:10:21 PM
"But I'm not sure that anyone who both says they have a disease and that they are in favor of single payer health care should be able to complain if someone points out they may be biased. It might not be fun to experience, but I'm not sure that it's off-limits in and of itself."
Do you worry that Motiers are too uncreative to figure out how to insult one another without resorting to use of personal info?
Consider:
Cigarlaw, in a health care thread: 'I'm in favor of single-payer health care because it spreads out financial risk among the whole population.'
Asshole response: 'Well, I'd expect as much from someone who's dying of Lou Gherig's disease, but why should I pick up your tab?'
Alternative response: 'Well, maybe your own circumstances lead you to such opinions, but you're full of shit. Why should I be expected to pick up the tab for people less healthy than I am?'
Note that the latter response is not unaggressive. It does not lack for high-handedness, snideness, snottiness, or other qualities beloved of the asembled. It certainly suggests that Cigarlaw may hold views that are based on the state of his health. But it does not trade on wounding a man by announcing his infirmity to others, especially others just joining the discussion. It does not signal to newcomers that the person answering Cigarlaw knows his greatest weakness and will attempt to exploit it just because exploiting personal info other than identity can be gotten away with.
814. Candide - 2/21/2000 9:17:35 PM
Seguine
But it's still yucky. (wrong thread)
815. Indiana Jones - 2/21/2000 9:18:23 PM
The biggest downer I see to the continuous rancoring about policy is that it saps energy that could be going into more productive things. We have limited resources (time, brainpower), and while we keep rearranging the furniture, the Titanic can sink. Whether or not this argument turns people off, nothing is being constructed to turn people on.
It appears to me from the little experience I have working with community leaders that there is too much of what Niner would call "rank democracy." Everyone sees wabbit as ruling by decree, whereas wabbit sees herself as needing a consensus before acting. It's very hard for anyone to make a decision about anything. There's also too much sensitivity to complaints.
Early on in my thread-hosting tenure, Kuligin complained that I had let a harsh attack by CalGal go by the way. He asked "what kind of host" I was, and I made no attempt to defend myself, saying something like "a lousy one that rules by caprice and whim." He's never complained again and has in fact complimented me a couple of times.
In actuality, there's very little to complain about here. The volunteers have set up a pretty good framework conducive to lots of freedom: it's up to the community to stop bitching and make things better.
816. CalGal - 2/21/2000 9:23:54 PM
Seguine,
I don't see how it can be considered exploitation if the information was provided online and directly associated with the individual in question.
I see no way for Wabbit to enforce this other than to determine if the post itself is abusive. But calling it a violation of privacy just doesn't seem right. The person made the information public. By definition it is no longer private.
817. cigarlaw - 2/21/2000 9:27:38 PM
did i say that?" if so, i should be taken out andm shot like rabid dog.
i benefit from health insurabe, but think all health insurance should be outlawed. hell,if we had legicare instwed of medicare, i wouldn't need insurance. i would just pay cash.
818. CalGal - 2/21/2000 9:29:34 PM
Cig,
I'm laughing at the notion of you favoring single payer. Let's just consider it a hypothetical.
819. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/21/2000 9:35:27 PM
Indy:
It appears to me from the little experience I have working with community leaders that there is too much of what Niner would call "rank democracy." Everyone sees wabbit as ruling by decree, whereas wabbit sees herself as needing a consensus before acting.
The actual situation is similar to a judge, who hears arguments on all sides, and then makes a ruling. In wabbit's case, she often assesses the general feeling as well, and if there is consensus on an issue.
It would be nice, however, if we could limit those arguments at times to a post or two. Nothing is more depressing than a debate which goes on endlessly and pointlessly over obscure fine points.
I like the way we have arranged threads with individual hosts and policies. And I like your reply to Kuligin. It is very much in the spirit of things around here.
820. wabbit - 2/21/2000 9:38:38 PM
Indy,
It isn't that I am looking for consensus; rather I am looking to enforce the existing RoE as best I can, more or less by my own interpretation of the RoE. I suspect I am more lenient than many would like in that interpretation, and not lenient enough for some. I don't expect to please everyone and frankly, pleasing everyone isn't my concern.
821. Seguine - 2/21/2000 9:41:22 PM
CalGal, you persist in wanting to define the violation I propose in terms of abuse OR privacy violation. Let me state the proposal again:
Personal information may not be used to attack, harass, insult, or abuse.
You will notice that the prohibition lies at the intersection of addressing privacy and abuse, being concerned neither with one more than the other. It leaves all sorts of other varieties of attack, harassment, and abuse for you to worry about the unenforceability of. It does not require the moderator to concern herself with whether the info has ever, anywhere been disclosed by the person being attacked/harassed etc.
I am advocating making precisely one kind of abuse/insult/attack CLEARLY prohibited, and I am NOT contesting that IDs be considered inviolate. It shouldn't be hard to implement, and it should reassure newcomers that inadvertent disclosures won't be brought up 6 months down the line.
822. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 9:47:04 PM
Rule 1) Respect the privacy of other Motiers within the Mote
Privacy is important to many people here, for many different reasons. Please do not post any personal information about any poster without the express consent of that poster. Personal information consists of any information, explicit or deducible, about any poster which has not been explicitly mentioned within the confines of the Mote by that poster. References to personal information will be deleted by the thread host in all cases and the poster's ID may be suspended at the decision of the moderator and the offended party (both of whom must be in agreement for suspension to occur).
Rule 2) Respect other Motiers' feelings
Gratuitous personal attacks do little to further the forum and the discussions taking place within it. Please refrain from personal abuse of other Motiers. Posts which are unduly abusive, but still have valuable content, will at the host's decision be moved to the Inferno. The thread host will post to indicate what posts she/he has moved. Posts which are abusive and deemed without content by the host will be deleted. The author of any abusive post is subject, by the moderator's decision, to be suspended, and repetitive abusive posts will assuredly result in suspension.
Rule 3)Respect the wishes of the Thread Hosts
The thread hosts are volunteers chosen by the Moderator to further discussion and to moderate the tone of their own thread. Participants in any thread must accede to the wishes of the thread host regarding their behavior within the thread. The final judge of a thread host's decisions and behavior, and of the behavior of any Motier, is the Moderator, who possesses flexible executive power over the function of the Mote. If you have a complaint about a host's behavior, email the host and/or the Moderator. Any Motier may exercise fair comment about a Thread Host in the Policy Thread, sparingly as needed.
823. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 9:47:59 PM
Rule 4) Do Not Spam the Mote
Most Motiers do not appreciate wading through reams of meaningless posts to follow a discussion. Please do not post advertisements or link sites which are not germane to the discussion. Please do not clutter the threads with off-topic posts. Do not directly paste images that may be offensive directly into the thread. Such posts will be removed at the decision of the thread host or Moderator, and repeated postings of this sort may result in suspension at the Moderator's decision.
Rule 5)Respect the Laws of Free Speech
The Mote aims at fostering free speech wherever possible, but unfortunately some sacrifices must be made in order for an online debate forum to function well. Please do not threaten any Motier with real-life consequences stemming from dialogue taking place within the Mote. Avoid making any posts which would subject the forum or the poster to legal action. These posts will be removed by the thread host or the moderator, and the poster will likely be banned from the forum at the decision of the Moderator.
Rule 6) Respect the Wishes of the Moderator
The Moderator, and Mote Staff, are all volunteers who donate a lot of their valuable time and effort to the maintenance and improvement of this forum. The Moderator, and Mote Staff, are all subject to the Rules of Engagement, but the Moderator otherwise wields total power within the Mote. What the Moderator rules may be fairly commented upon in Mote Policies, but all Motiers are subject to the rulings of the Moderator. The Moderator may grant limited or full power to other Staff members to act in conjunction with, or in the absence of, the Moderator or a Thread Host. These persons's actions are subject to the decision of the Moderator, and otherwise they are to be treated as Moderators.
824. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 9:51:11 PM
Just because Irving asked.
825. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 9:53:25 PM
Errata for rule 1):
Any Motier has the right to ask that any private information relating to them not be mentioned by anyone. Any Motier has the right to allow any and all Motiers to use any of their personal information as they see fit.
826. Seguine - 2/21/2000 9:55:22 PM
My last was a response specifically to this:
"I don't see how it can be considered exploitation if the information was provided online and directly associated with the individual in question. I see no way for Wabbit to enforce this other than to determine if the post itself is abusive."
It doesn't have to qualify as "exploitation", any more than my disclosure of your id needed to be malevolent in any way for it to be prohibited. A disclosure need simply be against the rules. "Abuse" need not be determined by the moderator; "insult" or "attack" would suffice, which is why those words were included in my proposal. I'm confident Wabbit, as well as most of the hosts, are perfectly capable of noticing such things. The rule is not remotely unenforceable.
827. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 10:15:00 PM
No debate? Good, then, the motion carries (whack). Anything else? Moving right along....
828. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 10:26:30 PM
Next on the agenda, the big marble 'The Mote' banner with the giant stuffed olive in the corner. There is no question that it has to be removed, post haste. I suggest something slightly more attractive, like a large neon sign which reads The Mote, Home of Angel-Five And His Endless Supply Of Good Ideas in all its dazzling truth. Or in honor of the departed PE we could name it'The Sacrament'. and have a few dancing nun gifs in the banner.
829. Indiana Jones - 2/21/2000 10:44:45 PM
Irv: Agreed.
wabbit: I have no problem with the job you've done. And your post is exactly my point: you don't need to worry about pleasing everyone, and the few permanent harpies should just get over it or drink large quantities of hemlock.
830. Seguine - 2/21/2000 11:02:04 PM
A-5's Rules are toooooo lonnnnnngg, and far too cautious (the requests that offensiveness be avoided--goodness gracious), but I could go along with some sort of dancing thing or other in the banner. Pace the memory of PE, Nuns seems a little tame. What about that photo of Pelle and the buzz saw?
831. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/22/2000 6:08:29 AM
Wow, talk about ask and ye shall receive. I'm impressed that both A5 and Seguine have offered their versions of what the RoE should say, and I think it's a good start for discussing a revision.
My feedback follows. I am only one voice, and I'm very interested in seeing what others think.
Seguine:
Personal information may not be used to attack, harass, insult, or abuse.
I think this is what we want to say, and is certainly what we mean, but may be a bit unclear to those who haven't had the background of the issues. I think it needs a bit of definition, but I admire the succinctness. I'm a great fan of succinctness.
Which brings me to:
A5:
You know I admire you, old friend, but among your many sterling qualities, succinctness is one I rarely see listed.
I like the way you've organized the rules, and I think the points you mention are very good for both regulars and newbies to read. But I feel (and I say this with the utmost respect and appreciation) that they can be edited down to about half their length. In fact, I'd be willing to give it a shot, if others are in favor of using these rules as a basis.
I do have one quibble with one of the statements you made:
References to personal information will be deleted by the thread host in all cases and the poster's ID may be suspended at the decision of the moderator and the offended party (both of whom must be in agreement for suspension to occur).
Based upon my experience at the old place, I believe that requiring an offended party's official protest is unfair to the offended party. The rules should be applied at the discretion of the Moderator, and should not require any participation from an offended party.
[continued]
832. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/22/2000 6:12:29 AM
If an offended party's protest is required, then the offending party will be aware that the offended party has protested (or at the very least agreed to the punishment). This leaves the offended party open to possible further abuse and may cause offended parties to allow things to pass which they are extremely uncomfortable with.
Leave the offended party out of it altogether. The Moderator is a good enough judge of what violates the spirit of the rule and what doesn't.
One other comment:
Since we do not all agree on a single term for participants of this forum, I recommend using "participant" instead of "Motier."
833. joezan - 2/22/2000 6:24:54 AM
At this sad juncture, "Fellow Sufferer" would a much more apt term.
834. joezan - 2/22/2000 6:25:43 AM
...would be...
835. PelleNilsson - 2/22/2000 7:13:54 AM
I wonder how many Motiers have actually read the RoE. A minority I suspect.
Which does not mean that they are not needed, I hasten to add. But we cannot aspire to cover all eventualities and the more rules there are the more quabbles there will be about whether they have been trespassed in some individual case. Sometimes I think that something like this would be enough:
The Mote is a forum that sets great value on privacy and integrity and frowns upon abusive, obscene or threatening language, and boorish insults. I you adhere to these simple guidelines you are welcome. If not, your posts will be deleted, and you may be suspended or banned. Do not try to "test the limits". There is very little patience with that sort of thing.
Somebody is harping about "different rules for different people". Of course there will be difference, not least because the degree of offense is in the eye of the beholder. If somebody says "Pelle is just a stupid Swede who doesn't know shit", my sense of outrage (if any) will clearly depend on who said it.
Likewise, if a Motier, who is known as a decent person, makes a mistake of whatever nature, he or she will be judged differently than somebody who always dances on border of the forbidden.
I think it useless to think about some kind of abstract justice that is applied equally to all. The same somebody also complains that there is no accountability at the Mote. In a sense that is right. This is our forum. We are not accountable to anybody but ourselves and we know what kind of place we want. And to be included in the "we" it is not necessary to be brilliant or witty or erudite. But there must be some basic loyalty to the forum. We are here because we like to exchange ideas and jokes and to learn from each other. Why should we waste our time on somebody who is out to disrupt? And even more importantly: why should we feel any obligation to waste our time?
836. PelleNilsson - 2/22/2000 7:14:23 AM
The above became a bit meandering. Sorry.
837. CalGal - 2/22/2000 9:34:24 AM
1) I see no difference between this rule and the one that exists now, apart from the information that the post will be deleted. That can be added simply enough.
2) This isn't a rule. It's a wish and a procedure for what will happen if someone is abusive. I also concur with Seguine--I don't think the rule is desirable at all. Certainly not as written. I think Rule 2 in the current RoE is clearer, quite frankly.
3) This isn't a rule. No one really has to abide by the threadhost. The threadhost can delete any posts that he or she wants. The fact that the thread host owns the thread isn't a rule--it's a fact.
4) This is a rule, but it is awfully limited, and is covered by "abuse", in the existing rules. I'm not convinced it needs to be broken out like that.
5) This is nothing more than a wordier version of the existing rule 3, wrapped in a "free speech" banner. And I really don't think we want to mention "free speech" in our RoE anyway, since we allow deletions of posts for any reason.
6) Like 3, it's not a rule.
838. CalGal - 2/22/2000 10:01:16 AM
I really don't think the RoE should be a doctrine or a constitution. It's a set of rules. I think it is best that they be as loose as possible. The current rules involve:
- Privacy
- Abuse
- Threats
- Advertising
- Privacy
- Respect others
- Listen to the thread host
- Don't spam
- Respect Free speech and don't make threats
- Listen to the forum moderator.
So he's left out the advertising rule and added a spam rule. The privacy rules are fundamentally the same. He's created two new "rules". And he's redefined two existing rules--abuse (respect the feelings of others) and threats (respect the rules of free speech).
839. CalGal - 2/22/2000 10:02:04 AM
So the first question is, do we need any more rules than the existing four? Do we need a rule on spamming? Do we need a "rule" on thread hosts and moderators?
I'm open to a rule on spamming, but it seems to me this is easily covered by the existing abuse rule. I do think it's nice to have a rule on advertising, just to cover it. Neither is necessary, both are fine.
I think the "rules" about thread hosts and moderators are not only unnecessary, but a bad idea. It's not a "rule" to follow the thread hosts orders, it's just that if you don't follow the rules of the forum, they can delete your posts. So I think a description of their abilities is a more appropriate way of handling this than making a rule about it. The FAQ, which hasn't been put on the page yet (it's not done), is a better place to handle that, I think.
Second question is, should "abuse" and "threats" be redefined as "respect the feelings of others" and "respect the rules of free speech"?
My preference is that we don't. "Respect Others Feelings" means that an element is left up to the member involved. "Abuse" leaves that an open issue. I prefer that it be left open. I don't think any forum moderator needs more folks who complain when someone hurts their feelings. Besides, I just don't think we're that type of forum. I think we are generally a civil place, with a bunch of people who can be irritating on occasion. A rule like this will get all sorts of people upset because it will appear that Wabbit doesn't care that their feelings are hurt. Alternately, it gives Wabbit a lot more work.
I've already mentioned my concerns with using the term "free speech". We mean "don't make threats" so let's just say that.
840. Indiana Jones - 2/22/2000 10:16:56 AM
The "hurt feelings" rule is a bad idea. TableTalk has such a rule (including even the word "gratuitous"), and it causes no end of grief.
The existing framework is very liberal, and wabbit's benign enforcement of it makes it even more so. As a result, this community is mostly what it's participants make of it. You don't like how a moderator runs a particular thread, quit posting there. You don't like the way some people talk, quit frequenting those threads. If you hate the whole thing, go somewhere else.
Other posters can do very little to you unless you let them. Hence, the argument that a person's rights extend until they affect another person's is pretty persuasive.
Obviously, spamming and using RL info or making RL threats run afoul of this. Sufficient spamming does infringe upon the rights of others to be able to carry on a conversation. RL info can be used to intimidate exercise of poster rights.
I see the social contract of the Mote as being: "This community gives you a venue to communicate openly and honestly without fear of RL consequences. In return, you promise to give all community members the same right." Breaking that social contract should result in expulsion from the society.
All else is a day-to-day negotiation.
841. PincherMartin - 2/22/2000 10:35:56 AM
Do you think the Founding Fathers spent this much time on the Constitution before ratifying it?
Really, people. In a small community like this, legalistic charters are a waste of time. Imagining that a well-written RoE can solve our problems and resolve debate on matters of banning, suspending, and the proper dose of insults in our forum is somewhat akin to believing in witchcraft or astrology. People here never read the same sentence in the same way, and with the multitude of lawyers (and lawyer-wanna bes) here -- which is our curse --it's guaranteed they never will. The prose means nothing; application is everything.
Pelle is right. People don't read these fucking documents anyway. End this silly talk.
Indiana is right. When asked how judgements are made here, the top creme should say by "caprice and whim," and then say no more. After this answer is given a few times, everyone will go back to their conversations for good.
842. DanDillon - 2/22/2000 10:42:24 AM
This is a debate simply not worth having. Like everything else these days, we're cannibalizing ourselves, and frankly, it's unattractive.
843. CalGal - 2/22/2000 10:47:10 AM
When asked how judgements are made here, the top creme should say by "caprice and whim," and then say no more.
Well, in fairness, that's what the RoE says now. I think honesty is the best policy.
And to be fair to Angel and Seguine, Irv invited them to put a proposal on the table. I didn't agree, since I think there first needs to be agreement that a change is necessary. I don't think any such consensus exists.
844. CalGal - 2/22/2000 10:50:46 AM
And yes, I don't think this is attractive and I also think it is misleading. It's not like there's an actual rebellion. There are only two people who object to the current rules (at least there are only two people who are saying so), and I frankly dislike feeling like justification is necessary.
At the same time, if Irv welcomes someone to put out a new policy for inspection--even if one isn't necessarily desired--what is to be done except discuss it? If we don't discuss it, Angel could then argue that silence = agreement. In my case, I don't agree.
845. PincherMartin - 2/22/2000 10:53:10 AM
And to be fair to Angel and Seguine, Irv invited them to put a proposal on the table. I didn't agree, since I think there first needs to be agreement that a change is necessary. I don't think any such consensus exists.
I can be fair to Seguine and Angel. Can you?
846. CalGal - 2/22/2000 10:53:52 AM
I told Seguine and Angel that they should see if there is a consensus for change out there. Barring that, I think we should leave things alone.
The thread has been on the front page for a while, people have been invited in the Policies thread, and there is no demand for a change and considerable crankiness about the discussion at all. Can we decide to leave things alone?
847. CalGal - 2/22/2000 10:55:39 AM
Pincher,
If you, too, are going to make this about me, take it to the Inferno. I have had well more than enough of this shit.
848. PincherMartin - 2/22/2000 10:58:27 AM
At the same time, if Irv welcomes someone to put out a new policy for inspection--even if one isn't necessarily desired--what is to be done except discuss it?
Excuse me, but I think that Irv is a civilian just like the rest of us now. His permission was not necessary for a discussion to begin on this subject. I did not seek his (or your) permission to say that I objected to this debate. Angel and Seguine did not need his okay to begin this discussion nor will they need his okay to end it. Perhaps if you stop talking as if you're in charge or even know what the hell you're talking about, people would not get any misconceptions about the way things are run here.
849. CalGal - 2/22/2000 11:04:54 AM
Excuse me, but I think that Irv is a civilian just like the rest of us now.
Where did I imply otherwise? Irv, if you saw it as an accusation, I apologize. I do think your voice carries extra weight, but I could just as easily have said "any Mote member".
What I was asking is this: given that some people are upset that the subject has even come up, how do we move from complaints to determining if there is a need for action? It doesn't matter who tells them to go ahead and post their ideas. But are we bound to go through this any time someone wants to change?
As for the rest, Pincher--like I said, take it elsewhere.
850. Seguine - 2/22/2000 11:11:04 AM
A proposal:
The Mote is a not-for-profit discussion forum hosted and run by member volunteers. Membership is free. Commercial solicitations and spam are not permitted.
Strenuous argument is acceptable in this forum. However, certain important rules govern the exchange of personal information and private information:
851. Seguine - 2/22/2000 11:11:40 AM
1. Any personal information you reveal about others, whether certain or speculative, intentionally or unintentionally disclosed, previously revealed or not, obtained online, in correspondence, or elsewhere, is potentially an offense. Posts that reveal others’ personal information may be summarily deleted by the thread hosts or the forum moderator, at management’s discretion. If you use others' personal information, whether you believe it is private or not, to harass, abuse, insult, or threaten, your remarks will be deleted and you will be denied access to this site, either temporarily or permanently, at the forum managers' discretion. 852. PsychProf - 2/22/2000 11:17:53 AM Seguine...Message # 850 concise and informative. 853. Seguine - 2/22/2000 11:18:08 AM [End] 854. PincherMartin - 2/22/2000 11:18:12 AM CalGal -- 855. Seguine - 2/22/2000 11:19:10 AM Soory; forum moderator should be a link to Wabbit. 856. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/22/2000 11:20:05 AM CalGal: 857. Seguine - 2/22/2000 11:30:26 AM CalGal: "But are we bound to go through this any time someone wants to change?" 858. PsychProf - 2/22/2000 11:30:35 AM This is a much needed discussion that should take place w/o the propagation of previous vendettas and personal animosity. We need to establish the rules under which we operate so that leadership has a foundation to proceed. Conflict here, used in a reasoned way, will be beneficial. I do not perceive any Motehead to be on a power trip, and I see no evidence that any single individual is trying to exert undue influence. It is important to differentiate between having done what needed to be done(at "conception) and being "in charge". IMHO, we need to step outside our monikers and reason together. I am such a geek... 859. CalGal - 2/22/2000 11:37:17 AM Irv, 860. Seguine - 2/22/2000 11:38:32 AM I think I'm more or less in agreement with IndianaJones' Message # 840, which I think my proposal in Message # 850 & Message # 851 addresses. 861. 109109 - 2/22/2000 11:40:31 AM I think this is a right fine discussion. 862. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/22/2000 11:50:24 AM Cal: 863. bubbaette - 2/22/2000 12:17:10 PM I like Seguine's interpretation in 850 and 851. 864. CalGal - 2/22/2000 12:56:32 PM I think the "personal information", as opposed to "private information" is a real problem area. 865. 109109 - 2/22/2000 1:24:03 PM I am not short. 866. Cellar Door - 2/22/2000 1:29:29 PM "Compact," Niner, "Compact." 867. Seguine - 2/22/2000 1:43:49 PM "Do we really want to get into the area where someone can be banned for telling me that I'm a lousy mother, that Ace is a crappy lawyer, that Niner is short?" 868. Seguine - 2/22/2000 1:44:33 PM As for the terrible loss to this forum of charges that CalGal is a bad mother, Ace is crappy lawyer, Niner is short--somehow, this doesn't exercise me. I expect an injunction against such patently boring insults would encourage us all to deride each other more cleverly. 869. Seguine - 2/22/2000 1:52:53 PM "...I face 4 to 8 years fo Al Gore after 8 years of Clinton." 870. CalGal - 2/22/2000 1:53:00 PM I'm not claiming it is a loss; I'm saying that I consider it to be unworkable. 871. Indiana Jones - 2/22/2000 1:56:21 PM If someone posts something personal, then it's fair game. That's why I don't do it. 872. Adrianne - 2/22/2000 1:56:43 PM 873. Dusty - 2/22/2000 1:58:59 PM Message # 865 109109 874. Adrianne - 2/22/2000 1:59:00 PM 875. CalGal - 2/22/2000 2:08:56 PM FWIW, I would personally support a rule against the use of personal info not revealed *in this forum* or *on the Mote*, as opposed to a rule against revealing something that hadn't been exposed "online." 876. 109109 - 2/22/2000 2:15:21 PM Dusty 877. 109109 - 2/22/2000 2:17:06 PM And there is no such person named "andy abuse." 878. Seguine - 2/22/2000 2:25:08 PM "I also think it protects people more than they need to be protected. Why should the forum administrator have to chastise someone else just because they referred to information that is known? What if there was no intent to hurt? What if they think it's relevant, and that it is hypocritical for someone to hide behind this protection?" 879. CalGal - 2/22/2000 2:28:59 PM I'm not obfuscating. I assumed it was a given we are talking about insulting, etc. 880. Seguine - 2/22/2000 2:32:21 PM "On your proposed policy, it seems like a lot of work to discern the abuse angle." 881. Dantheman - 2/22/2000 2:35:24 PM Seguine, 882. CalGal - 2/22/2000 2:36:34 PM If someone is being abusive of another person, why should it matter whether or not they use personal information (revealed online) to do it? Why is it any worse to call someone a lousy mother than it is to call someone a skank or a whore? Abuse is abuse. If a person reveals information about themselves, they have to expect it might be referenced in ways they'd rather it not. If the information is used in a way that is particularly abusive above and beyond the mention of the information itself, then it's abusive and can be handled as such. Abuse is, by definition, vague. That gives wabbit plenty of wiggle room. 883. CalGal - 2/22/2000 2:38:28 PM Less so than the current rules (see item 3 and its non-explanation), which are not even bounded by the personal info criterion. 884. 109109 - 2/22/2000 2:54:01 PM Seg 885. PelleNilsson - 2/22/2000 3:05:28 PM It would seem to me that Niners Message # 865 substantially supports my Message # 835. We can write up pages of rules but when the shit hits the fan it is always a question of judgement -- by the hosts, by the moderator, by the community at large. 886. CalGal - 2/22/2000 3:13:42 PM Pelle, 887. Indiana Jones - 2/22/2000 3:19:22 PM Pelle: I also agreed with my fellow Bernese Mountain dog. I don't know if it's American nature or not, but I tend to post more when I disagree. (Except for my occasional "megadittos.") 888. Indiana Jones - 2/22/2000 3:22:10 PM BTW, would someone help me revive Pelle from his posting "collapse"? 889. PelleNilsson - 2/22/2000 3:35:30 PM Matbe I'm too sensitive. 890. PelleNilsson - 2/22/2000 3:36:01 PM Maybe ... 891. PincherMartin - 2/22/2000 3:37:02 PM Pelle -- 892. Seguine - 2/22/2000 3:43:20 PM CG: "If Cig says he's in favor of single payer and I say, that's all very well for you to want everyone to pick up your ALS bill, is that an insult?" 893. CalGal - 2/22/2000 3:55:28 PM Are you really going to claim you don't recognize it as such? 894. Seguine - 2/22/2000 3:57:56 PM In an unrelated matter, but probably apropos of this thread: 895. Indiana Jones - 2/22/2000 4:08:12 PM Pincher: Good post. (I'm going to start trying to speak up more when I agree with people.) 896. 109109 - 2/22/2000 4:08:38 PM Seg 897. AceofSpades - 2/22/2000 4:08:49 PM Seg: 898. AceofSpades - 2/22/2000 4:09:00 PM 899. PelleNilsson - 2/22/2000 4:14:25 PM I think most of Seguine's postitions are untenable. This is not a kindergarten and was never meant to be. 900. AceofSpades - 2/22/2000 4:14:56 PM 901. AceofSpades - 2/22/2000 4:15:28 PM 902. 109109 - 2/22/2000 4:15:40 PM pelle 903. AceofSpades - 2/22/2000 4:16:25 PM 904. ChristiPeters - 2/22/2000 4:18:00 PM hmmmmmm.... 905. AceofSpades - 2/22/2000 4:20:32 PM 906. PelleNilsson - 2/22/2000 4:20:49 PM Bend over Ace and feel the Scandinavian icicle all the way up! 907. AceofSpades - 2/22/2000 4:21:18 PM 908. Indiana Jones - 2/22/2000 4:21:27 PM I volunteer to tabulate all votes and report the results. 909. CalGal - 2/22/2000 4:21:46 PM Christi, 910. AceofSpades - 2/22/2000 4:21:51 PM 911. PelleNilsson - 2/22/2000 4:25:04 PM So, ChritiePeters, and others: has Ace abused me or not? And he hasn't even mentioned that I'm just a fucking telecom engineer who likes to ravage the landscape with a chainsaw. 912. CalGal - 2/22/2000 4:25:38 PM Who's married and went to some place in Africa. 913. Toenails - 2/22/2000 4:25:48 PM 914. Cellar Door - 2/22/2000 4:26:35 PM Need I refrain from pointing out the obvious? 915. Toenails - 2/22/2000 4:30:59 PM Pelle: You seem to have your detractors, but I would be interested in knowing what it's like (i.e., just how boring is it?) to be other-than-American and skulking around in The Mote. 916. AceofSpades - 2/22/2000 4:32:33 PM 917. Indiana Jones - 2/22/2000 4:34:38 PM Personally, I thought Pelle threatened Ace with physical violence. First the icicle remark, then vague allusions to a chainsaw. 918. ChristiPeters - 2/22/2000 4:37:06 PM Ace (905) - I am a slow typer and started that post about 10 posts ago. My definition of abuse is not that silly. So, no, I don't think it is abuse to "... accuse Ohio of disgusting hackery and disingenousness?" or call CalGal "a lousy Mom", or call me that, etc. 919. PincherMartin - 2/22/2000 4:37:07 PM Indiana -- 920. AceofSpades - 2/22/2000 4:37:45 PM 921. PelleNilsson - 2/22/2000 4:38:02 PM Let me make a somewhat more serious observation. Let us divide the Motiers into "meek ones" and "tough ones". This is not a value judgement, and there is a wide gray zone. But I must say I have seldom, very seldom, seen a "meek one" being the subject of abuse, and, in the rare case it has happened, a host of Motiers has lept out to denounce such a thing. 922. ChristiPeters - 2/22/2000 4:39:24 PM clarification - "I have talked about my daughter - that makes it open info" 923. Seguine - 2/22/2000 4:40:08 PM "I also don't see why you think that the present situation is so difficult to "ride herd" on. We've only had a very few privacy violations, and there haven't been any situations of unusual abuse that I remember." 924. AceofSpades - 2/22/2000 4:40:15 PM 925. Seguine - 2/22/2000 4:40:46 PM With each of your objections you clarify the need for a barrier to the use of personal information as I've specified. For instance: 926. Seguine - 2/22/2000 4:41:11 PM Look at it this way: you revere the right to certain kinds of nods to privacy. You know very well, as do we all, that our rl ids and other identifying info CAN be located offsite, surmised, gossiped about and discovered by other means. But using that info in this forum is prohibited. I could argue as Jay has, that anonymity is an illusion, or as A-5 has, that to the extent it isn't an illusion it can be hidden behind to cause strife. But I don't: I grant you (and others here who also want it) your nod to "privacy". It doesn't matter whether I think you "deserve" the right. Likewise, it matters not one iota whether you think a hypothetical Cig "deserves" to be free of jibes about his illness. What matters is what promotes the interests of the forum while maintaining room for heated debate. I believe my proposal does this. Your interpretive latitude re the current rules, I believe, shortchanges the forum. And I would note this: Cazart firmly agrees with you. 927. PincherMartin - 2/22/2000 4:43:52 PM Message # 924 928. CalGal - 2/22/2000 4:45:19 PM Christi, 929. CalGal - 2/22/2000 4:46:14 PM Ace, 930. AceofSpades - 2/22/2000 4:49:38 PM 931. PelleNilsson - 2/22/2000 4:53:01 PM Ace 932. Seguine - 2/22/2000 4:54:02 PM Ace, as usual, you mislead others as to what I have said. 933. CalGal - 2/22/2000 4:54:22 PM By your interpretation, the right to scour Home and Garden for personal details, to be used nastily later on, should be enshrined as a right. 934. AceofSpades - 2/22/2000 4:54:55 PM 935. Seguine - 2/22/2000 5:01:27 PM Incidentally, now that Ace is here to spam the thread with distortions, not to mention the pretense that his hilarious repartee with the Swedish Ripper can't be identified by the moderator as a friendly exchange that requires no action on her part, I will leave this topic to its inevitable demise. 936. Cellar Door - 2/22/2000 5:01:56 PM CAZART'S DA MAN!!!! 937. AceofSpades - 2/22/2000 5:02:29 PM 938. Cellar Door - 2/22/2000 5:05:48 PM CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ! 939. Dantheman - 2/22/2000 5:06:57 PM Ace, 940. Cellar Door - 2/22/2000 5:07:42 PM CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ! 941. AceofSpades - 2/22/2000 5:09:50 PM 942. bubbaette - 2/22/2000 5:12:11 PM I think that we should install little electrical touchpads in the keys of each moter's keyboard so that we can administer a small electrical shock when someone offends us. I volunteer to be in charge of administering the punishment. 943. PelleNilsson - 2/22/2000 5:13:04 PM Now, let's move this from the hypothetical to the realities here. If you are one that follows the Mote regularly, you know that some people are veryopen about who they are and about the problems they face in life. Cigarlaw is the prototype, but you and I can think of many others who have bared aspects of their life in this forum. 944. Dantheman - 2/22/2000 5:14:43 PM bubbaette, 945. FXMuckermind - 2/22/2000 5:14:47 PM That Cal Gal is so annoying. 946. ChristiPeters - 2/22/2000 5:14:53 PM Well, it was an interesting discussion. 947. bubbaette - 2/22/2000 5:15:11 PM or should have his butt waxed and buffed. 948. PelleNilsson - 2/22/2000 5:17:21 PM 949. AceofSpades - 2/22/2000 5:17:56 PM 950. PelleNilsson - 2/22/2000 5:19:12 PM Let it rest. 951. Toenails - 2/22/2000 5:19:29 PM 952. AceofSpades - 2/22/2000 5:19:52 PM 953. CalGal - 2/22/2000 5:26:59 PM Seguine, 954. Dusty - 2/22/2000 5:38:00 PM PelleNilsson 955. Cellar Door - 2/22/2000 5:38:13 PM I say I'm a lawyer 956. bubbaette - 2/22/2000 5:44:51 PM I say! I'm a lawyer. 957. Absensia - 2/22/2000 5:46:09 PM Me too! 958. CalGal - 2/22/2000 5:46:28 PM I say that if someone doesn't remind me of the name of that damn cartoon character, I'm going to go nuts. The rooster. what the hell is his name? 959. CalGal - 2/22/2000 5:47:02 PM Foghorn Leghorn. 960. Toenails - 2/22/2000 5:47:30 PM 961. Indiana Jones - 2/22/2000 5:48:17 PM I'm a pepper. 962. Indiana Jones - 2/22/2000 5:48:35 PM Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too? 963. PelleNilsson - 2/22/2000 5:49:02 PM Dusty 964. Absensia - 2/22/2000 5:49:44 PM erm, what kind of pepper? 965. CalGal - 2/22/2000 5:50:14 PM On a more serious note, couldn't a woman claim a personal information violation if they were called a hag or a cunt? A man complain if he is called a dick? 966. Indiana Jones - 2/22/2000 5:51:23 PM A doctor pepper, of course. 967. Absensia - 2/22/2000 5:53:11 PM hahaha, IJ...and I was thinking habanero. 968. CalGal - 2/22/2000 5:53:31 PM But even if it is true that deeply personal revelations have been used against someone, why isn't that just a matter of abuse? If something is out of line, why can't it be handled on those terms? 969. CalGal - 2/22/2000 5:55:51 PM That is not an insult, btw. And I don't think you're an egregious hardass who trods down a path on the bodies of beaten Mote members. But I understood Pelle's point to refer to the "meek". 970. Seguine - 2/22/2000 5:58:49 PM "And I'm not "spamming." I'm doing what people do on-line-- having fun with a fellow poster." 971. Toenails - 2/22/2000 6:09:01 PM 972. ScottLoar - 2/22/2000 6:26:49 PM Y'all sound like people with too much time on your hands. Take a recess and cultivate a social life independent of the internet or, better, look to those alongside who tolerate your time on such burning issues as Mote Policy. 973. CalGal - 2/22/2000 6:30:14 PM Dusty, 974. CalGal - 2/22/2000 6:34:23 PM Scott, 975. ScottLoar - 2/22/2000 6:54:12 PM I have no remedy for more active minds than mine will seek and find justification to continue whatever mode of conversation strikes their fancy. Appeals to common sense don't work, appeals to self-respect don't work, ergo the self-indulgence rules, which was exactly my point. 976. cigarlaw - 2/22/2000 7:14:07 PM bamming ace is not enough. first, tie him to a stake and burn him alive with hard copies of his posts. 977. cigarlaw - 2/22/2000 7:23:09 PM bamming ace is not enough. first, tie him to a stake and burn him alive with hard copies of his posts. 978. Angel-Five - 2/22/2000 7:29:00 PM Well, I guess there was some discussion after all. Second point: We can go on and on about how no one reads the fucking rules, as Martin states, but clearly some people do and they go on to argue about them. If no one reads them then at best we've wasted a few man-hours composing them clearly. If some people read them then we haven't wasted time at all; and if people springboard from the RoE to full-blown arguments about who can say what, we've actually saved time by making it clear where the guidelines run. The third point was to codify the notion of undue abuse as undesirable in the round but allow for individual tastes. I think that a thread host wants to delete everything that's even remotely personal in their thread, they should have clean-cut rules on their side to do so. I also think that if a thread host wants to leave in ten-page Ace rants on people, and hundred-post arguments between two bitter opponents which inevitably turns to personal attacks, they should have clear justification for doing so. 979. Angel-Five - 2/22/2000 7:29:27 PM Why should we codify that? Simply to present the people who are going to whine about a thread host with a brick wall that the forum moderator stands behind, without Wabbit or Al having to personally jump in every time. And while most of us here prefer a little spice in our argument from time to time, I can't think of too many people who would rather see it limited to that occasional status. No one wants a vanilla forum, but unless I'm mistaken we're trying to grow as a forum, and that means we ought to keep in mind what kind of Motier we want to attract. Do we want a gated community full of ascetics or a bar-room full of drunken bigoted teenagers? No. I think we'd like what we pretty much have now, only bigger and more renewable -- educated, bright and witty people from several walks of life who come in to learn and to argue for what they believe. 980. Angel-Five - 2/22/2000 7:31:08 PM ...can't think of too many people who would rather NOT see it limited... 981. Indiana Jones - 2/22/2000 8:39:30 PM ABC just called McCain winner. Don't know how? 982. Indiana Jones - 2/22/2000 8:40:59 PM Obviously, 981 is on wrong thread. 983. Angel-Five - 2/22/2000 8:58:07 PM Look at it like this: The system of benign despotism is working for us. We're all (well, except for Cazart) very happy with the way the moderator, and those with virtual-moderator status, handle things. Most of us are also pleased to let a thread host have presumptive power to do as he/she sees fit, because they generally do very well and if they abuse their position they can be booted by the moderator. So that angle is working for us. Nonetheless, we all (including the moderator) want some kind of consensus upon what behavior is allowable and what isn't. We're a laissez-faire group for the most part, soe the things we want are few but important -- we want to restrict a poster's ability to interfere with another poster's privacy and their real life. A sizable portion of us want to eliminate flame spamming and restrict abusive posting. And we want to keep the Mote generally spam-free. That's about it. Why not just combine those primary ideas, meld them to the notion that thread hosts and moderators are empowered to act as they will within the RoE, codify it and be done with it? Why should we instead stick with rules that people are going to endlessly bicker about because the rules are so vague? Just because of Mote politics? The proposed rules changes will not unduly change any Motier's ability to post-- with the possible exception being that we're going to spell it out that you can't go on spamming binges as a means to disrupt or cheapen the discussion or thread at hand. The only other effect these rules are going to have will be simple -- it will keep a lot of people from wonking on and on about what we can and cannot do. And since one of the clearest opinions heard thus far from Motiers is that this endless wonking and arguing is a decided negative for the forum as a whole... why not? 984. Angel-Five - 2/22/2000 8:58:43 PM Indiana: You're mixing your wonkery. 985. joezan - 2/22/2000 11:20:58 PM 986. Angel-Five - 2/23/2000 1:45:22 AM Is this about Cazart for most people? Not for me -- it's just the sum of a long period of observation of a lot of Mote regulars. I didn't even really know Cazart was bitching about the RoE. Just that bit about Jay, which is ridiculous to anyone with an ass's ration of common sense. Other than the fact that I don't think we should ban people on general principle, Cazart isn't an issue to me at all, just an annoyance who is occasionally humorous but mostly tiresome and not terribly clever. I don't think we should bother tailoring the RoE to account for the presence of a Cazart, because the Internet is full of them, they have all day long every day in which to think up new ways to be an annoyance, and it's pointless trying to match effort for effort with them because they've got much more energy and time to spend than most of us do. 987. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/23/2000 9:42:00 AM I don't know about others (well, I do know about some others, and I suppose my perception is different), but I've found this discussion very worthwhile. 988. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/23/2000 9:42:37 AM 989. Indiana Jones - 2/23/2000 11:17:14 AM I have no problem with the ROE as Irving as worded them. That's pretty much my understanding of how they function now. 990. PsychProf - 2/23/2000 1:53:19 PM Seguine...Message # 970 ...if you meant to insult, you have been successful here. 991. PsychProf - 2/23/2000 3:11:59 PM LETS GO TECH...KEEP UP THE PRESSURE AND THE GOOD WORK 992. Seguine - 2/23/2000 3:17:15 PM Irv: thanks. Your version of the RoE (Message # 988) is satisfactory as far as I'm concerned. 993. PsychProf - 2/23/2000 3:18:44 PM Darn...wrong page....sorry guys...I am losing it. 994. Seguine - 2/23/2000 3:44:44 PM PsychProf, I'm unable to determine how you managed to put yourself into the line of fire my 970 (wearily) ejaculated. However, Ace's posts misrepresented my views and your remarks promulgate one of his distortions. I have never remotely suggested that any and all insults be prohibited in this forum. My initial proposal concerned the use of personal information to insult (harass, abuse, attack). 995. PsychProf - 2/23/2000 4:06:48 PM Seguine...my post was in response to this gem... 996. Seguine - 2/23/2000 5:59:31 PM Huh. 997. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/23/2000 7:18:26 PM Seguine: 998. PsychProf - 2/23/2000 7:42:56 PM Seguine...Irv has it right, but it is no big deal. I have great respect for you, and I also hope you continue to contribute. 999. Seguine - 2/23/2000 7:53:03 PM Come on Irv. Everybody has things to do and concerns larger in life than the Mote. But if a clarification of my remarks is needed: in my humble opinion the place has grown stagnant, there are too few new voices, too many departed characters whose interaction I once enjoyed, and nowhere near the range of participants in the topics that interest me. I've put my two cents in lately because I had a little time and it seemed right and proper at this point to say what I believe required saying. 1000. AceofSpades - 2/23/2000 7:57:22 PM 1001. Angel-Five - 2/23/2000 8:36:19 PM I'm happy with Irv's wording of the RoE, because it achieves my primary criteria for an acceptable wording of the RoE. I know it sounds a little melodramatic whenever someone goes on about how this place is stagnant, but there's something to what Seguine is saying. We really need to inject new life into this forum. We knew that we were going to have to do that from the start, and we never really did achieve that (we've picked up a handful of TT refugees and some lone immigrants and that's about it). And we've lost some of the best people we have to personal conflicts. Mondaugen doesn't post here anymore. Philistine doesn't post here anymore. Ad and the Ms barely post here anymore. Floyd barely posts here, Perry never posts here, Hark (and say what you want about him, he's bright and informed) never posts here, Coral barely posts here, Lab never posts here, the list goes on. A LOT of what made the Fray such a great place, something that was worth all the crap we put up with there, has walked out the door. We're devolving from a debate forum into a handful of cliques that like to meet and argue online. I'm not sure how much time that's worth; I'm pretty sure it isn't worth all the time that so many people have put into this forum. We have to start recruiting new talent. It's as simple as that. We've known it ever since we started, we knew it then that if this place would have any hope of being more than a divided clubhouse, we'd have to start bringing people in at a reasonable rate. As I recall that was a nearly unanimous opinion. We have to follow through on it. 1002. Angel-Five - 2/23/2000 8:50:44 PM (Lest any of the newbies feel slighted, I want to clarify that we have attracted some top-notch people. Just not enough.) 1003. CalGal - 2/23/2000 10:44:31 PM Mondaugen does post here--if you kept up, you'd know what id he uses. The Ms is in law school and posts when she can; I have receive no impression that she doesn't like it here. In fact, she recently suggested a new thread and volunteered to host. As for the others, some of them found TT more amenable, and others have said they are busy. Unless you have heard from them and they say they refuse to post here, let's refrain from speaking for them, okay? 1004. CalGal - 2/23/2000 10:44:55 PM I hope Seguine returns. Given how few people actually leave forums, I expect to see her back, and I will be happy to see her back. But I don't view her posts or her departure as some sort of tolling bell that we should all heed. 1005. CalGal - 2/23/2000 10:53:17 PM As for recruiting new talent, Angel, you might want to consider that Rosetta Stone and Caz between them have done far, far more than anyone else in recruiting new people. Stone on purpose, Caz by bitching. Niner has paid for an ad in a few magazines, others of us have just told our friends. If you want more talent, why not do your personal best to bring some here to check it out? Recognizing, of course, that most people will look in and leave. That's true of all forums, not just this one. 1006. CalGal - 2/23/2000 11:02:05 PM Irv, 1007. CalGal - 2/23/2000 11:09:35 PM I like the brisk, no bull-shit tone that acknowledges the objections in advance. 1008. Angel-Five - 2/23/2000 11:36:37 PM Yes, I have heard from some of them, and yes, some of them do say they refuse to post here. They've even given me an exact reason. And thank you, I'll bring up whoever I wish, whether or not you happen to like them. The fact is that these continual plaints for the past are a pain. If the people who were here from way back don't want to post here again, that's up to them. There's this weird habit you have, CalGal, of making up what other people are saying. You do it with me a lot, and when I ask you to substantiate your misconstructions you never do. You're doing it now. I wasn't making a plaint for the past in those posts, I was pointing out an obvious fact that strong and valued members of the community have departed and we need to replace them. Moreover, we need to grow. I invite anyone to demonstrate otherwise. You can be defensive if you wish about what I've said but unless you're willing to argue that we don't need to attract more new members to this forum, you'd probably best not argue with me when I say that we do. If you want to help, bring people you know to the Mote, and help make it the type of place you want it to be. If you feel that changes in policies are necessary to bring people over, feel free to try that too. Oh, that's a hoot in so many ways. I have directed people I know at the Mote. Several. Some of them lurked occasionally at the old Fray, others don't know any of us at all. To a person they have all said 'no thanks'. I wish they would have chosen to join but they didn't want to... so, please, off the high horse with your suggestions to attract new members. >and help make it the type of place you want it to be Yes, well, now, you complain every time I try to do that, don't you? There's no consensus, we don't need to do this, it's unworkable, I don't see how yadda yadda yadda. I can't post on policy or content without you popping right up and posting off a barrage of 'there's no need for us to even consider this' or 'there's no need for such a change'. You're doing it right now. Forgive me if I look at the sentiment of your quoted statement askance as a result. And your newfound willingness to let anyone discuss changes to the rules is a day late and a pound short for you to be able to casually refer to it as a given, especially as it was your recalcitrance to even consider a rules change in the first place that contributed heavily to those three hundred posts you mention. Sorry, Sparky, I won't take that check. You don't think the new rules are any different? So far everyone else has said they like the wording and the emphasis; you're the only one saying that the results weren't worth the effort 1010. Angel-Five - 2/23/2000 11:37:54 PM Whoops. and help make it the type of place you want it to be Yes, well, now, you complain every time I try to do that, don't you? There's no consensus, we don't need to do this, it's unworkable, I don't see how yadda yadda yadda. I can't post on policy or content without you popping right up and posting off a barrage of 'there's no need for us to even consider this' or 'there's no need for such a change'. You're doing it right now. Forgive me if I look at the sentiment of your quoted statement askance as a result. And your newfound willingness to let anyone discuss changes to the rules is a day late and a pound short for you to be able to casually refer to it as a given, especially as it was your recalcitrance to even consider a rules change in the first place that contributed heavily to those three hundred posts you mention. Sorry, Sparky, I won't take that check. You don't think the new rules are any different? So far everyone else has said they like the wording and the emphasis; you're the only one saying that the results weren't worth the effort 1011. Angel-Five - 2/23/2000 11:43:48 PM Brisk, no-bullshit tone? Has it escaped you that all of my criticisms of your RoE focused on a lack of clarity? Yet it must just be because of your brisk, no-bullshit tone, obviously. Then again, you're still going on about how I wanted the RoE changed to force transparency when I said several times that I wasn't interested in forcing transparency on an unwilling forum. Please, CalGal, don't talk about what I want unless you're willing to figure out just what that actually is. 1012. CalGal - 2/24/2000 12:17:30 AM And thank you, I'll bring up whoever I wish, whether or not you happen to like them. 1013. Angel-Five - 2/24/2000 12:22:04 AM Reply in the Inferno. 1014. Angel-Five - 2/24/2000 1:02:41 AM It might be nice to next discuss, as a group, ways of increasing the size of the Mote community as a whole. 1015. CalGal - 2/24/2000 1:04:44 AM I can't post on policy or content without you popping right up and posting off a barrage of 'there's no need for us to even consider this' or 'there's no need for such a change'. 1016. CalGal - 2/24/2000 1:06:11 AM Angel, 1017. Angel-Five - 2/24/2000 1:06:45 AM Reply in the Inferno. 1018. Angel-Five - 2/24/2000 1:07:40 AM 'Reply in the Inferno' = my reply is in the inferno. Twit. 1019. Seguine - 2/24/2000 9:54:20 AM "I should be clear--it's my brisk, no bull-shit tone that I like. I wrote it purposefully with that tone. Irv, your tone is more formal and may be what more people prefer." 1020. Seguine - 2/24/2000 9:54:44 AM I have changed my mind about one thing. I no longer think it's essential to establish that a consensus for change exists, or even to submit Irv's change proposal to a vote. True, having a vote would be the fair and democratic thing to do. But if the members are generally united in their feeling that the Mote operates best under a benevolent dictatorship (and they seem to be), then the RoE can legitimately be changed by fiat. I advocate for Irv's proposed change on the basis that if no one cares either way (and the lack of participation in this discussion seems indicative, but of course an emailed query would indicate more and should be standard procedure by now), then the rules should be changed per his revisions to reap the benefit they would bring. 1021. Seguine - 2/24/2000 10:36:43 AM "Summing up: I don't think this policy set-to has squat to do with anything other than the unhappiness of a few people." 1022. ChristinO - 2/24/2000 1:15:46 PM Excuse me? 1023. CalGal - 2/24/2000 1:25:51 PM Uh, Christin? 1024. ChristinO - 2/24/2000 1:54:43 PM Angel to CG: 1025. Seguine - 2/24/2000 2:06:56 PM If you consider yourselves proles, then perhaps you are. I count myself among those whose contributions to this forum have been, and will continue to be (if they continue at all), quite modest. 1026. CalGal - 2/24/2000 2:28:18 PM And some of the very folks who dominate discussion now, CalGal, and have invited folks to leave when they didn't like the way it was run by the royal "we", are the ones who used to bitch loudest about special people dominating the forum. 1027. ChristinO - 2/24/2000 3:00:07 PM Seguine, 1028. Seguine - 2/24/2000 3:03:11 PM Ah, CalGal, it all rings a little hollow from a self-professed elitist who resorts to "we're all equally valuable" populism only when it suits her aspirations. 1029. Seguine - 2/24/2000 3:04:30 PM Christin: whatever. 1030. Angel-Five - 2/24/2000 5:14:18 PM "You don't think the new rules are any different? So far It's not stylistic, it's an issue of clarity and openness that the rules address. These rules shouldn't read like some gang member drawling from the corner of the clubhouse, for fuck's sake, they should read like an up-front declaration from equals to equals of the expected behavior. They should make explicit the means by which we function, because one of the paramount concerns of any forum poster anywhere I've ever seen is whether someone has the power to control their speech and if so under what conditions. And what do the new rules say? The moderator has sole control. Not a lynch mob, not a community action panel, the moderator. To me, that's important, and it's obviously important to a lot of other people here, given all the accusations of 'cabal' and whatnot. And I didn't say 'everyone', I said 'everyone else'. And who has voted against the rules? I welcome anyone else to participate in the discussion, I'd like everyone emailed in case they aren't aware that it's on the table to say yea or nay or just pitch in their two cents. No one loses that way. But out of what we have so far, I've only noted one nay vote. 1031. Angel-Five - 2/24/2000 5:32:56 PM Whether or not you like the specific metaphor of White Flight is irrelevant -- something akin to a class mechanism is occurring in this community. There's no value judgment in my saying that, no matter how huffy or offended you want to get pretending there is. It's a frickin' mechanism. It's neutral. If you're going to say for yourselves that the 'upper' classes are better than the 'middle' or the 'lower' classes, then realize that it's you saying it, because I don't think that your worth depends on your class and I don't think Seguine does either. Got that? Nevertheless, one has to also recognize the following -- unless you are going to argue that the exiting group of people is without any worth at all, then their absence damages the forum. Am I wrong? Some very valuable and interesting people have left the forum in protest or in silence, but not just because they were suddenly too busy to post. We need to replace them and then keep growing, and at the same time it won't hurt to wonder why these people left and see if that's a problem we can change. If you can in turn explain that we DON'T need to replace them and we DON'T need to wonder why they left, then sit down and let's talk. If not, then you really can't have any argument with me. 1032. CalGal - 2/24/2000 6:03:43 PM If you can in turn explain that we DON'T need to replace them and we DON'T need to wonder why they left, then sit down and let's talk. 1033. ChristinO - 2/24/2000 6:09:40 PM Angel I left because I have given my opinion on the matter and don't feel it productive to spend any more time playing you said I said and arguing over who is insulting who and who really isn't being disingenuous or who really meant what. 1034. ChristinO - 2/24/2000 6:19:44 PM Oh goodness. I hate it when I skim and then realize I put two different ideas together. This is regarding the question of who left which I thought was addressed to my leaving earlier rather than to those who choose not to post in theMote. 1035. Angel-Five - 2/24/2000 6:20:19 PM Oh, we don't need to know why people leave the forum. How illuminating. If they were valued members -- they possessed traits that we as a community valued -- then it only makes sense to anyone that we try and keep people with those traits, and we attract other people with similar traits. Yes? That means largely figuring out what made those people leave in the first place. Maybe nine out of ten people who look at this place and leave do that for a reason we can correct -- hasn't that occurred to you? And that maybe we would be more valuable if those people stayed? So you can ditch the bullshit about how in order to attract talent we have to decide who we like and don't like in the community. That's so rank a distortion that even a dog wouldn't touch it. We're not picking and choosing between talent pools (at least, I'm not -- but if you want to argue that in order to attract certain people we have to ignore others, go ahead) in our selection process, just trying to keep what we do attract. I'm glad that you've at least come around to saying that some of the people I mentioned chose to restrict their time in, or leave completely, the Mote. But it's extremely foolish for you to push this point of yours, that the Mote is totally separate from the Fray. That's an artificial distinction. Some things run better here, but it's the same basic community otherwise. Really, The Mote is a nice place, but let's not pretend we invented it or even substantially remade it. 1036. Angel-Five - 2/24/2000 6:22:52 PM Our growth of new members here isn't close to that of the Fray. 1037. Angel-Five - 2/24/2000 6:28:33 PM And as to why the 'exalted' (do you have any idea how telling it is for you to use that word in a conversation about why they left and who does and does not want more people like them?) have left -- yes, we have had that conversation. And as I recall we both managed to come up with the same, exact reason. It's just that it bothered me and you were fine with it. I don't expect to convince you of anything, and actually don't much want to at this point. I miss having certain people around; you don't as much. That's that. 1038. arkymalarky - 2/24/2000 6:30:32 PM People came and went in the Fray all the time I was there, but many, if not most of the ones I most enjoyed reading are still here. FWIW, I never could persuade any of my friends, or even my husband, who I think would really enjoy it, to post in the Fray or here. Bro said he would, but I haven't seen him yet. I don't know anyone else irl who participates in any online forum, and there never seemed to be a whole lot of really regular contributers from the time I started in the Fray. 1039. Angel-Five - 2/24/2000 6:37:21 PM My brother lurked occasionally for a while, but dismissed the Fray as a bunch of mental masturbation (well, 'mostly mental, occasionally much more physical and overt' is how he put it). 1040. Angel-Five - 2/24/2000 6:39:35 PM I think a lot of it was when he started asking me about movie recommendations and I'd tell him what the Movies thread recommended and he'd follow up on it and call me back pissed off. We talk about Mote insularity but as far as movie recommendations and analyses it's a reality. 1041. JayAckroyd - 2/25/2000 9:20:16 AM It is interesting that amidst all this ruckus, only four people have made a direct comment on Irv's draft. 1042. Seguine - 2/25/2000 11:12:05 AM Jay, my guess is that most people don't care (no one reads the RoE); or else, when this thread got moved back off the front page, most people quit reading and so are unaware of Irv's proposal. In case it's the latter, I have posted a notice in Thread Suggestions. 1043. PsychProf - 2/25/2000 11:12:25 AM Jay...that is because the issues surounding policy are control related, personality dominated, or motivated by hostility, for a least some posters. EG, Seguine uses the topic as a chance to partronize and let us know she is smarter/better than others(wanna compare resumes Seg? you can accept the challenge at ozzienelson@hotmail.com )...why else would she substantially contribute to a "future policy" discussion on a forum that she doesn't like and intends to leave? BTW... The original ROE or Irv's are fine with me. 1044. Indiana Jones - 2/25/2000 11:23:46 AM IMO this has been a big discussion about something that doesn't appear to be a large problem. The discussion is much bigger than anything causing it. I concur with PP that either version is fine because I really don't see a substantive difference. 1045. soupisgoodfood - 2/25/2000 11:40:59 AM I vote for Irv's wording. 1046. Dantheman - 2/25/2000 11:47:03 AM I agree with IJ's post 1044. Both versions are fine, and we're making way too mcuh of the Rules of Engagement. 1047. Dantheman - 2/25/2000 11:47:21 AM whoops mcuh=much 1048. JayAckroyd - 2/25/2000 12:19:43 PM PP- 1049. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/25/2000 12:30:50 PM It's true that my version does not differ substantively from the earlier version, which stated the same information. All I did was take out some of the redundancy, and removed the invitations to try and break the rules ("don't push the envelope"). 1050. PincherMartin - 2/25/2000 12:35:19 PM Is it possible to show Irv's (and other's as well) version again? 1051. Indiana Jones - 2/25/2000 12:52:56 PM PM: Here's Irv's version. 1052. PincherMartin - 2/25/2000 1:21:12 PM Thanks, Indiana. 1053. Seguine - 2/25/2000 2:40:24 PM PsychProf. For the second time: you've not been the target of any insult of mine. I'm sure you're a very accomplished guy. 1054. PsychProf - 2/25/2000 3:39:26 PM I give up. 1055. arkymalarky - 2/25/2000 6:09:27 PM FWIW, PP, I agree with you. 1056. AceofSpades - 2/25/2000 6:30:08 PM 1057. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/26/2000 9:39:32 AM Ace: 1058. 109109 - 2/26/2000 3:38:16 PM I oppose Irv's version because it suggests democracy, and I prefer the version of the Mote as warring but blood-related fiefdoms under a toothless central authority. 1059. dusty - 2/26/2000 5:29:11 PM Message # 1041 JayAckroyd 1060. dusty - 2/26/2000 5:42:05 PM Message # 856 IrvingSnodgrass 1061. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/26/2000 8:22:02 PM Dusty: 1062. bloodnfire - 2/26/2000 9:01:31 PM FWIW. I endorse Irv's proposed new ROE. 1063. bloodnfire - 2/26/2000 9:09:50 PM And it's good to see Seguine 'popping in' from time to time too. 1064. Angel-Five - 2/26/2000 10:41:00 PM I think the procedure for adopting changes has always been pretty clear: the Mote staff makes changes based upon their own judgment. Since their judgment is shaped by their perception of the overall needs and wants of the Mote as expressed in discussions like this, and everybody's pretty universal in their support of those judgments, I think this is a sustainable and desirable system. It's the best of both worlds. Yet it's not democratic at all, really. I'm not sure where 'South Carolina' Niner is deriving his notion that the execution of this forum is democratic. Votes don't decide what happens here in any direct sense. But if he really does want a toothless central leadership, I can't agree with that -- though it's irrelevant, because his argument is rooted in the concept that we have one now, and we don't. The central leadership in this forum is really the only body with any significant power at all. I don't mind thread hosts being more empowered under the aegis of the Moderator, but that's not a pressing concern. Niner, can you explain your statement a bit more, in case I misunderstood you? 1065. dusty - 2/26/2000 10:43:41 PM IrvingSnodgrass 1066. dusty - 2/26/2000 10:46:38 PM Angel-Five 1067. Angel-Five - 2/26/2000 10:55:39 PM Several people have also stated that there's essentially no changes between the old rules and the new proposed rules. This mystifies me, because there are clearly a lot of changes, and not just in tone and clarity. The mechanism of action on violations is clearly spelled out, and the authority responsible for those actions is also clearly spelled out. This isn't a minor thing, and it perfectly fits the needs of our forum. It may seem plain and simple to us how things are run here -- because as more than one person has said, the new rules seem pretty much to be the way things work now. That, in a nutshell, is a very good reason to adopt the new rules -- because new participants don't know that right off the bat, right now. They don't know how things work and who calls the shots. And it's an issue of concern to any poster as to who can delete/move their posts, and why they can do that. If we can give them an up-front statement which clearly explains how the forum functions AND tell them what is and isn't allowed, we've made things easier for everyone. The new RoE will do exactly that. No one loses by adopting them, and everyone gains. 1068. Angel-Five - 2/26/2000 11:00:28 PM With all due respect, Dusty, my description is pretty close to Irv's. I emphasize the role of the administrator more; but both of us make it clear that the Mote administrators decide, and their decision is based upon the tenor of community feeling on the issue. I think the calls for a vote reduce to earlier claims made by some participants that 'everyone' had expressed support for the adoption of the old RoE and a desire now to have as many people as possible voice their opinion on the matter. 1069. Angel-Five - 2/26/2000 11:02:06 PM As for your argument that the decision-making process is unclear in the Mote... well, that's one of the main reasons I support the new RoE, because it's clearer as to who makes what decisions when. 1070. dusty - 2/26/2000 11:29:24 PM Angel-Five 1071. dusty - 2/26/2000 11:32:47 PM Angel-Five 1072. Angel-Five - 2/26/2000 11:55:03 PM Administrators? Well, Wabbit and Alistair. I use the plural because Alistair has presumptive moderator power and has exercised it more than once when there was necessity and Wabbit wasn't around. As far as administrators being able to decide who stays who goes what's said and what's deleted, that's Wabbit, and in the event of Wabbit's absence or an emergency that's Alistair. It's a good setup. If your point is that you'd like that spelled that out, I don't mind that in a FAQ or a hyperlink in the new RoE. 1073. CalGal - 2/27/2000 1:45:05 AM Dusty, 1074. Angel-Five - 2/27/2000 2:15:31 AM Message # 809 CalGal You announced at first that 'everyone' agreed on the Mote RoE, and had to be taken to task on that. 1075. Angel-Five - 2/27/2000 2:25:04 AM Wow, all of a week ago you said that. You also said something about how 'we' had drafted and agreed upon the RoE and if 'you' wanted to change things yadda yadda. When I asked you who 'we' and 'you' were, you said 'we= The Mote'. 1076. Angel-Five - 2/27/2000 2:31:48 AM My bad; five days, not a week. The obvious point is that more than once you have used terms to indicate a much wider range of support for the original RoE than ever actually existed. You went so far as to indicate that silence meant assent as far as you were concerned, which is ridiculous. The feeling expressed by you, and by Spence among others -- that everyone was permitted to comment on the old RoE and if you missed it or didn't speak up, too bad -- is the main reason some of us have invited more people to participate in this discussion, and why Wabbit even put it on the listthreads.asp page for a while. Some people don't feel that your feeling was the case in any meaningful way. 'Everyone' did not agree, and 'everyone' did not participate, and silence does not equal assent. Silence equals nothing. Thus the discussion now. 1077. CalGal - 2/27/2000 3:09:10 AM You went so far as to indicate that silence meant assent as far as you were concerned, which is ridiculous. 1078. CalGal - 2/27/2000 3:13:52 AM Personally, I'm all in favor of inviting everyone to post on Policies. I wish to hell more people would. Instead, we had at least four people post saying "Christ, people, get over it and quit talking about it." 1079. CalGal - 2/27/2000 3:23:42 AM Incidentally, it is my impression that this discussion is (hallelujah!) winding down. It is not my call to make, nor am I seeking to stop or curtail discussion. I am just making an observation, since I am responsible for UI and content. 1080. Angel-Five - 2/27/2000 3:31:59 AM Silence doesn't mean assent. That went out with Nixon. If I go outside and shout 'Hey, the world is flat' and no one contradicts me does that mean the world agrees? No? What if I say it in a coffeeshop or a bar or a grocery? No? And I hate to point this out, but you can't weasel out of 'everyone' meaning 'everyone' by saying that you included everyone else who didn't post. Not if you subsequently define those people as a priori assenting to the RoE. Jesus, that is such horseshit. Oh, it's horseshit? You want to retract that, or do you want me to go back to the posts -- again -- and prove you wrong? The posts are there, it's your call. Some people asked for more participation in the discussion; Wabbit put the thread out front because she said she wanted to be sure everyone was accomodated. Go on, prove me wrong. the people who said "knock this shit off" are essentially expressing support for the current rules (even if they don't give a damn). Oh, whatever, now the people who said that the discussion was pointless are supporting the old rules? Most of them as I recall argued against the discussion the first time around and didn't express interest in it either way -- at least one of them has subsequently expressed support for Irv's rewording. But I do wish you wouldn't pretend there was some conspiracy. Classic. You don't have a point, so you resort to distorting mine. I've said so many times that there was no conspiracy that to me the quoted statement is either proof that you're selectively illiterate or else being duplicitous. I'll ask you again to go back and back up your inference. I'll do that knowing fully well that you won't, because you can't and you know it. But do go ahead. Prove me wrong. 1081. Angel-Five - 2/27/2000 3:42:09 AM Thank you, though, for proving my point. Not only are you representing all the Motiers who never saw the discussion or never commented upon it as supporting your draft of the rules, but now you're claiming that everyone who bitched about the discussions -- either the old one or this one -- supports the old RoE as well. That's a better proof that you're claiming more support than is due for the old RoE than I could have constructed in three days. You're attempting to speak for a lot more people than you ought to. So far more people have spoken for the revision than have spoken against it, and more than one who has spoken against it has said that they could live with it. If the discussion is winding down (I expect that a few more people may comment on the rules) then that's fine. Oh, and no one is limiting Wabbit's options. The new wording makes it clear that the Moderator has the option to act on RoE violations. 1082. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/27/2000 4:49:32 AM Cal: 1083. Angel-Five - 2/27/2000 5:03:48 AM I'm definitely in support of a FAQ. I think it should have a tone along the lines of the revised RoE -- I'm really against them having a clubhouse feel to them. They should be crisp and professional and precise. And concise, which pretty much rules me out as an author. We have to keep in mind that the FAQ are probably going to shape some peoples' perceptions of what the Mote is all about, so we should probably pick someone as close to center as possible to draft them anyway and radical centrists like myself don't apply. To me, I'd like to see something like 1084. Angel-Five - 2/27/2000 5:05:16 AM I'll revise: I don't think it matters who actually authors the FAQ (it would probably be best as a group project, actually) so long as the tone and statements come in close to center. 1085. CalGal - 2/27/2000 10:34:00 AM Irv, 1086. CalGal - 2/27/2000 10:35:43 AM Some people were outraged--could a host just do that sort of thing? 1087. dusty - 2/27/2000 10:45:45 AM CalGal 1088. dusty - 2/27/2000 10:48:29 AM Angel-Five 1089. dusty - 2/27/2000 10:52:30 AM CalGal 1090. dusty - 2/27/2000 11:16:33 AM CalGal 1091. dusty - 2/27/2000 11:27:15 AM CalGal 1092. CalGal - 2/27/2000 11:28:06 AM Yes, silence = assent for all proposals, IMO. If we posted an announcement in every thread that we were about to move towards a transparent forum unless we heard otherwise, silence would equate to acceptance. 1093. dusty - 2/27/2000 11:32:52 AM BTW, I don't think the silence=assent is a priori wrong. If a group wants to affirmatively adopt it as a rule, it can work. Some committees work this way. In some rare occasions (person and SO) it can be a tacit agreement, but this usually requires people who are very close. The second doesn't apply here—the first did't happen. 1094. dusty - 2/27/2000 11:34:21 AM CalGal 1095. CalGal - 2/27/2000 11:34:33 AM There is interest in a FAQ. 1096. dusty - 2/27/2000 11:37:02 AM CalGal 1097. CalGal - 2/27/2000 11:39:20 AM Good crosspost. I agree if we did that. We didn't. 1098. dusty - 2/27/2000 11:39:23 AM CalGal 1099. CalGal - 2/27/2000 11:40:15 AM I posted to that effect in the book thread, and in other threads. 1100. dusty - 2/27/2000 11:48:24 AM CalGal 1101. dusty - 2/27/2000 11:50:57 AM CalGal 1102. dusty - 2/27/2000 11:53:32 AM CalGal 1103. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/27/2000 12:01:48 PM God, this gives me a headache. 1104. dusty - 2/27/2000 12:19:39 PM IrvingSnodgrass 1105. CalGal - 2/27/2000 12:22:00 PM Irv, 1106. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/27/2000 12:41:05 PM OK, Dusty. You can change that sentence to read "The Moderator then makes a decision taking that consensus into consideration" on your copy. But be careful to get the white-out on the right place on your screen. 1107. CalGal - 2/27/2000 12:58:58 PM This time. Not in September. And I don't think a single announcement this time stated that silence would be considered assent. Please refer me to it, if I missed it. 1108. seguine - 2/27/2000 1:09:44 PM CG to A-5: "I support your right to request changes. But I do wish you wouldn't pretend there was some conspiracy." 1109. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/27/2000 1:14:47 PM Seguine: 1110. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/27/2000 1:24:23 PM The FAQ is linked from Message # 864. 1111. seguine - 2/27/2000 1:26:35 PM CG: "Frankly, if someone squawks about their free speech rights, I'd just as soon that anyone be able to link in the FAQ saying, "Perhaps you missed this?"" 1112. dusty - 2/27/2000 1:30:06 PM IrvingSnodgrass 1113. CalGal - 2/27/2000 1:31:59 PM Seg, 1114. dusty - 2/27/2000 1:35:02 PM CalGal, your post Msg num=1107> recites three long paragraphs of history. Not a single word relating to your assertion that silence=assent. 1115. CalGal - 2/27/2000 1:35:36 PM Seguine, 1116. CalGal - 2/27/2000 1:37:36 PM Dusty, 1117. seguine - 2/27/2000 1:39:07 PM From my msg 853 (my original proposed changes to the RoE were in msg 850; I've agreed to Irv's subsequent version): 1118. CalGal - 2/27/2000 1:39:56 PM I just read my post about Irv's draft--I want to be clear that there was a good deal of support for his wording, and a good number who preferred it. Overall, I'd say the consensus is to formalize the tone. It is the structure and the part about spelling out the action taken that I'm less happy with, so I thought I'd create a draft with those two things addressed, keeping the formal tone. 1119. dusty - 2/27/2000 1:47:38 PM CalGal 1120. dusty - 2/27/2000 1:48:38 PM Oops, meant that to be italics, not yelling. My bad. I'll try to use "Check for dust" 1121. dusty - 2/27/2000 1:52:13 PM CalGal 1122. seguine - 2/27/2000 2:05:45 PM "And you yourself referred to "partisan" efforts, as well as my desire to control the forum." 1123. CalGal - 2/27/2000 2:06:26 PM Dusty, 1124. seguine - 2/27/2000 2:07:51 PM "It is the structure and the part about spelling out the action taken that I'm less happy with, so I thought I'd create a draft with those two things addressed, keeping the formal tone." 1125. CalGal - 2/27/2000 2:15:19 PM Seguine, 1126. CalGal - 2/27/2000 2:16:48 PM Seguine, 1127. CalGal - 2/27/2000 2:17:25 PM However, for now, this is getting personal--and tedious. So I'm checking out for a while to let the conspiracy mongers have at me. 1128. dusty - 2/27/2000 2:19:12 PM CalGal 1129. dusty - 2/27/2000 2:30:55 PM CalGal 1130. seguine - 2/27/2000 2:31:23 PM CalGal, 1131. seguine - 2/27/2000 2:33:22 PM "I format the text and write everything until someone comes along and complains." 1132. Seguine - 2/27/2000 4:19:48 PM CG: "Yet I see no acknowledgement on your part that the majority of people who posted here in this recent go-round expressed no agreement with your proposal or Angel's, but rather agreement with Irv's new wording or support for the existing RoE." 1133. Angel-Five - 2/27/2000 4:29:47 PM Actually, CalGal, the overwhelming percentage of participants agree with me that your ideas of consensus are erroneous. Because out of all of them who have since read or posted, like two or three has said anything at all about it... and silence, you know, means assent. As to you rewriting the revision: I say no. It's pointless and since you see no problem with your earlier wording, likely to be less satisfactory to the people who preferred Irv's version than Irv's version already is. You complain about the length of the discussion and then propose to take more time and offer another rewrite which will 'sound' more like Irving's? Why? What's the possible point? You of course are free to offer a revision. No one here is going to try to pull the 'well, there's no consensus to even discuss this new revision' garbage that you pulled on me. But if your only aim is to produce a document that a) sounds more like Irv's work and b) you yourself wrote, I really don't know what the point is. 1134. Angel-Five - 2/27/2000 4:42:22 PM Let's get something straight here. If we go out and announce in every thread that there's a policy discussion going on in Policy (which we never did before anyway) and that everyone who wants a say in what goes on in the Mote had better attend to have their say, and a lot of people can't be bothered to show up to read your RoE, CalGal, or the DO show up and have nothing to say one way or another... It doesn't mean that they agree. It means that they passed on their chance to offer their voice and that they tacitly renounced their right to help decide what happens wrt the RoE. Those people can't really complain that the consensus ignored them. They don't have much of a right to bitch about whether the RoE should have been initially adopted. But they aren't agreeing with the RoE; they're removing their ability to disagree. It is a totally different thing altogether. Totally. You would have it that they're supporting you, because you know that without that 'assent' the support you constantly speak of for the old RoE is so much foxfire. It'd be nice for you if all of them did support the old RoE, but I have to break it to you -- if they didn't say they do, you sure as fuck can't say they do. It is the wont of demogogues around the world to indicate that if someone doesn't vote against them, they support them, but most people know that's bullshit. Voting is positive assent or negative assent, but not voting is neutral. So enough of this silence = assent crap. Silence may equal complaisance but not assent. OR else, I believe, the silent majority has just supported me when I told you that your views on consensus are totally full of shit. 1135. Angel-Five - 2/27/2000 4:52:57 PM BTW, CalGal: Irv himself indicated that both Seguine and I had a lot to do with the revision. Unlike you, I don't need credit for it... but the revision to the rules does incorporate the main thing I asked for, which is some attempt at clarity (which Irv achieved) and clear reference to the moderator as big cheese and final arbiter (which Irv also achieved). You natter on and on and on and on about transparency, probably because you've got nothing else to say. Transparency, transparency, transparency. How come Angel and Seguine like the new RoE but the new RoE doesn't force transparency? Yadda yadda. Transparency. You sound like Rosettastone. And each time you bring it up, I will again point out the obvious truth and make you look bad and illiterate, again. I've never asked that the RoE be changed to support or demand transparency -- not without the overwhelming majority of Motiers also asking for the same thing. So please feel free to bring it up again. 1136. Angel-Five - 2/27/2000 5:02:11 PM Re: the FAQ 1137. Seguine - 2/27/2000 5:50:44 PM By the way, and pursuant to A5's 1135, I have also never argued for transparency of ID, and my argument for transparency of operations specified that it be achieved in the FAQ and not in the RoE. For Californians who can't read, my concerns about transparency are expressed in the questions "Who runs the Mote?" and "How do I propose a policy change?". I added yet another suggestion in Message # 1117: 1138. Angel-Five - 2/27/2000 6:49:21 PM A hypothetical argument: Let's say I'm really good friends with Posters X, Y, and Z, we chat each other up on ICQ every day, know each others real names and jobs and lovers and pets and we've met IRL more than once and we get along generally pretty well in the Mote. We're close, for computer friends. And I come along one day and launch some horrendous proposal in the Mote. I don't think that I'm getting enough to do in the Mote, and I don't have my fair share of responsibility and authority, for whatever reason. I think that some kind of proposal is necessary for the Mote, but that's not the entirety of why I'm forwarding it. So I stand up and propose it for adoption by the Mote. X, Y, and Z are all aware of how I and the Mote Staff get along because I've bitched to them about it nonstop, and they have empathy for me. Moreover, they're my friends. They see that my proposal is pretty much harmless because it's so vague, but they don't like the way they think I've been treated and they think it's good if I have more of an apparent hand in events in the Mote. 1139. Angel-Five - 2/27/2000 6:49:40 PM So if they nod their heads are they supporting the proposal, or me? Or are they just politicking because (rightfully or wrongfully) they don't think I've been treated fairly? And all my other friends that didn't say a word (maybe they don't know the big picture, maybe they don't even know I'm putting something up for proposal, maybe they know but don't approve, maybe they don't like the politics of it) -- are they tacitly supporting me, or just refusing to get into the argument and get dirty because they don't think it's important or worth it? OR are they against my proposal but don't want to stab me in the back, as it were? It's a complex issue. You can't claim in this sort of a situation that anybody's reasons for supporting or attacking a proposal are simple to derive. It's certain that when you break it all down you can't claim that everyone who supported me or stood against me did so because of the strength of my proposal. It's also certain that if the powers that be assented to my proposal that they didn't necessarily do so because they thought I was right. It's politics. It's also a shame. 1140. JayAckroyd - 2/27/2000 7:30:48 PM I want to make sure my positions are clear. 1141. Angel-Five - 2/27/2000 8:03:59 PM I like Angel-5. It's grown on me a lot. Call that what you will. Does that sound reasonable? 1142. CalGal - 2/27/2000 8:44:37 PM Seguine, 1143. Seguine - 2/27/2000 8:56:13 PM Hey, A-5, I rather like that suggestion. 1144. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/27/2000 9:08:07 PM Dusty: 1145. CalGal - 2/27/2000 9:14:48 PM God almighty. You all must think Wabbit has unlimited time. 1146. arkymalarky - 2/27/2000 9:17:49 PM Message # 1143 1147. Indiana Jones - 2/27/2000 9:20:56 PM If anyone "outs" themselves, that's his/her problem. You have something you don't want brought up, keep it a secret. I don't want to know anything you're going to cry to the sysop about later. Currently, we have very little problem with the transparency issue, and all proposed changes complicate it. 1148. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/27/2000 9:22:14 PM It's a nice idea in principle, but would be a nightmare to implement. It would also require the support and active participation of all thread hosts, which in itself is unlikely. 1149. CalGal - 2/27/2000 9:22:30 PM Okay, here's what I did with Irv's draft. I copied it all verbatim, with one exception--I made the wording more consistent and added who and what could do what. I also underscored the terms--we can make them hyperlinks and spell out "private information", "threats", and "abuse" in the FAQ. Alternately, we can define them all in greater detail in the RoE--but right now, Irv had one spelled out (private information) and not the other two. I think we should be consistent on that. However, if enough people want the asterisk in Irv's original draft, I'm not going to fuss. I just thought I'd show what I mean. 1150. CalGal - 2/27/2000 9:25:06 PM 1151. Seguine - 2/27/2000 9:32:13 PM "In this discussion, "transparency" refers to the practice of using real names and having no privacy rules." 1152. Seguine - 2/27/2000 9:47:38 PM Irv's Version: 1153. Seguine - 2/27/2000 9:48:22 PM toys 1154. Seguine - 2/27/2000 9:54:22 PM [In the recap above, disregard the boldface from "The Mote does not endorse..." onward] 1155. Seguine - 2/27/2000 9:55:16 PM Keerist. Enough of the bold already. 1156. Seguine - 2/27/2000 9:55:55 PM 1157. Seguine - 2/27/2000 9:56:30 PM (Well, I tried.) 1158. Angel-Five - 2/27/2000 9:58:47 PM Irv's version is clearer as to function. 1159. Angel-Five - 2/27/2000 10:03:25 PM Hey, I've got an idea. Why don't I rewrite Irv's revision and change another twenty words and rearrange some of the order meaninglessly, and then we can debate my revision? I mean, it won't make any difference, but at least I'll have written them, right? 1160. Angel-Five - 2/27/2000 10:34:36 PM I think this is going to get nasty if it keeps up, so I'm just going to say this and then hopefully we can move on and put Irv's revision up on the big board and be done with this for a little while. Most of the Motiers who have objected to the old RoE or stated a preference for the new RoE have mentioned tone. They also have mentioned clarity and specificity. Yet, CalGal, though you've already been corrected on it once, you insist on saying it's a matter of tone and then go on your merry way rewriting. You really need to realize that clarity and specificity are important to many of the people who have, which is why the specificity relating to the Moderator --not constraint, but specificity -- is a valuable part of Irv's revision of your old RoE. I see no additional clarity in your re-revision and I see indeed a loss of specificity as to function. Given that otherwise every single thing in your re-revision is a direct copy of Irving's draft, I'm totally at a loss as to what, if any, legitimate point you may have in 'rewriting' Irving's draft. Certainly no one else has called for a revision of Irv's draft which muddles up the agency of post moving and deletion because they're worried it's all a little too specific when Irv explicitly links thread hosts and moderators to deletion. 1161. Seguine - 2/27/2000 11:37:52 PM To be fair: CalGal may not understand why Irv broke up items 1-2 and 3-4. 1162. Seguine - 2/27/2000 11:48:28 PM Also, Irv specifies that posts may be moved to the Inferno. This strikes me as a useful specific, so I'm not sure why the CG edit doesn't include it. 1163. Indiana Jones - 2/27/2000 11:58:08 PM Incidentally, making the moderator the final arbiter of a host's editorial discretion is a change from the current RoE, at least as practiced if not in letter. When wabbit made me host of Spiritual Issues, she specifically said "I won't second-guess you." 1164. CalGal - 2/28/2000 12:07:39 AM For rules 1 and 2, the Moderator makes all decisions. 1165. CalGal - 2/28/2000 12:08:16 AM the first is defined adequately by Irv's asterisk text; the second and third are left undefined on purpose because their definition in any given event is the prerogative of the Moderator to decide 1166. Seguine - 2/28/2000 12:09:10 AM I do still think the Irv Version (and CG's edit) would benefit by eliminating the "possible"s I mentioned previously. These qualify the fact that action may be taken, thus weakening the warning against the prohibited behavior. 1167. Seguine - 2/28/2000 12:27:53 AM "I should have underlined the "relocation", ..." 1168. Seguine - 2/28/2000 12:47:47 AM "Agreed, but still: people will want to know what we mean by "abuse" and people will want to know what we mean by "threat", just as they want to know what is meant by "private information". 1169. Seguine - 2/28/2000 1:07:50 AM Seg: "For rules 1 and 2, the Moderator makes all decisions." 1170. Seguine - 2/28/2000 1:09:08 AM 1171. Seguine - 2/28/2000 1:10:44 AM The effect of the bold should have been to highlight the phrase "will be deleted,", including its comma. 1172. Seguine - 2/28/2000 1:25:16 AM "That was why I changed it--because Irv's wording gave the impression that only the Moderator could delete posts, and that only the thread host could move things." 1173. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/28/2000 5:50:42 AM My connection is so slow right now I can't page back to make comments, so I'll do it from memory. 1174. JayAckroyd - 2/28/2000 8:11:20 AM Message # 1143 1175. Dusty - 2/28/2000 8:43:03 AM IrvingSnodgrass 1176. Seguine - 2/28/2000 10:41:54 AM Irv: "How about if I attempt a rewrite...?" 1177. JayAckroyd - 2/28/2000 10:57:23 AM It's true that pseudonym policing becomes a problem in an environment where openness is enforced. In the open sites I've been involved in in the past, it was enforced by billing name on the credit card used for the subscription. As a free site, we don't have that option. 1178. Seguine - 2/28/2000 12:04:09 PM "...all you can do is use moral suasion, and wait for enough people to see the light." 1179. JayAckroyd - 2/28/2000 12:14:07 PM Summer Breeze, makes me feel fine, blowing through the 1180. JayAckroyd - 2/28/2000 12:25:22 PM Actually, it's more like a guy who worked for once. He always wondered why the free market types were always shouting so loudly and so often. I mean, if they were right, then it is really just a matter of time, isn't it? So why talk about it? 1181. CalGal - 2/28/2000 12:38:30 PM Irv, 1182. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/28/2000 1:36:30 PM Jay: 1183. 109109 - 2/28/2000 2:10:10 PM Angel 1184. Angel-Five - 2/28/2000 10:12:16 PM Type O Negative. Most excellent. 1185. Angel-Five - 2/28/2000 10:17:34 PM hahaha, Niner. To think that I could have ever once believed you were thomasD. 1186. wabbit - 2/29/2000 7:18:06 AM Benevolent dictator checking in... 1187. JayAckroyd - 2/29/2000 9:30:27 AM Defusing sociopaths is usually as simple as ignoring them. It's just hard to do, sometimes. 1188. Seguine - 2/29/2000 12:27:20 PM If you're an Iraqui, I expect it's hard to ignore Saddam. 1189. Angel-Five - 3/1/2000 2:35:52 PM Defusing sociopaths isn't unfortunately as simple as ignoring them. They will always, in practice, find someone to exploit within the forum, and the problem will grow from there once it has taken root. The same goes for people who aren't overtly sociopathic but are nonetheless divisive and destructive to the health of the forum as a whole. To ignore the game they're playing is to court disaster. However, there's no better alternative to ignoring that I can find. There are really only three ways of effectively dealing with one of these folks -- a) everyone agrees to ignore them (which as mentioned doesn't happen in reality) b) everyone rises up against them and bans them from the forum (which doesn't happen for similar reasons) and c) provide them with as few targets as possible and wait for them to get bored. They always get bored after enough time passes. One thing for sure is that appeasement usually doesn't work at all. It just makes the idiots stronger. And totally ignoring them doesn't help either, because they're usually really good at getting someone's attention that should know better. I think the best means is to point out, loud and clear, what they're up to -- and THEN do your best to let them bore themselves and leave. 1190. Indiana Jones - 3/6/2000 11:35:23 AM Re Niner's idea about a Gulag, earlier: I'd like to propose a new topic that would be a subthread of the Inferno: "Kick the shit out of cazart, the fecalphagous jackanapes." 1191. Angel-Five - 3/7/2000 1:08:38 AM I think it's 'coprophagous'. I'm still not for banning Cazart outright (though I think he's getting pretty close to justifiable grounds with his incessant spamming) but I predict you'll probably have a few takers on that one, Indiana. 1192. Indiana Jones - 3/7/2000 9:36:52 AM A5: Thanks. I couldn't remember the word and had to jury-rig an approximation, but that's the one I was looking for: cazart, the coprophagous jackanapes. 1193. cazart - 3/8/2000 10:26:32 PM Excuse me. Do I need to show a hall pass to complain about cazart? 1194. Indiana Jones - 3/9/2000 8:23:53 AM Tee-hee-hee. 1195. cazart - 3/9/2000 9:41:15 AM Nice giggle, pussy. 1196. cazart - 3/12/2000 12:00:21 PM Be advised, Stinkums, that you have 4 hours to remove your entry for my pseudonym from the MoteMovies link. 1197. Indiana Jones - 3/21/2000 5:22:29 PM Still going... 1198. cazart - 3/24/2000 9:57:16 PM Wabbit: 1199. Indiana Jones - 3/25/2000 6:39:55 PM Speaking of "hysterical and girl-like outbursts..." 1200. cazart - 3/25/2000 9:28:36 PM Hey, it's not hysterical or girl-like ala Stinkums. 1201. cazart - 4/3/2000 3:13:56 PM Now. Somebody fucking 'splain to me why CG gets to censor posts? 1202. Seguine - 4/4/2000 5:49:20 PM The following posts appeared in N&Q. I am re-posting them here in case folks wish to continue discussing the topic, as this is probably the better thread for it. 1203. Indiana Jones - 4/4/2000 6:06:09 PM Pelle: Any exercise of power can be seen as an abuse. 1204. Indiana Jones - 4/4/2000 6:06:46 PM (cont.) 1205. CalGal - 4/4/2000 6:19:49 PM Indy, 1206. Raskolnikov - 4/4/2000 6:23:22 PM The thread host shouldn't be required to hang around endlessly to wage a post war with a pest. A suspension of posting rights was warranted. I do agree that it is a good idea to immediately announce it, though. 1207. Indiana Jones - 4/4/2000 6:23:46 PM Cal: I did announce it to wabbit. I had no idea that she would be "out-of-pocket" this long, and since (as Pelle has noted), my action seemed preemptory, I didn't want to take more authority upon myself. 1208. CalGal - 4/4/2000 6:28:40 PM Indy, 1209. 109109 - 4/4/2000 6:32:03 PM Indiana 1210. CalGal - 4/4/2000 6:33:06 PM As far as a policy about announcing this, how often does it come up (even for wabbit)? 1211. Seguine - 4/4/2000 7:32:36 PM I am pleased to see CalGal advocating for greater transparency of operations. 1212. CalGal - 4/4/2000 8:30:23 PM I am pleased to see CalGal advocating for greater transparency of operations. 1213. Seguine - 4/4/2000 8:48:11 PM Oh please, please stop before my LOATHE function is reactivated. 1214. Raskolnikov - 4/4/2000 9:56:56 PM Indy: 1215. PelleNilsson - 4/5/2000 1:13:32 AM Indiana 1216. CalGal - 4/5/2000 2:08:47 AM Seguine, 1217. Seguine - 4/5/2000 11:31:35 AM CalGal, 1218. Seguine - 4/5/2000 11:57:09 AM For the record, my opinion is: 1219. CalGal - 4/5/2000 1:21:55 PM I didn't say it was a slight. I said it was inaccurate. I corrected it, then I got the "oh, please", etc. And I don't think anyone cares any more about my being fed up than they do about your "LOATHE function"--and yet, we both announce it because it makes us feel better. 1220. Seguine - 4/5/2000 2:34:52 PM "I didn't say it was a slight. I said it was inaccurate. I corrected it, then I ...." 1221. dusty - 4/5/2000 3:36:28 PM Based upon Cazart's recent posts in TT, I'm in favor of converting the disabling to semi-permanent banning (meaning, in a year or so, we might give him/her another chance—I think almost anyone has the potential for rehabilitation.) 1222. Raskolnikov - 4/5/2000 4:34:28 PM "I think almost anyone has the potential for rehabilitation" 1223. dusty - 4/5/2000 4:57:37 PM Hey, this isn't the Inferno. 1224. Raskolnikov - 4/5/2000 5:05:24 PM Sorry, I was distracted by the sight of blood coming out of your heart. 1226. soupisgoodfood - 4/5/2000 8:46:33 PM 1227. Seguine - 4/5/2000 9:42:06 PM Exactly. But Soup, if you scroll back (considerably), you'll find that there was an effort made here to rewrite the rules so that they addressed these issues a little less adolescently, while ultimately leaving all interpretation of matters like "needless abuse" to the moderator. 1228. wabbit - 4/9/2000 12:26:58 PM Can we come to some sort of agreement amongst ourselves, as if we were a group of adults who don't need every damn thing spelled out in black and white? 1229. Indiana Jones - 4/9/2000 4:50:00 PM wabbit: I have replied to your recent email. If you don't receive it, please let me know. 1255. ChristinO - 9/27/2000 6:20:09 PM The previous posts were deleted as they pertain to a policy debate at another forum. Please discuss TableTalk policies at TableTalk. Posts pertaining to their policies that turn up here will be deleted. 1256. Nostradamus - 9/27/2000 6:29:24 PM The Mote is now censoring substantive posts because they threaten to expose the truly horrendous behavior of former gatekeeper, IndianaJones. I don't care how much you dislike me personally, for the good of this place, you've got to stop this unbelievable, outrageous, despicable coverup NOW. 1257. ChristinO - 9/27/2000 6:36:43 PM IndianaJones tenure as gatekeeper here was to the best of my knowledge without fault. He conducted himself with integrity to the satisfaction of this forum. 1258. RosettaStone - 9/27/2000 8:53:06 PM IJ is innocent and the worse thing you can do is a coverup of a non-crime. 1259. Nostradamus - 9/27/2000 8:58:49 PM Rosie 1260. ChristinO - 9/27/2000 9:05:37 PM RosettaStone, 1261. RosettaStone - 9/27/2000 9:46:47 PM I've never been there, Nos. I just know that IJ is a good person and not a stalker. 1262. Nostradamus - 9/27/2000 9:57:05 PM Rosetta 1263. Michael Mele - 9/27/2000 10:13:55 PM What can you tell me about Stinky's Piggery (a website allegedly set up by the soon to be former Mote Gatekeeper, IndianaJones)? Have you ever been there? 1264. Nostradamus - 9/27/2000 10:36:39 PM Michael 1265. Nostradamus - 9/27/2000 10:38:00 PM I mean, I don't care if we have axe murderers and druglords POSTING, that's just gonna add a bit of variety. 1266. RosettaStone - 9/27/2000 11:05:12 PM MM: Muel claims that he does post on mote, although under another moniker, and I've never recognized his ID. 1267. CalGal - 9/27/2000 11:24:28 PM Michael, 1268. Indiana Jones - 9/27/2000 11:51:46 PM What can you tell me about Stinky's Piggery (a website allegedly set up by the soon to be former Mote Gatekeeper, IndianaJones)? Have you ever been there? 1269. Indiana Jones - 9/27/2000 11:52:01 PM (cont.) 1270. Indiana Jones - 9/27/2000 11:52:18 PM ChristinO: I apologize for again muddying this thread with my personal Fugitive saga ("I didn't kill my wife!" either), but as long as the dumbass crybaby is allowed to continue his genuine harassment of me, I prefer to not go unarmed. 1271. Indiana Jones - 9/27/2000 11:58:21 PM Michael Mele: Welcome to the Mote. I hope you'll stay as you will be a great addition. 1272. Michael Mele - 9/28/2000 4:25:44 AM Nostradamus -- 1273. Michael Mele - 9/28/2000 4:27:26 AM Nostradamus – 1274. quivver - 9/28/2000 8:13:37 AM I've seen all these lovely personality types in other arenas online, from Nos/God/happyfuzzball to Calgal to Irv to arky and so on. It's kind of fascinating how the internet draws certain sorts of people into online community situations where they play out certain roles. Sometimes those roles are related to real-life, other times not. 1275. PsychProf - 9/28/2000 11:55:23 AM Well Quiv, I've been here since 1996...how long term do ya want? 1276. quivver - 9/28/2000 12:03:35 PM I've only been bouncing round online since 95. By long-term I meant within the comfycouch zone of the mote, not necessarily other online fora i may or mayn't have observed mote peeps in action. ;D I'm old skool in a few places online, but a wee newborn kitten here. And I digress... 1277. PsychProf - 9/28/2000 12:12:12 PM Quiv...I meant here in the Mote/Fray...many of us have known eachother since 1996-1997. 1278. quivver - 9/28/2000 12:22:34 PM I know a lot of you have been together since whenever. I used to bumble around the Fray back when slate was almost cool to read, but not in anything other than a random infrequent way. In fact, it's that past history that is the fascinating aspect of the mote, seeing how this group will function with its old core from the larger forum, the new-old that have been around most of the past year, and the new-new, who have been around less than a sixmonth. It's uncommon to have several groups like that all interact in such a cosy environs. So I'd like to hang around and see how things go. Largish groups of smart people always yield surprises. :D 1279. PsychProf - 9/28/2000 3:28:28 PM Good to have ya. 1280. AceofSpades - 9/28/2000 4:39:58 PM 1281. AceofSpades - 9/28/2000 4:42:46 PM 1282. KuligintheHooligan - 9/28/2000 4:44:15 PM Diva, 1283. theDiva - 9/28/2000 4:48:54 PM Hoolio 1284. KuligintheHooligan - 9/28/2000 4:49:29 PM Ace, 1285. AceofSpades - 9/28/2000 4:49:48 PM 1286. AceofSpades - 9/28/2000 4:52:09 PM 1287. KuligintheHooligan - 9/28/2000 4:53:31 PM Diva, I suppose it really isn't worth discussing further. I don't blame you for not liking these sorts of things, and I know you didn't egg things on. But again, that isn't the point. What I saw of the posts I did read was several people taking their nasty shots at Nostradamus, and him doing it right back. Who started it is really immaterial. Then these same people come around after his banning and talk about how nasty he was! They were nasty too, but I guess someone has a nastiness meter I don't know about and determined that the combined nastiness of half a dozen people or more toward one person was not as offensive (or as easily dealt with) as the nasty of the one, who we don't really like anyway, so let's ban him. 1288. CalGal - 9/28/2000 4:55:52 PM Something else to remember, though--without getting too airy-fairy about it, I don't know of any Mote folks who actively seek to harm the forum. Why should we tolerate someone who is openly trying to do so? 1289. KuligintheHooligan - 9/28/2000 4:56:43 PM Ace, 1290. KuligintheHooligan - 9/28/2000 4:58:52 PM CalGal, and interesting post that has many facts of which I was entirely unaware. Like I said, I am speaking basically from ignorance on this matter. 1291. Dusty - 9/28/2000 5:21:48 PM KuligintheHooligan 1292. glendajean - 9/28/2000 5:43:06 PM I made a reference to Diva, and I stand by it. I hate it when somebody decides to cause a meltdown. But I particularly hate it when somebody starts talking about the health and/or children of a pregnant woman. 1293. bubbaette - 9/28/2000 8:48:46 PM Kuligan is well aware of that past action for which Nos was initially banned because, as I recall, he was part of it and acting as Nos' advisor. In view of that, I think he's being a bit disinguenuous now. 1294. Indiana Jones - 9/29/2000 2:33:05 AM I don't know of any Mote folks who actively seek to harm the forum. Why should we tolerate someone who is openly trying to do so? 1295. Indiana Jones - 9/29/2000 2:33:21 AM Just to clarify: I don't think dissent should become grounds for banishment, but when the dissenter asserts himself to the degree that he begins to turn the Mote into what he desires rather than what most of its participants and community builders desire, then that is another matter. 1296. PelleNilsson - 9/29/2000 5:11:39 AM I wish it to be on record that I completely supported, and still support, wabbit's decision in the Nostradamus case. 1297. PsychProf - 9/29/2000 7:41:03 AM I guess I am alone on this one, but I honestly felt that Nos was going to contribute new vitality to our cyberhome. I am very uncomfortable with all this backslapping. 1298. KuligintheHooligan - 9/29/2000 8:10:40 AM bubbaette, I don't really recall why Nos was banned the first time, but it certainly had nothing to do with me. That you even imply so is unfair and entirely misleading by you. 1299. KuligintheHooligan - 9/29/2000 8:14:06 AM "Kuligan is well aware of that past action for which Nos was initially banned because, as I recall, he was part of it and acting as Nos' advisor. In view of that, I think he's being a bit disinguenuous now." 1300. KuligintheHooligan - 9/29/2000 8:21:50 AM I should also point out that if what CalGal said was true, that all we had was a poster that was going from thread to thread "shitting" on the place and not providing any substantive content, then we should ban such a person. I mean, really, why put up with such nonsense? 1301. rubberducky - 9/29/2000 8:53:07 AM Re: Message # 1297, PsychProf. 1302. quivver - 9/29/2000 9:00:38 AM Nos will most likely be back in like a week. I'm refraining from comment about his banning, since I don't feel a pressing need to add to the list of comments. But no-one should look surprised if some smart alecky, slightly over-the-top-with-egomania kid comes barrelling back in real soon now. Of course, I'm probably stating the blindingly obvious there, but it may only be supposition. Time for bed. 1303. bubbaette - 9/29/2000 9:16:24 AM Kuligan 1304. bubbaette - 9/29/2000 9:22:11 AM Ducky 1305. rubberducky - 9/29/2000 10:07:37 AM well, i've always been one for 2nd chances. i don't really think past behavior for which penance was served (the day banning) should be taken into account wrt current behavior. 1306. CalGal - 9/29/2000 12:16:52 PM A few clarifications: 1307. KuligintheHooligan - 9/29/2000 12:36:03 PM bubbaette, you are continuing it seems then to perpetuate an out and out lie about me and my "involvement" with the first banning of Nos. That isn't anything new coming from you, of course, since you have majored in falsities about me in the past, over and over again. So this is nothing new, but I feel the need to just point out at least to those people here that may be easily duped by your lies that I had nothing to do with his first banning. Again, I can't even remember why he was banned (although CalGal's recent post sheds some light). 1308. KuligintheHooligan - 9/29/2000 12:40:03 PM So, you have made a false claim about me bubbaette, and so again, I ask you to either retract it, or substantiate it and at least give me the chance to specifically address your errant claim. That certainly isn't asking too much. 1309. KuligintheHooligan - 10/3/2000 10:40:11 AM Your silence is golden bubbaette. 1310. Dusty - 10/13/2000 12:31:37 PM Did we decide that thread hosts have absolute authority? I thought we had a minor blowup over an issue where a thread host thought this was the case, but was wrong. 1311. CalGal - 10/18/2000 12:37:01 AM ????? 1312. wabbit - 4/2/2001 12:22:03 PM Is it time to revisit the RoE? 1313. ChristinO - 4/2/2001 12:41:42 PM They look good to me Wabbit. I'm in complete agreement. 1314. seadate - 4/2/2001 2:20:10 PM Wabbit, 1315. seadate - 4/2/2001 2:30:21 PM Forgive the lousy grammar. 1316. wabbit - 4/2/2001 2:36:30 PM Seadate, 1317. seadate - 4/2/2001 2:48:01 PM Agreed. 1318. seadate - 4/2/2001 2:51:53 PM Wabbit, 1319. wabbit - 4/2/2001 3:24:15 PM No problem, Seadate, your post was fine. 1320. wabbit - 4/2/2001 6:08:43 PM Anyone have any problems with the revised RoE? Now is the time to speak up. 1321. Indiana Jones - 4/2/2001 6:21:54 PM I have no problem with them. 1322. Jon Ferguson - 4/2/2001 6:37:46 PM The problem is not with the RoE. The problem is the lack of consistency with which they are enforced. 1323. wabbit - 4/2/2001 7:00:41 PM I've sent emails to all three citing your hearty recommendation. 1324. AceofSpades - 4/2/2001 7:41:20 PM 1325. vonKreedon - 4/3/2001 8:45:47 AM I was about to join Ace as a self-described obtuse moron, but first I looked at the current RoE and saw that the proposed RoE are much longer. New rules include: 1326. RickNelson - 4/3/2001 9:07:31 AM I'm happy with the RoE. I think it defines important behavioral and technical expectations clearly. 1327. RickNelson - 4/3/2001 9:08:45 AM I'm happy with the revised RoE. 1328. vonKreedon - 4/3/2001 9:08:59 AM 1329. JayAckroyd - 4/3/2001 9:14:06 AM The real issue is that the problem JonF is causing is not really a question of 'abuse.' He's just being really annoying and repetitive (at least from what I've read). We've had that before, with all threads spammed with identical messages, with the current situation with posting outside content in Politics (which may be a copyright violation, btw). 1330. wabbit - 4/3/2001 9:17:52 AM vonKreedon, 1331. vonKreedon - 4/3/2001 10:00:38 AM 1332. Jon Ferguson - 4/3/2001 11:30:10 AM Jay 1333. Jon Ferguson - 4/3/2001 11:35:07 AM re 1325 1334. JayAckroyd - 4/3/2001 12:04:27 PM Actually, the correction was appreciated. I don't understand why helping someone out after he or she makes an error needs to take the form of taking someone to task, but whatever floats your boat. 1335. Jon Ferguson - 4/3/2001 12:43:49 PM Jay 1336. wabbit - 4/3/2001 2:56:23 PM Proposed 1337. wabbit - 4/3/2001 2:57:57 PM Possible reasons for deleting/moving posts: 1338. Indiana Jones - 4/3/2001 2:59:24 PM Sounds good to me. 1339. PelleNilsson - 4/3/2001 3:16:25 PM Same here. 1340. seadate - 4/3/2001 3:19:36 PM And here. 1341. jayackroyd - 4/3/2001 3:56:18 PM JF 1342. jayackroyd - 4/3/2001 4:00:44 PM I'd add something like: 1343. MsIvoryTower - 4/3/2001 5:13:34 PM Not only would I second Jay's addition, I really think the language is too loose, Wabbit. 1344. Ms. No - 4/3/2001 6:13:52 PM MsIt, 1345. Ms. No - 4/3/2001 6:15:17 PM Wabbit, 1346. Jon Ferguson - 4/3/2001 7:53:24 PM Jay 1347. CalGal - 4/4/2001 12:57:51 AM Do not be needlessly abusive of other posters. 1348. Autodaffy - 4/4/2001 1:25:09 AM I object to the changes relating to owing an offending poster an explanation for deletions or moves. I know of no notion of "common decency" that establishes such a thing, and it would seem uncalled for in the case of name-calling, etc. Nor do I think it inevitable that "things can become ugly." If SOMEONE becomes ugly, they should be stopped. 1349. vonKreedon - 4/4/2001 2:39:55 AM 1350. Slackjaw - 4/4/2001 2:49:34 AM I like the new hosting guidelines. Offering an explanation for deleted posts (at least the first couple times a member of a class of deletable posts by one person appears) is useful and may stick. 1351. Ms. No - 4/4/2001 4:31:27 PM Autodaffy, 1352. wabbit - 4/4/2001 5:37:13 PM Sorry for not getting back sooner, I got home very late from work last night and have now just gotten home from work again (and I'm sure you're all so happy to know that). 1353. arkymalarky - 4/4/2001 7:53:49 PM "...I'm not married to it if people agree that it implies too much protection." 1354. CalGal - 4/4/2001 7:58:27 PM Wabbit, 1355. arkymalarky - 4/4/2001 8:10:37 PM "So the more generic statement covers posters still, if necessary, but doesn't specifically exist to protect posters." 1356. MsIvoryTower - 4/4/2001 8:25:25 PM For the record MsNo I didn't argue that Autodaffy had "abused" his privileges. I argued that the present lack of accountability on the part of hosts for their actions in deleting or moving posts encourages arbitrary and petty behavior. 1357. Jon Ferguson - 4/5/2001 12:31:30 AM Outweighed? Is that how things get decided around here? Well no wonder... (g) 1358. MsIvoryTower - 4/5/2001 9:42:52 AM As I said in the regions above.... 1359. wabbit - 4/7/2001 3:02:18 PM 1360. wabbit - 4/7/2001 3:07:43 PM Possible reasons for deleting/moving posts: 1361. Jon Ferguson - 4/7/2001 9:16:37 PM Three comments: 1362. Jon Ferguson - 4/7/2001 9:18:43 PM Typed too quickly. 'explicitly' probably works better in front of 'addressed' than in front of 'poster'. 1363. Jon Ferguson - 4/7/2001 9:20:39 PM Hmmm. Ever have one of those days? (g) 1364. Jon Ferguson - 4/7/2001 9:58:31 PM Oh, one more thing. 1365. wabbit - 4/8/2001 12:11:02 AM Jon, #'s 2 and 3 are both good points. Rewrite forthcoming. 1366. Jon Ferguson - 4/8/2001 10:01:03 PM wabbit 1367. Jon Ferguson - 4/9/2001 11:11:32 AM I object to my imminent banning. Pelle should be removed as moderator forthwith. 1368. CalGal - 4/9/2001 11:16:03 AM I think I've shown remarkable restraint in my criticism of both you and the 2 other PTB, who each fully supported your most recent unjustified decision to ban me. 1369. Lord Ferguson. - 4/9/2001 7:02:05 PM Cal 1370. JayAckroyd - 4/9/2001 8:28:16 PM JonF's postings in the slow thread have not been designed to undermine the site. They've been on topic, responsive and somewhat rude, ruder than the normal slow thread tone, but nowhere near as rude as Ace's (for example) normal posting voice in any thread. 1376. JayAckroyd - 4/9/2001 9:40:28 PM Please delete 1372 through 1375. 1377. Dusty - 4/10/2001 5:19:33 AM It appears that Jon was banned? 1378. Indiana Jones - 4/10/2001 9:20:44 AM I'm in the middle of a crunch and can't devote a lot of time to this right now, but here's my two cents. 1379. Dusty - 4/10/2001 10:37:22 AM Indiana Jones 1380. Indiana Jones - 4/10/2001 11:36:03 AM My impression is not that someone woke up and realized he was banned before, but that the current banning is for some current offence. 1381. Ms. No - 4/10/2001 1:22:18 PM The deleted posts were Jon Ferguson impersonating another Mote poster. 1382. alistairconnor - 4/11/2001 5:00:29 AM Jon is gone for good. We have broken new ground with this : previously, IDs have been banned, and it seems that the people involved have had the good taste to respect the ban. Because there is no technical means of actually banning a person rather than an ID. So he has forced us to innovate, by challenging the authority of the moderators to ban. The whole business was messy because he wanted it to be messy; we were slow to react, and too tolerant, because we're like that. 1383. rubberducky - 4/11/2001 10:13:12 AM how did he imitate? that's what i'm not getting 1384. Ms. No - 4/11/2001 12:24:07 PM He altered the name of a legitimate poster in such a way as to appear to be that person and then posted. 1385. wabbit - 4/27/2001 11:10:56 AM Thread Hosting Guidelines 1386. arkymalarky - 4/28/2001 10:52:45 AM I like them both, Wabbit. 1387. Autodaffy - 4/30/2001 12:38:18 AM This post copied from politics is directed to the three people most responsible for the low level of discussion in the mote and responsible for the low level of participation in the mote, that is to say, why people do not choose to participate. It was occasioned by Jexter doing what he has always done in politics, which you see fit not to change. Your actions and inactions are reprehensible: 1388. wabbit - 4/30/2001 7:52:13 AM Autodaffy, 1389. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 4/30/2001 11:46:08 AM The good doctor has two questions. 1390. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 4/30/2001 11:48:50 AM To make that perfectly clear lest any be offended, no one should go into a battle with Dr. Coltrane if the chosen weapons are rapier wits because I am the Zorro and all the rest my pupils, but I do not underestimiate my oponents. 1391. Ms. No - 4/30/2001 2:43:25 PM Wabbit, 1392. Ms. No - 4/30/2001 5:03:15 PM Autodaffy, 1393. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 5/1/2001 9:10:59 AM In point of fact the good doctor treats others with respect than I myself recieve. 1394. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 5/2/2001 5:48:29 PM Testing...testing...testing...testing... 1395. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 5/2/2001 5:49:22 PM Should I repeat my missive on the other domicile in hopes that it shall be addressed? 1396. Dusty - 5/3/2001 12:27:24 PM But the transformation of the Welcome thread into a DC thread raises Policy issues. Do we create thread topics and assign hosts to manage that subject, or do we grant thread hosting rights to individuals to do whatever whim strikes their fancy? I know that Ace has pushed into new ground on this issue, but Marj has taken it a quantum leap beyond. While some may misinterpret this as a slap at Marj, that is not my intent. What are the rules? Can Wombat decide that History is boring and change the thread title to "Discuss Sex and Policy here?" 1397. JJBiener - 5/3/2001 12:36:07 PM Dusty - I could be mistaken, but I believe the conversion from Welcome to DC was discussed in Suggestions and there was generally agreement with the change. It is different from Ace's thread where the changes were completely arbitrary. 1398. Ms. No - 5/3/2001 1:46:28 PM Dr. X, 1399. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 6/7/2001 1:18:05 PM > Frankly, yes, I've been ignoring you. 1400. Ms. No - 6/21/2001 6:55:39 PM Perhaps you should rethink the tongue in cheek nature of the phrase "needlessly verbose". 1401. iiibbb - 7/5/2001 8:16:16 AM Is it my understanding that as host, while I cannot change the topic, I can change the title? 1402. iiibbb - 7/5/2001 8:20:15 AM I know Ace changed title alot, but if I remember it was major deviations in topic that was the problem... 1403. arkymalarky - 7/5/2001 9:59:17 AM Never concern yourself over rules based on anything Rose says. 1404. Ms. No - 7/5/2001 12:12:24 PM iiibbb, 1406. RosettaStone - 7/5/2001 2:18:45 PM shit. erase that because Charlie's name was given in body of copy. will redo. 1407. RosettaStone - 7/5/2001 2:19:22 PM From the Mote Annex, before they're deleted by PR-expert IJ: 1408. bubbaette - 7/5/2001 2:57:15 PM It appears to me that Rosie Pot has been exposing another motier's name here. 1409. PsychProf - 7/5/2001 3:19:56 PM Hahahaha...hoisted by his own petard. 1410. Ms. No - 7/5/2001 3:30:03 PM RosettaStone, 1411. JudithAtHome - 7/5/2001 3:40:27 PM What about Rose posting Charlies name here? I thought that wasn't allowed...something he learned in another forum being posted here? He called for it to be deleted so he knows it's wrong... 1412. Ms. No - 7/5/2001 4:05:36 PM Call me naive, but I can believe that it was an honest mistake. If it was a deliberate action there's really no way for me to know for certain. 1413. RosettaStone - 7/5/2001 4:31:20 PM Revealing my name is not nearly as important as the fact that CharlieL has gone to the effort through the internet to find my home address and daughter's telephone number and published it regularly to punish me politically. 1414. Ms. No - 7/5/2001 6:11:21 PM RosettaStone has once again been suspended for two weeks for brining up this tireless subject outside the Policy thread against express instructions not to do so. 1415. don s. - 7/5/2001 6:12:26 PM And because I bring this up here, warning people, I'm threaten [sic] with being banned. 1416. don s. - 7/5/2001 6:12:42 PM Cousins marrying, maybe? 1417. RosettaStone - 7/5/2001 10:59:28 PM So talking about TT in the Tabled Talk thread is off topic? 1418. mgleason - 7/18/2001 9:54:21 AM 2320. Indiana Jones - 7/18/01 2:36:22 PM 1419. Indiana Jones - 7/18/2001 10:11:48 AM mgleason: I note your opinion but do not agree with it. 1420. mgleason - 7/18/2001 10:15:41 AM It is not an opinion, but a true recounting of the events that transpired. 1421. Indiana Jones - 7/18/2001 10:17:47 AM I note your opinion that this is a matter for the Mote Policies thread, but do not agree with that contention. 1422. mgleason - 7/18/2001 10:42:26 AM As I noted earlier, we attempted to handle this through the moderators in lieu of discussing the matter in this or any other thread, but that was apparently unacceptable to you. 1423. IrvingSnodgrass - 7/18/2001 11:03:05 AM Indy: 1424. Indiana Jones - 7/18/2001 11:05:38 AM Maria: It is my prerogative to decline to discuss my personal correspondence--real or purported--with Mote moderators unless it is sent by me to them. Regardless of whether you think it is an issue for their jurisdiction, I don't. 1425. mgleason - 7/18/2001 11:19:24 AM Indiana, 1426. Indiana Jones - 7/18/2001 11:43:32 AM Maria: You are certainly free to state whatever you wish publicly. I am not compelled to do likewise. 1427. mgleason - 7/18/2001 11:54:44 AM When you involve me in your actions, and refuse to resolve the matter discreetly, I am not out of line in asking for an explanation, which you have yet to provide. 1428. Indiana Jones - 7/18/2001 12:01:53 PM Maria: Unfortunately by its nature, discretion is seldom recognized except in its absence. 1429. Ms. No - 7/18/2001 12:07:44 PM Indy, 1430. CalGal - 7/18/2001 2:01:22 PM Suppose this hadn't been about a moderated incident. Suppose instead that Indy had sent a letter to me saying "CalGal, you are ruining the forum. Signed:" and includes a list of people. It's not an issue involving the moderators. Should he be allowed to choose any names he wants, without regard for whether or not they actually agree? 1431. arkymalarky - 7/18/2001 2:46:43 PM The sentence with the names following basically says the people listed have expressed support of Msgreer and would like her to return to the Mote and to hosting. 1432. PelleNilsson - 7/18/2001 3:00:58 PM OK, so Indy committed a blunder. People do sometimes. Let's close this chapter and move on. 1433. Ms. No - 7/18/2001 3:01:55 PM While I suspect he thinks the second is wrong, I don't see a whole lot of difference between the two. 1434. Indiana Jones - 7/18/2001 3:06:55 PM Cal (1430): As far as email and Mote policy, I refer you to your posts 13639 and 13645 in New Threads and Features in which you dispute with Ace over whether the Mote has any jurisdiction regarding anyone's posts on another board. 1435. Ms. No - 7/18/2001 3:07:19 PM Pelle, 1436. Indiana Jones - 7/18/2001 3:15:37 PM Pelle: BTW, I regret my words to you the other day. I still don't agree with how you responded to me, but I've not always been perfect in my interactions with you either. For that discrepancy I apologize. 1437. arkymalarky - 7/18/2001 3:21:54 PM I don't think an apology is very useful wrt moving on if Indy remedies the situation with Irv and Maria, unless they request it as a necessary part of the remedy. An acknowledgement that people's id's should not be attached to statements (they were not attached as signatures to the email) without their express permission and an assurance that it won't be done in the future might be more helpful. 1438. CalGal - 7/18/2001 3:23:42 PM Indy, 1439. Indiana Jones - 7/18/2001 3:31:18 PM Cal: My, my, how you do go on. 1440. mgleason - 7/18/2001 3:38:50 PM It is my business, however, and I am due an explanation, here, since you made the matter public, Indiana. 1441. Ms. No - 7/18/2001 3:39:41 PM Arky, 1442. CalGal - 7/18/2001 3:42:08 PM You don't have to discuss the contents, Indy. Anyone who is on the list can post it. After all, you put their name to it. 1443. Indiana Jones - 7/18/2001 3:44:56 PM Proposed RoE 5: Hahahahaha. 1444. CalGal - 7/18/2001 3:48:40 PM MsNo, 1445. CalGal - 7/18/2001 3:49:49 PM And to forestall the inevitable objections, "we" refers to the Mote as a whole. 1446. Indiana Jones - 7/18/2001 3:51:45 PM mgleason: I will respond to you privately, as I will Irv. 1447. PelleNilsson - 7/18/2001 4:03:37 PM Please don't escalate this incident. Let's try to behave like we do IRL. This is not a democracy. It is also not a dictatorship. We don't force guys into sessions of self-criticism and self-humiliation. 1448. CalGal - 7/18/2001 4:20:55 PM Pelle, 1449. mgleason - 7/18/2001 4:22:08 PM Pelle, I did my level best, as did Irv, to keep this quiet. What we asked for as a remedy, through a third party, was that the e-mail be amended to reflect the inclusion of only those individuals who had given their consent. That's it -no mea culpas, no public wearing of a hair shirt. We reacted in a temperate manner, even though both of us regard the use of our names without our consent as a serious matter. 1450. PelleNilsson - 7/18/2001 4:59:17 PM I'm not chastisingng you, Maria, nothing can be further from my mind. Indy has done wrong. Nobody has risen to his support. What I'm suggesting is that there comes a moment when enough is enough. 1451. Ms. No - 7/18/2001 5:11:28 PM CalGal, 1452. Indiana Jones - 7/18/2001 5:40:18 PM Neither Irv nor mgleason contacted me directly. To accept Ms. No's intervention would have been to recognize the Mote's jurisdiction in this matter, which I don't. 1453. Indiana Jones - 7/18/2001 5:40:29 PM Finally, as arky has clearly posted above, there was no "forgery" of "signatures." My representation of other Motiers views, while perhaps displeasing to them as partly or entirely inaccurate, were "signed" only by me. There was no use of the "we" pronoun, only the "I," nor any other rhetorical device to indicate that the words contained within were other than my own. The idea that we must get permission from other Motiers to characterize their views under our own hand would mean dozens of community standards violations every day. And email I have received including from those involved in this discussion demonstrates that others do the same thing--though there is always the possibility that permission was "explicitly granted" in each and every case. 1454. arkymalarky - 7/18/2001 5:41:39 PM In the case of CharlieL, I would have had no problem changing our policy to ban members who reveal such private information in other public forums as he revealed about RosettaStone. 1455. mgleason - 7/18/2001 6:09:13 PM Indiana, 1456. Ms. No - 7/18/2001 6:29:08 PM Indy, 1457. Ms. No - 7/18/2001 6:30:48 PM Arky, 1458. Indiana Jones - 7/18/2001 6:57:13 PM No I have not seen the actual mail. 1459. Indiana Jones - 7/18/2001 6:58:46 PM works only way = works only one way 1460. IrvingSnodgrass - 7/18/2001 9:52:28 PM I certainly don't think Indy's ill-advised e-mail was a breach of the RoE, or anything which needs a new rule. As I said in my very first post on the topic, it was a breach of Mote Ettiquette. 1461. PsychProf - 7/23/2001 3:37:09 PM It is clear, at least to me, that Indy, right or wrong, was backed against the wall here. I despise this kind of counterproductive confrontation, now Mote familiar and Mote normal. I hope we have not lost another Mote Poster. 1462. Indiana Jones - 7/24/2001 3:52:17 PM PP: Thanks for your words. 1463. mgleason - 7/25/2001 12:40:35 AM That, Prof, was a cheap shot. I take it you don't despise those. 1464. IrvingSnodgrass - 7/25/2001 12:59:22 AM PP: 1465. PsychProf - 7/25/2001 10:24:32 AM Good. 1466. PsychProf - 7/26/2001 10:47:04 AM My frustration with the loss of valued posters continues, and it now looks as if I have irrationally displaced this disappointment on two of my best friends here, Maria and Irv. Sorry guys. Mea Culpa. 1467. Indiana Jones - 7/28/2001 2:29:06 PM PP: Without necessarily agreeing that your recent posts indicate you've lost your rationality, I think it's better to be a little irrational out of good motives than bad. 1468. janjon - 8/10/2001 5:27:55 PM I don't know what words to use first - banal, shrill, silly, unctuous, over-inflated, ridiculous, pretentious - come to mind. 1469. arkymalarky - 8/11/2001 2:58:40 PM That goal is about lost already, JanJon. If we couldn't manage to attract enough from TT to make a blip on our screen when they're scattering like roaches in the light to other sites right now, then what we are is all we'll ever be; and that would be ok, too, if the number of regular and long-time posters weren't steadily shrinking. 1470. janjon - 8/13/2001 1:07:22 PM very well stated, arky. Although I too enjoy the interchanges on various topics with some here, I don't share the same sort of "friendships" you have built (and have taken no steps to foster same). But, I can understand how that could be a very rewarding aspect growing out of a "forum" like this. 1471. arkymalarky - 8/13/2001 1:34:17 PM I'm glad you posted, and I essentially agree with you regarding the problem. In recent weeks, though, I've begun to believe we as a group aren't capable of a fix. For a long time I did, but when we moved here and looked to increase membership it just never happened. In fact the opposite occurred. Maybe it's my attitude that's changed, but that's not good, either, considering how long I've been here and supported the value of this site and group. 1472. janjon - 8/13/2001 2:38:29 PM But if we did, we'd be leaving, um, fingerprints all over cyberspace for all time! 1473. arkymalarky - 8/13/2001 3:57:50 PM Janjon, 1474. arkymalarky - 8/13/2001 4:00:51 PM (cont) 1475. arkymalarky - 8/13/2001 4:01:10 PM Personally, I would rather banning or suspension just be done by the moderators--slap--with no discussion or suggestions from the Peanut Gallery, which only serves to contribute to our "discuss-it-to-death" syndrome. If I have a complaint regarding a bannable offense, it should be handled via email rather than letting the whole forum in on the discussion/decision. But that's just my opinion. 1476. janjon - 8/13/2001 4:28:45 PM well, I must admit that I hadn't realized that it indeed has only been two bannings. This perhaps is because so much talk/time/energy/focus has gone into discussions regarding the same. And, you do from time to time see various posters come out with an "off with his/her head", always "for the good of the forum" of course. Has a chilling effect. OTOH, doing things in a non-public way would have an even more chilling effect, IMO. Thus, to me, another example of Live With It - Its Cyberspace. 1477. arkymalarky - 8/13/2001 4:49:12 PM Let me clarify a bit. I think the banning/suspension and reason should be publicly announced. 1478. Indiana Jones - 8/13/2001 10:15:32 PM janjon and arky: I think it's too late. 1479. mgleason - 8/14/2001 3:25:41 PM I think we're being a little melodramatic. Other forums feature infighting, incestuous little groups, and patches of sheer boredom, and they still attract new blood. 1480. CalGal - 8/14/2001 4:03:36 PM Definitely too melodramatic. As for JJ and MsG, Arky, JJ posted that he was away because he was busy and MsG isn't posting because she is starting law school. Are you saying you doubt this explanation? 1481. mgleason - 8/14/2001 5:46:23 PM Those are good suggestions. I'm up for a reading (no tea-leaves, however), and there's always the Emmy Awards, too. 1482. arkymalarky - 8/14/2001 6:20:41 PM I'm not the melodramatic type. The dropoff without the new people coming in pretty much speaks for itself. There are no significant sources from which to draw new people in here, so I don't see that changing, and you don't revive anything without energy feeding into it. 1483. CalGal - 8/14/2001 7:37:48 PM The Emmy awards don't usually generate enough interest--but they were very good last year, much better than the Oscars (in terms of entertainment value). 1484. arkymalarky - 8/14/2001 7:56:11 PM My comment that there is no significant source from which to draw in new people is completely accurate. Please try to understand the basic concept that we need to bring in new people from the outside--that would be people who are not already reading us and wouldn't know jack squat what we were discussing and whether or not it was of interest. In addition, a mailout to try to prick the interest of those who have quit looking in, for whatever reason, might be helpful. 1485. rubberducky - 8/15/2001 12:51:33 PM what we need to do is open up registration, people. 1486. mgleason - 8/15/2001 12:59:55 PM I agree with you, RD. Let 'em in, and throw 'em out after, if need be. 1487. janjon - 8/15/2001 1:08:04 PM that makes a great deal of sense. The how-good-is-your-pedigree-in-terms-of-becoming-the-WRONG-TYPE-of-irritant mentality is one of the major flaws of this place. 1488. seadate - 8/15/2001 2:04:09 PM I miss Fielding. 1489. JudithAtHome - 8/15/2001 2:16:46 PM Me, too. 1490. CalGal - 8/15/2001 2:49:17 PM I agree that we should open it back up; I thought the recent problem was due to a technical problem affecting email. If that has been resolved, then we should open it up asap. 1491. arkymalarky - 8/15/2001 4:51:56 PM I totally agree, RD. 1492. rubberducky - 8/22/2001 3:40:02 PM wabbit or Mrs Nuh-Uh: 1493. wabbit - 8/30/2001 10:55:08 AM Ducky, 1494. msgreer - 9/4/2001 1:17:55 PM It has been brought to my attention some folks believe I left the Mote because of Law School. That is not true. I did not leave theMote because of Law School and anyone who entertains that thought should know that is sheer fantasy. 1496. Ms. No - 4/12/2002 4:52:41 PM Ah, the Policies thread sees the light of day once again. Some important issues have been brought up and this is really the best place to address them. I'm going to be copying some posts here from other threads that address the current issue. If I miss a post that you feel was important, please let me know. I'm trying to get the salient points addressed rather than make a comprehensive list of every post that mentions anything about this subject, but if you feel I've neglected a distinct point please say so. 1497. Ms. No - 4/12/2002 5:00:26 PM Fair Warning: 1498. Ms. No - 4/12/2002 5:01:33 PM Reposted from The Inferno 1499. Ms. No - 4/12/2002 5:04:01 PM 12084. Absensia - 4/12/02 1:20:49 PM 1500. Ms. No - 4/12/2002 5:04:36 PM 1501. wonkers2 - 4/12/2002 5:34:49 PM Here's a vote for laizzez faire--no bannings or suspensions and few deletions. I can't think of a single participant who doesn't add something to the forum. Tolerance for occasional off-topic posts or discussions. Personal insults discouraged and relegated to the Inferno. 1502. Ms. No - 4/12/2002 5:37:32 PM Re-posted from Suggestions 1503. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 4/12/2002 5:45:36 PM " . . . He's annoying and tedious? I give you Cal Gal." 1504. Ms. No - 4/12/2002 5:45:45 PM 17389. Absensia - 4/12/02 12:40:15 PM 1505. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 4/12/2002 5:46:11 PM LMAO !!! (F?) 1506. wonkers2 - 4/12/2002 5:47:43 PM laissez 1507. wonkers2 - 4/12/2002 5:54:09 PM One of the advantages of the Mote is that it offers an opportunity to express oneself in a greater variety of ways than in our jobs or face-to-face with friends or enemies--outrageously, eruditely, obnoxiously, whimsically, briefly, at length, profanely--without being punched out, fired or divorced. Let's not try too hard to contain or eliminate that freedom. It might take some of the fun out of the Mote. I don't participate in other forums much, but from what I've seen the level of discourse in the Mote is better than 90 percent of the others. It can be a learning experience if one is open minded. 1508. Ms. No - 4/12/2002 6:12:23 PM Wonkers, 1509. Absensia - 4/12/2002 6:19:50 PM It's interesting to read above and discover that in August, posts #1471 et seq. and even some earlier, the issue of banning, etc., was discussed and obviously continues to be an issue. 1510. bubbaette - 4/12/2002 6:23:27 PM Regardless, I don't think that it's appropriate to establish a thread with the express purpose of excluding a poster. And that was the express purpose of establishing the Global Terrorism thread and killing it's predecessor. 1511. CalGal - 4/12/2002 6:29:16 PM And that was the express purpose of establishing the Global Terrorism thread and killing it's predecessor. 1512. bubbaette - 4/12/2002 6:34:29 PM Except that when other people spam, there's a mitigating reason why their posts aren't considered spam. 1513. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 4/12/2002 6:44:57 PM The express purpose of the GT thread was to exclude spam. 1514. Ms. No - 4/12/2002 6:58:43 PM Wiz, 1515. CalGal - 4/12/2002 6:58:53 PM Bubba, 1516. Ms. No - 4/12/2002 7:00:49 PM I'd like to widen this up to discuss actual policy rather than focusing on a specfic poster but I feel that I do need to address this at least once. 1517. bubbaette - 4/12/2002 7:34:01 PM No one else spams. 1518. bubbaette - 4/12/2002 7:39:57 PM Anyhow, that's all I have to say about the subject. I said the essentially the same thing when the GT thread was created in the first place, so there's no need to keep repeating myself. Might be spamming. 1519. CalGal - 4/12/2002 7:49:04 PM How many threads did you post that "wilding" photo in? 1520. bubbaette - 4/12/2002 8:07:24 PM Continual posts, over and over again, links not of opinion piece but minor reportage with a misleading title, play by play of trivial press conferences and CNN reports, random rants, no reference to others' posts, no hint that he reads others posts--he doesn't respond or reference them, as a general rule. 1521. Ms. No - 4/12/2002 8:48:55 PM Bubba, 1522. judithathome - 4/12/2002 11:48:10 PM I seriously doubt some of us can post happily in both or at least in Cal's thread because of stuff like this: 1523. betty - 4/13/2002 12:18:30 AM Ms. No, 1524. concerned - 4/13/2002 12:35:37 AM I'm curious wrt registration. Are the issues which were discussed upthread still applicable? Or has the process been streamlined since then? 1525. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 4/13/2002 1:32:50 AM 1514. Ms. No - 4/12/02 11:58:43 PM 1526. Julius Caesar - 4/13/2002 9:47:04 AM Let there be no mistake. I'm stunned it is even being debated. My services were offered to tame jexster. By any means necessary. When this town is burning, you give a holler. I'll ride in. 1527. wonkers2 - 4/13/2002 10:04:04 AM But who will play Cassius? 1528. rubberducky - 4/16/2002 1:48:36 PM i see no reason to leave this thread de-anchored. 1529. rubberducky - 4/16/2002 1:54:34 PM er... 1531. jexster - 4/18/2002 11:53:16 AM I am serving notice on everyone, that each and every time that Caligula moves an on topic post of mine from her so-called discussion thread, I will be heard from. 1532. wabbit - 4/18/2002 11:56:40 AM No, you won't. You'll either learn to differentiate between an on-topic post and spam, or you will be getting longer and longer suspensions. The last ten posts of yours in the Fighting Global Terrorism thread are nothing but spam. You have the next few days off. See you Monday. 1533. Ms. No - 4/18/2002 1:47:59 PM RD, 1534. concerned - 4/18/2002 3:45:43 PM Looks like the Strangler missed, but Wabbit didn't. 1535. concerned - 4/18/2002 3:46:49 PM Btw, how's the current registration situation accommodation operation, if any, coming along? 1536. wonkers2 - 4/18/2002 3:50:32 PM Let the record show that wonkers and the cap'n don't approve of Captain Queeg/Bligh tactics. Lighten up girls! 1537. concerned - 4/18/2002 3:53:21 PM Got strawberries? 1538. wonkers2 - 4/18/2002 3:55:21 PM Somebody, quick throw the Queeg's palm tree overboard! 1539. Ms. No - 4/18/2002 4:08:58 PM Concerned, 1540. concerned - 4/18/2002 4:11:43 PM Re. 1539 - 1541. Ms. No - 4/18/2002 4:31:46 PM Wonk, 1542. Ms. No - 4/18/2002 4:35:56 PM Concerned, 1543. concerned - 4/18/2002 4:36:36 PM I could offer my opinion re Jexster's relationship with Mote administrators and thread hosts here, but I'm almost sure some would misconstrue it, so I won't. That is, unless somebody asks me pretty please with a cherry on top. 1544. Ms. No - 4/18/2002 4:40:11 PM Why would anyone want to do that? 1545. concerned - 4/18/2002 4:40:30 PM re. 1542 - 1546. Ms. No - 4/18/2002 4:47:56 PM Concerned, 1547. concerned - 4/18/2002 4:50:33 PM I even have a suggestion for a Mote link banner layout. It could have a nacreous red orb similar to the one on the Mote home page continuously rolling in a drawing of an idealized eye while the names of such 'prominent' Motiers such as PE, CalGal and jexster grow from a solid pinpint at the center becoming larger and more transparent as they fill the screen in succession. 1548. concerned - 4/18/2002 4:52:19 PM Re. 1546 - 1549. Ms. No - 4/18/2002 4:55:58 PM Concerned, 1550. betty - 4/19/2002 10:28:32 AM since my Message # 1523 was ignored and as the ROE as linked on the butter bar of this thread make no mention of Spam I would like to formally object to Jexster's suspension. 1551. wabbit - 4/19/2002 11:33:19 AM Well, Betty, I suppose this is my own fault. From the beginning days of this forum I have objected to having to define every little nitpicking term and have a set of rules that a Constitutional scholar couldn't be bothered to wade through. It always seemed to me that we should all be responsible for our own behavior and act like the adults we purport to be. This has proven to be more difficult for some than for others. 1552. wabbit - 4/19/2002 11:39:43 AM As far as Jexster's general style of posting, it has never bothered me, as he knows. I don't see why he posts one link, then two minutes later another, and so on, but I can't say that it would be an issue with me so long as the posts are on topic. Some thread hosts don't care how he posts, others do. That's the nature of this place. He has been asked by various thread hosts to not post that way, and in the past has complied, most obviously in Jay's thread. His suspension had nothing to do with that. 1553. Absensia - 4/19/2002 12:55:33 PM Wabbit. 1554. betty - 4/19/2002 2:13:09 PM Wabbit, 1555. PelleNilsson - 4/19/2002 2:23:15 PM betty 1556. wonkers2 - 4/19/2002 2:28:33 PM Why's it incumbent on betty to define spam? If you want to sanction it then, define it yourself. If you are going to prohibit something you should be able to tell us what it is. If you can't, forget it and quit wasting our time with your prissy little sanctimonious comments. 1557. Indiana Jones - 4/19/2002 2:32:33 PM My opinion: 1558. rubberducky - 4/19/2002 2:36:13 PM not only that, but Jex could have been considered 'abusive' as well. indeed, imo, he was. 1559. wonkers2 - 4/19/2002 2:36:23 PM Are all these rules published or available somewhere? I don't recall seeing them. Are they provided to new registrants? The answer may well be obvious. I will take a look around the site. I have never seen the rules. If they are there I will find them and read them.d [I am a believer in reasonable rules, fairly and consistently applied.] 1560. PelleNilsson - 4/19/2002 2:39:23 PM My point was, and is, which I'm sure betty, who is a sophisticated lady, will understand, that it is very difficult, I would say impossible, to define spam in objective, measurable terms, just as it is difficult to objectively define "needlessy abusive". 1561. rubberducky - 4/19/2002 2:39:59 PM Wonk: 1562. wonkers2 - 4/19/2002 2:41:46 PM Okay, I just read the "rules of engagement" for the first time after 5 years or so of participating. They seem reasonable enough. But I didn't see any mention of "spam." Until it is defined and included in the rules it shouldn't be sanctioned. 1563. rubberducky - 4/19/2002 2:44:40 PM well, again, wonkers, Jex was 'needlessly abusive' imo, and got what he deserved. 1564. Indiana Jones - 4/19/2002 2:46:56 PM This place has never really been run by rules, wonkers. From the FAQ: 1565. wonkers2 - 4/19/2002 2:48:46 PM Well, I guess that leaves it pretty wide open for the "moderators." Maybe that's not the best term. 1566. rubberducky - 4/19/2002 2:52:08 PM what would you call wabbit/Pelle/Ms No then? 1567. wonkers2 - 4/19/2002 3:01:10 PM Thread Czar? Ayatollah? Tin God? High Pooh Bah? Your Highness? 1568. Ms. No - 4/19/2002 3:18:01 PM Absensia, 1569. Ms. No - 4/19/2002 3:20:47 PM cont. to Absensia 1570. Ms. No - 4/19/2002 3:22:27 PM cont. to Absensia 1571. Ms. No - 4/19/2002 3:24:53 PM cont. to Absensia 1572. Indiana Jones - 4/19/2002 3:25:18 PM Hee hee hee. 1573. Ms. No - 4/19/2002 3:26:21 PM cont. to Absensia 1574. Ms. No - 4/19/2002 3:27:45 PM final (thought we'd never get here, eh?) to Absensia 1575. concerned - 4/19/2002 3:33:54 PM I'm curious about next Monday. Will we see no Jexster, a contrite, obsequious Jexster, or will he be back packin' heat? 1576. Indiana Jones - 4/19/2002 3:37:39 PM back in heat 1577. Indiana Jones - 4/19/2002 3:38:31 PM (though it's bad form to talk about somebody who's suspended) 1578. wonkers2 - 4/19/2002 3:45:37 PM BTW, who are the governors? And how did they become governors? By some democratic process I assume? 1579. Ms. No - 4/19/2002 3:57:00 PM Absensia has been using the word governors. It came out of somebody else's analogy. She means the Moderators. 1580. wabbit - 4/19/2002 4:17:26 PM Betty, 1581. wabbit - 4/19/2002 4:18:01 PM As I have already stated, when Jexster posts something on topic, even if it is just a one sentence blurb or link, I (stress on "I") don't consider that spam. Obviously many people here disagree with me and want Jexster to alter his style of posting. Cal isn't the only one. Still, I doubt it would be possible to write or enforce any kind of rule regarding the accepted style one may use for posting here. Individual thread hosts have that discretion, if they have the time and patience to enforce it. 1582. wabbit - 4/19/2002 4:19:05 PM So, do we really need to include a definition of spam in the RoE? What might that be? Posting the same thing more than twice in a row? Three times? Ten times? Even if the post is on topic? And who decides that? What if there are three paragraphs of crap about someone and one sentence that is relevant to the discussion, should that post stand as contributing to the thread? Is the thread host wrong for moving such a post to the Inferno? 1583. wabbit - 4/19/2002 4:20:41 PM 1584. concerned - 4/19/2002 4:21:26 PM Hey, wabbit: did you see the picture of you I posted a while back? Xtra cute! 1585. wabbit - 4/19/2002 4:25:50 PM 1586. betty - 4/19/2002 4:42:50 PM wabbit, 1587. wabbit - 4/19/2002 4:53:34 PM "...there needs to be some mention of spam in the RoE, even if it is "No Spam", letting each individual host decide the definition of spam on hir thread." 1588. concerned - 4/19/2002 5:03:56 PM Finally found the Wabbit picture: Message # 61888 in thread 28 1589. Absensia - 4/19/2002 8:06:43 PM Indian and Wabbit: I do think a US foreign policy thread is a very relevant potential thread...it's not really politics as in "democrats and republicans," and international doesn't need it's thread filled with things such as "Is US foreign policy to Pakistan, India, et al., fair, well handled, etc...or how much does the US give Canada as far as foreign policy monetary rights, et al. But if you think the topic is relevant to International okay, no problem if it all works out. 1590. Absensia - 4/19/2002 8:28:27 PM Ms. No, 1591. Absensia - 4/19/2002 8:30:30 PM Ms. No, 1592. Absensia - 4/19/2002 8:32:13 PM Oops...sorry for the double post. And, btw Ms No, I am not going to even ask you how it is you know about Georgia's oral sex laws. Hahahahahaha. 1593. CalGal - 4/19/2002 8:46:09 PM Um, because they were the subject of one of the most notorious Supreme Court decisions? 1594. Absensia - 4/19/2002 9:11:23 PM Ummm, I was joking with Ms. No...you know...JOKING. There are still several states with such laws...and I was JOKING, as might be determined by the "Hahahahahah" following my second sentence. 1595. betty - 4/20/2002 8:19:35 PM Oh and Pelle, if you continue to be needlessly abusive (I mean betty, who is a sophisticated lady does cross a line doesn't it?) I will file a formal complaint against you. 1596. zojak quafeth - 4/22/2002 4:59:01 PM ah. So when you said you thought I was one beer away from a COPS episode you were really reaching to try to pick me up eh? shocking. 1597. betty - 4/22/2002 5:20:56 PM zoj, 1598. rubberducky - 4/22/2002 10:07:18 PM but that is true of any man... 1599. vw - 4/23/2002 9:18:05 AM What if there are three paragraphs of crap about someone and one sentence that is relevant to the discussion, should that post stand as contributing to the thread? 1600. vw - 4/23/2002 9:19:32 AM "If I were hosting another a Gardening thread" was supposed to read, "If I were hosting a Gardening thread" 1601. wabbit - 5/2/2002 2:03:27 PM vw, post 1599, well said. 1602. Ms. No - 5/6/2002 3:03:50 PM I never realized that red on yellow was hard to read until I read it in blue. That was soooo soothing. 1603. rubberducky - 5/7/2002 2:17:21 PM Don't be a pest, please. 1604. vw - 5/10/2002 3:40:49 PM I'm getting a Page Not Found error for both the Proposed RoE and Proposed Thread Hosting Guidelines. 1605. Ms. No - 5/13/2002 11:54:49 AM vw, 1606. rubberducky - 6/12/2002 2:03:26 PM i don't like the idea of restricting thread hosts by taking away the renaming ability. if the host can not be trusted to run his/her thread, that host should be removed. 1607. CalGal - 6/12/2002 2:13:01 PM I agree. 1608. PelleNilsson - 6/12/2002 2:15:06 PM Well, my next move would have been (and might still be) to remove marj as host. 1609. rubberducky - 6/12/2002 2:19:22 PM i think he should be, Pelle. he has completely disregarded what the thread was to be and, imho, lied to the moderators, the general mote population about this whole fiasco – not thread host material to be mild. 1610. Ms. No - 6/12/2002 2:25:45 PM Ducks, 1611. Ms. No - 6/12/2002 2:28:52 PM With all the squabbling going on I haven't had a chance to check in on Marj's thread, but from what I've seen of his behavior in the Islamism thread he's out of line. 1612. rubberducky - 6/12/2002 2:37:32 PM Re: Message # 1610, Ms. No. 1613. PelleNilsson - 6/12/2002 3:00:09 PM Ms No 1614. Ms. No - 6/12/2002 3:37:06 PM Pelle, 1615. marjoribanks - 6/12/2002 4:39:41 PM 1) Kindly spell out to me exactly what behavior of mine has been out of line in either the Islamism or the America Abroad Thread. 1616. Ms. No - 6/12/2002 5:23:26 PM Banks, 1617. marjoribanks - 6/12/2002 5:36:57 PM Okay, in that instance, given the clear reference to the Rules of Exchange, I pursued the incorrect tack. Mea Culpa. 1618. Ms. No - 6/12/2002 5:39:26 PM No problem-o. The Mote | Mote Archive
Do not call attention to others' accidental disclosures, or repeat accidentally disclosed private information. If you inadvertently reveal information that you realize later may have been private, email the
2. Threats, and revelation of real names, addresses, phone numbers, places of employment, ISP email addresses, or other such information as may put a forum participant at risk for unwanted contact, are expressly forbidden. Violation of this rule will result in denial of access to the site.
In any dispute concerning an offense, the forum manager(s) decisions are final. By participating in this forum, you agree to abide by the Rules of Engagement, which may be revised from time to time. In the event of revisions to this agreement, registered members of the forum will be notified in advance by email. Members’ input conerning revisions is welcomed, but decisions concerning these guidelines and other matters pertaining to the forum or its governance will be implemented solely at the forum management’s discretion.
Erratum: "If you inadvertently reveal information that you realize later may have been private, email the forum moderator immediately and ask that your post be deleted."
"Forum manager" should be a link to Wabbit.
In addition, there should be FAQ link at the bottom of the RoE. Transparency should be part of its objective, for greater transparency will help counter the impression that the Mote is inbred, run by a cabal, etc.
Some questions that should be adressed in the FAQ:
Q. Who runs the Mote? [A. As of [date], the following individuals perform the duties described here and may be contacted via the Moderator: [list]]
Q. What's the definition of "personal", definition of "private"?
Q. Copyright issues?
Q. How did the Mote come into existence? [provide history, mention Fray]
Q. How do I propose a policy change?
I'm discussing Mote Policy, and your distorted interpretations of it, so I'll keep it right here. If you don't like it, tough shit.
I asked people to give their suggestions for three reasons:
1) I was getting very tired of the discussion dwelling on how the original rules were formulated and I wanted to move things forward.
2) I was very interested in the input others had to offer. I found A5's and Seguine's proposals productive. They obviously care about our community and their proposals are worth discussing.
If we decide in the end to leave things unchanged, it will make the rules more meaningful for being discussed.
3) It is apparent that some people feel they didn't have a chance to provide input when the rules were formulated. I firmly believe there's nothing wrong with letting them add their opinions and proposals now, and revisiting the rules.
Their proposals were not an attack on the rules as they now stand, but were an attempt to stimulate discussion in areas they feel strongly about.
You feel the rules don't need changing. They feel they do. What's wrong with discussing it? You've made your point. Let others make theirs. Once again, if the end result is we don't change the rules, it will be a good thing to have them reaffirmed. If the consensus is that they need changing or fine-tuning, that too would be a good thing.
The community can't lose if we stick to revisiting the RoE and keep individual personalities out of it.
There's no reason my voice carries extra weight. I am just one voice here. I do have a little experience in this area, which merely means I can sometimes offer an angle others can't. But that's all.
I suggested early in this discussion that a time frame for making policy changes should be announced. Policy might automatically be reviewed every 6 months (or, and especially later, every year). This might seem like a pain in the ass, but if an objective is to give newcomers a stake in the forum, then they shouldn't have to be 'in the know' about how things change in order to affect change, and they should not be accused of "whining" when they disagree with existing rules. Nor should anyone have to be chummy with one contingent or another to learn when policy revisions are under serious consideration, or feel it necessary to overcome their newcomer status in order to weigh in, etc.
What's wrong with discussing it?
Jesus. Nothing is wrong in discussing it. I've been discussing it. I also don't mind if enough people decide that a change is needed. I've said that enough times I didn't think it needed repeating.
But two people came in and demanded to know what the hell we were talking about this for? So I responded to them--basically we are discussing it because someone invited them to put their policy changes on the table. While I personally would rather we not invite everyone to do so just because they don't like the existing ones, that's just my preference. I then pointed out that the only way to avoid this would be to have some sort of consensus required in order to make a change.
That's my answer to them, given their complaints about the discussion. So you took my answer to Dan and Pincher--who are actually the ones bitching about the discussion--and respond to it as if I'm the one growling about the discussion. But that's their beef, not mine. Please make your point about discussion to them. Me, I've responded to the proposed change.
But if you think ya'll can come down to the great state of Politics and dictate to me and mine how to govun' ouwselves, you gotta' anutha' thing comin.'
No problem. I disagree with your idea that we need a consensus to revisit the RoE. I think we should welcome discussion on it, as long as the discussion stays away from personalities (I have no desire to see anything like yesterday's discussion again, and I know you don't want to see it either).
I am sure you are in favor of productive discussion, and I think that's what we're getting now.
I think the difference in approach arises from our different answers to the question you posed:
What I was asking is this: given that some people are upset that the subject has even come up, how do we move from complaints to determining if there is a need for action?
You feel the next step is to determine there is a need for action. I feel the next step is inviting concrete proposals, which is what I did. To me, discussing whether we should discuss something is counterproductive and leads to discussions like yesterday's. Now we have two proposals on the table, which we can discuss. In the end, we will decide to do one of three things:
1) Keep the RoE as they are.
2) Revise the RoE to incorporate changes.
3) Replace the RoE with one of the proposed versions.
Do we really want to get into the area where someone can be banned for telling me that I'm a lousy mother, that Ace is a crappy lawyer, that Niner is short? Why is personal information any different from a straightout insult?
I see no real benefit to the additional work this creates.
There is a FAQ that is in draft form. It was linked into Suggestions for comment a couple weeks ago.
I am petite.
That said, I think the discussion about the wording is largely irrelevant. Cazart has one thing right. Though he moans like a little Pollyanna all the time, each situation demands a call, and the "rules" may produce inconsistent results. Moreover, good folk with clean records will get a break over a troublesome cuss.
For example, if a person who was respected asked for a TT or a Internet Forums thread, they'd probably get it. Cazart, however, is an ex-Mote felon who spits and moans. So, he/she is out. Rosetta is person soley fixed on dabbling in internal politics of this and other forums. Whatever floats his boat, but he too is basically enjoined from hosting because he is roundly and with some credence regarded as a meddling putzola.
Fine with me. I trust the powers that be, and even if I didn't, and felt they were being foolish, it is still rather trivial. We've all had to live under administrations we have not agreed with, and I face 4 to 8 years fo Al Gore after 8 years of Clinton. I can live with a couple of inconsistent decisions and vague wording. I am sure we all can as well, as we have.
He's bigger than Tom Cruise, folks. And much more interesting.
Yes. In the first place, a rule against use of personal info to insult or attack puts some specifics around the old, and conveniently weak, rule against "abuse". I oppose a Mote-wide rule against "abuse" because it is vague enough to invite contempt (and has done, in spades). Contempt invites violation. OTOH, I don't object to a thread host specifying that he will delete posts he deems abusive. It's the thread host's business to determine whether he'll hold posters to higher degrees of civility than are required throughout the Mote.
But the minimum standard should be clear(er), should make possible both deletion and banning or suspension (i.e., access denial), and should be exercised at the moderator's discretion (i.e., mercy is hers to dispense, or not). By making it possible to suspend access because of personal info abuses, there should be no discussion needed, e.g., as to whether JadeGold actually threatened Rosetta's kids; if she insulted them, the rules would permit the moderator to suspend/ban. There should be no need to argue about whether it was appropriate for a member of the SONM to deride CalGal's views on the basis of the fact that, months prior, she had mentioned she was in therapy. Did Jonathan Ferguson reveal privileged info about Jenerator, or was it his own info to reveal? The intent was obviously to insult, abuse, or harrass her; the revised rule makes the source of the information about her irrelevant. Banning his id would be clearly within the moderator's scope of proper authority.
I like Clinton, but I don't like Gore, I don't think I like Bradley, and although I almost like McCain, the Governor of Texas is an arrogant cipher.
If anyone wins this election, I will be bound by civic duty to agitate for a Constitutional ammendment.
I also think it protects people more than they need to be protected. Why should the forum administrator have to chastise someone else just because they referred to information that is known? What if there was no intent to hurt? What if they think it's relevant, and that it is hypocritical for someone to hide behind this protection?
For that matter, what if someone were to just post the person's words? Would that be a violation?
Cig is arguing for single payer, and someone hunts up Cig's announcement of his illness. We make it a bannable offense to quote someone's own words?
I see no way this won't get into real problem areas. That's the whole point of the privacy rule--and even it has some ambiguities. But to say that words posted here can't be used in a debate? Where does one draw the line?
100 percent protection for what you keep private.
0 percent protection for what you don't.
Fairly unambigious.
Ack!
Not that this matters to anyone but me, but I was not annoyed at CG for "revealing" my husband's occupation.
HEY EVERYBODY! MY HUSBAND'S A COP!
(and yes, RustlerPike, it's JUST like it is on tv).
She misunderstood what I was pissed about.
FWIW, I would personally support a rule against the use of personal info not revealed *in this forum* or *on the Mote*, as opposed to a rule against revealing something that hadn't been exposed "online." It doesn't take much work to find and abuse posts from Mote participants on other forums, and I don't think it's very nice to consider, say, a post that RosettaStone made on "Odious Toads Anonymous" as fair game on this, an entirely unrelated forum.
For example, if a person who was respected asked for a TT or a Internet Forums thread, they'd probably get it.
I was the first one to ask for a TT thread. (In response to a post by you, ironically.)
I read you loud and clear.
Oh, and iffen you can't remember where you so the info posted - then err on the side of NOT being a freakin douchebag.
I agree, with the one grey area being the Fray. I realize that's the area under dispute, and I think it makes sense that any revelations that were only made in the Fray can be deleted and requested to be kept private from now on. I don't think someone should be banned for not doing that--too many of us have an ongoing knowledge of each other that was never interrupted. It's harder to keep straight. But I think these can be handled on a case by case basis, and I have no problem with information that was only revealed on the Fray being considered private. I just think that people who make such comments shouldn't be banned unless they have already been told once that it's private.
Ha ha ha ha ha. Were you? My bad. You know what I mean. if you clamored, you'd get it.
Ad
Your husband is a cop? I have this parking ticket problem . . .
Seg
On your proposed policy, it seems like a lot of work to discern the abuse angle. That said, if those who make the decisions don't mind, it seems nebulous. I would suggest that a list of simple no-no's - divorced from andy "abuse" standard - apply, such as names, photos, numbers, addresses, places of work, etc . . .
This also strikes me as a fair balance.
But, of course, I think the language is irrelevant as long as the small chummy insiders such as myself keep running the real show.
that is "any abuse."
Some people hide behind other kinds of protection. "I didn't know the info was PRIVATE" is a common one. So is, "I didn't think it mattered because the info had been revealed already/here/publicly/ten years ago in passing." Then there's "I didn't intend to hurt." If one makes one's remarks knowing that the moderator may decide otherwise, one will, I expect, use greater caution in the first place.
"Cig is arguing for single payer, and someone hunts up Cig's announcement of his illness. We make it a bannable offense to quote someone's own words?'
The debate is not furthered by promulgating such info, signalling to others that one is "in the know" about Cig in order to belittle him. The ad hominem may surely be delivered without repeating personal particulars (see previous example). If quoting remarks containing personal info seems necessary to your argument, quote civilly. If a barrage of "civil" recapitulations of others personal info strikes the moderator as excessive, she may deem them harassment. (Obviously, the object(s) of the barrage should have grounds to complain.)
"But to say that words posted here can't be used in a debate? Where does one draw the line?"
Don't obfuscate. I have not said words posted here "can't be used in a debate". One draws the line at insulting, attacking, harassing, or threatening.
If Cig says he's in favor of single payer and I say, that's all very well for you to want everyone to pick up your ALS bill, is that an insult? Harassment? A threat? Or a rebuttal?
Less so than the current rules (see item 3 and its non-explanation), which are not even bounded by the personal info criterion.
To take another example which occurred some time ago, in the middle of a discussion with Ace, I told him to go back to abusing plaintiffs. That can be taken as insulting (and was meant to be), and was based on information posted suggesting that he is an insurance defense lawyer. Would it be permitted under your rule?
I agree with Indy. If you don't mention it here, I'd like to think we protect it 100%. If you do, then you have to figure it's on you.
If there is enough desire to make this forum a nicer, less abusive place, then I think we can do that without singling out one particular type of insult.
I don't understand. It's no work at all, now. Wabbit makes the call--or the thread host does. There is no attempt at all to define abuse. That is deliberate.
Yea, but understand, I think that problems stick out like sore thumbs, and the Mote manages to react (sometimes with the speed of a turning Lusitania, to be sure) based less on the the language than on the specifics, and that the folks in the know do it well.
How about this:
It is a violation of Mote policy to reveal a poster's name, likeness, address, phone number, private email address, and other such information. Additionally, if you abuse someone with private information, you'll be dealt with. That said, you cannot divorce who you are from what is posted, and we don't live in plastic bubbles, and we are human, and all circumsatnces are different . . . so be warned.
I would like to see a moratorium on this discussion which has become too heated and too much driven by rancor.
At the same time I would like to say that I have a modicum of understanding for those who see a cabal at work in here. In situations like this I can post until I fall down with exhasution without eliciting a reply. I can never really understand, because I'm not American.
Are you saying that people have been ignored in this discussion? I didn't respond directly to your posts, but that's because I agreed with them without comment, and I didn't think you'd want to be added to my cabal.
I especially say less when I agree with someone while others are saying, "We're talking too damn much about this."
We can write up pages of rules but when the shit hits the fan it is always a question of judgement -- by the hosts, by the moderator, by the community at large.
This, and Niner's point in the first paragraph of Message # 884, is similar to the point I made earlier this morning.
It ain't the rules -- either their lack of clarity or anything else about them.
If anything, the people who have been in charge --both here in the Mote and at the Fray -- were too sensitive and polite in discharging their responsibilities.
What we need more than debate or a new charter is somebody's disembodied head stuck on a pole at the Mote Gate, with the warning "Beware, all ye who enter."
Are you really going to claim you don't recognize it as such? Frankly, it is exactly this sort of line-toeing that I think ought to be addressed in the RoE. My proposal does so. Just as, if you're not sure where you learned "private" info you shouldn't disclose it here, if you're not sure your repetition of "personal" info is merley a rebuttal and not an insult, DON'T DO IT. For if Wabbit thinks it insulting, then under my proposal she may use all means at her disposal to ensure that you cease insulting others with their personal information. Under the proposed new guideline, you would have been advised and should know better. The "abuse" standard is that much clearer for everyone.
DMan: "To take another example which occurred some time ago, in the middle of a discussion with Ace, I told him to go back to abusing plaintiffs. That can be taken as insulting (and was meant to be), and was based on information posted suggesting that he is an insurance defense lawyer. Would it be permitted under your rule?"
Sadly, no. But I trust you'd be capable of exacting as much pain without announcing what he does for a living.
People, this place needn't have the climate of a high school playground to remain lively and amusing. I'm suggesting we promote ourselves to frat house status (which would make us mere college sophomores). I'm frankly astounded that anyone believes this should be more difficult than attempting to ride herd on the present situation.
Then again, perhaps some are simply unwilling to give up some corner of the open definition of "abuse".
As an insult separate and distinct from Cigarlaw, you're an asshole who has no business posting on health care? Yes. If Cig doesn't want his illness to be an issue, he can not mention it online. If someone is unpleasant to Cig or mocking his illness directly and wabbit thinks it is abusive, I would support her deletion of those posts. I would not consider it a misuse of personal information, but an abusive post.
Frankly, I don't see how anyone can ride herd on determining what information that is already available can and can't be used.
Most forums say that you own what you write. I believe that this is at the heart of the Mote as well. Your policy gives people a pass to release what personal information they want, and then complain when it isn't used to the purpose they intended.
I also don't see why you think that the present situation is so difficult to "ride herd" on. We've only had a very few privacy violations, and there haven't been any situations of unusual abuse that I remember.
Then again, perhaps some are simply unwilling to give up some corner of the open definition of "abuse".
Why cast aspersions on motive? Why not figure people just disagree with you?
It turns out that real life obligations and opportunities have doomed any likelihood that The Sun's Eye will continue to be published in its present form. The site will eventually be archived in full, at which point CoralReef or I will advise folks in the Mote, but for now TSE should by rights be unlinked.
We truly regret having to fold up before publishing our last planned project, a (leather-bound and scented?) version of Pelle and Uzmakk's hilarious Haysweep exchange. But in spite of the work done so far we must now admit, and with no small disappointment, that we just can't get to it.
Sincerest apologies from us both.
An example of the "revealed" personal info thing happened to me recently on TableTalk. One poster there kept bringing up her father whenever McCain or Bob Kerrey was mentioned. Her father had been in the service, yada, yada, yada. Finally, I teed off on her father (not too bad...just said it was lucky for the Viet Cong her father wasn't involved in that war) and another poster said I was being horrible.
Tough. You don't hear me talking about my impending knighthood. I'd just rather not deal with all the baggage that goes with being a member of the royal family.
I'd be interested in assisting with any future venture, provided it is in some way related to porno.
Your proposed rules say nothing much different than the current rules. I suspect you prefer them chiefly because they were written by yourself.
As to your unworkable "any personal information rule"-- Cal has it right. You're seeking to protect people from which they do not have any need nor desire of protection against.
You laugh off the "Niner's short," "Ace is a crappy lawyer" hypotheticals, saying "I won't get exercised about that." But if you're not going to get exercised about that-- that which your rules specifically seek to protect against-- they why bother?
You seek a change which you won't enforce? Why?
I don't like it when I'm called a "crappy lawyer" and yadda yadda yadda. It *is* used as an "attack," of course, and it *is* a use of personal information which I have revealed. I like Cellar's and Jade's witty epilepsy jokes even less.
But certainly I need no protection against people using such "personal information."
If you're not going to get "exercised" when such "personal information" is used to "attack" Niner, Cal, and I, when *will* you become exercised? Only when such information is used to attack yourself or people you have greater empathy for?
Not much of a rule, Seguine. If we're going to lay everything out all neat and legal, we'll have to include a sub-clause about information that causes some people to become "exercised."
Perhaps you meant: "Well, then such attacks will ALSO be banned, but who cares?"
But this is silly as well. I mock Niner's alleged (though very borderline) shortness because, you know, I can't just bust on him for being a knife-fighting taco bender all day long. I don't think I'm hurting Niner by calling him R2-D2. In fact, I sort of think it turns him on.
So why ban something which the alleged victim doesn't mind?
Perhaps you will suggest that shortness attacks on Niner won't be banned because Niner won't complain, and a complaint is necessary.
But one of things we were trying to avoid was such a victim-subjective regime, whereby the thinnest-skinned among us call for (and are granted) suspensions and deletiongs galore, but the tougher-skinned must just grin and bear it.
When the ROE was being hashed out, various absolutist, bright-line proposals like yours were forwarded and considered.
Ultimately, it was generally agreed that absolute, bright-line rules were unworkable-- there are *always* exceptions, and it's dishonest to claim that there aren't-- so Cal came up with a formulation which forthrightly stated that this was all in the discretion of Wabbit, in her esteemed judgement, based on the specific case.
Your suggest of an absolute, bright-line ban on "any personal information" used to "attack" is unworkable as written.
Fuck off, you socialist Swedish bore-drone.
I think she wants it to be a frat house, which is cool, because I have one of those hats that holds two Buds and I like to say "Wasssssssuuuuuuuuuuuup!"
Case in point:
With every post Pelle writes, he reveals, explicitly, the personal information that he is:
1) socialist
2) Swedish
3) a bore-drone
Need I refrain from pointing out the obvious?
This is an interesting discussion and I have some things to add to the $0.02 I put in last night.
1. I think it should be ok for ANYONE to discuss policy ANYTIME.
2. I think it should be ok for ANYONE to propose changes to policy ANYTIME.
3. For any proposed policy change to be implemented, I think we should take a simple vote, via email to (pick someone - change it next time), with a reasonable time limit during which to vote (24 hrs? 48 hrs?), and a 2/3 majority required to "pass" the proposed change. The vote info (proposed change laid out, plus link to email for vote) should be on the front page.
I would also like to state my own personal opinion on the following:
1. I think abuse, whether it includes personal information or not, should be banned. I realize this requires "abuse" to be defined, which may or may not get tricky.
2. I think posting of another's irl personal information, whether it is used to abuse, compliment, or just mentioned in passing, should be banned.
"Abuse" cannot be banned, because, for example, some liberals do not think it "abuse" to accuse their opponents of racism at the drop of the hat.
Is it "abuse" to accuse Ohio of disgusting hackery and disingenousness?
Please, Christi.
"Abuse" per se cannot be banned, I meant.
There must always be the caveat/qualifier-- Gratiutous abuse or whatever.
Personal info, or private info?
In other words, you've mentioned Lil Darlin. To me, that is personal but not private info. Is no one else allowed to mention her? Is no one else allowed to insult you as a bad mom (but able to call you a stupid idiot--in other words, you can't use the personal information to abuse under Seg's policy).
On the other hand, if I knew where you worked and mentioned it online, that would be a privacy violation. Which do you think should be banned?
"Bend over Ace and feel the Scandinavian icicle all the way up!"
In your dreams. Go fuck a salted fish.
Ace (re #897)
You realize, of course, that "crappy lawyer" is redundant?
Is it "abuse" to accuse Ohio of disgusting hackery and disingenousness?
"Abuse" per se cannot be banned, I meant.
There must always be the caveat/qualifier--Gratiutous abuse or whatever.
Go fuck a salted fish.
Good taste is timeless.
Are there decent non-Yank-dominated chatrooms elsewhere on the net where you can get relief? (How about a few cites? I wouldn't mind going to where I could get the experience of being the Outsider myself, now and again.)
If it helps any, I'm Swedish just two generations back.
Cellar:
Pelle knows (I think) that I'm "just joshing."
I generally don't greet someone with the salutation "Fuck off, you socialist Swedish bore-drone" to people *who just agreed with my last post.*
So far, The Mote has addressed the few incidents of what I would call "abuse" just fine. This is not kindergarten. There may have been misses I am not aware of as I haven't been around much lately.
CalGal (909) - Private info. I mean private info. I have talked about my daughter - that makes it open info. I have NOT said her real name or my real name or the name of where I work - that is private info.
An example of the "revealed" personal info thing happened to me recently on TableTalk. One poster there kept bringing up her father whenever McCain or Bob Kerrey was mentioned. Her father had been in the service, yada, yada, yada. Finally, I teed off on her father (not too bad...just said it was lucky for the Viet Cong her father wasn't involved in that war) and another poster said I was being horrible.
That's pretty funny.
But it's also true. Everyone of us (well, most of us) has gotten riled up and resorted to using personal info that was revealed in this forum (sometimes to personal info not revealed in this forum). Sometimes this information was used in pretty horrible ways (references to Cig's illness, etc). In general, however, I don't think of any of these cases as needing supervision or a command decision unless the offending party has little other purpose to his on-line existance other than to stalk, harass, mislead, etc. But there are special cases. In all of these cases, I would rely on the decisions of our leaders, with minimal guidance from the mob. (It's never too good an idea to let the leaders become too separated from the mob.)
That's true.
Waaaaaaaaabit-- PELLE THREATENED TO SODOMIZE ME WITH A FROZEN SPEAR!!!
And then he THREATENED TO RAVAGE MY "LANDSCAPE" WITH A CHAINSAW!!!!
In other words, abuse is directed at people who can take it, not at the defenseless ones. We are not complete morons in the way we interact.
It is open info that I have a girl child and that I am her Mom - general stuff, not specific stuff, certainly not ANY personal info (specific or not) that I have not revealed HERE in The Mote.
Ah. You'll have to forgive me, then, if I entrust the memory--and the interpretation--of "unusual abuse" to others.
Ban PelleNilsson
In your heart, you know it's the right thing to do.
Paid for by the Committee to Keep Godless Boozing Foreigners away from Decent American Citizens
"Your policy gives people a pass to release what personal information they want, and then complain when it isn't used to the purpose they intended."
Given that quite a lot of information has been released in this group over the last several years, under a wide variety of circumstances not always under the control of the people to whom it pertains; given that new members, who don't know this info, are nominally invited to participate, and that us pissing on each others' personal data signals a distinctly out-of-control, excessively personal hostile environment; given that whole threads exist in which people expect to be able to trade personal info on a friendly basis; given that an enjoinder against abuse ALREADY EXISTS; why in heaven's name shouldn't people have a right to complain about using personal info to insult, harass, abuse?
I simply think such complaints should be accorded legitimacy at the outset, in the RoE, as a means of limiting their necessity. By your interpretation, the right to scour Home and Garden for personal details, to be used nastily later on, should be enshrined as a right.
Don't you think it's time for slightly higher standards than Cazart prefers?
Hahahahahahahaha!!!!!
Thanks, that's what I thought you meant. I agree with your position.
That's pretty funny.
Famous Foreigner Roberto Benigni says: 
"Ban thees disgusting sodomaniacal Swedish person already. Ace's posts warm de heart of this old Italian stereotype. Let us ban dis Pelle pezzanovante, and then let us burn his house down and sell his seester into white slavery."
In your heart, you know it's the right thing to do.
Uncle! You are better at this game. I still have your Insult Primer on my disk and I wait for an opportunity to publish it. Which is of course another invasion of your privacy.
Ban Ace!! He has hurt my delicate Herringista feelings. He has heaped abuse on me. He has employed ethnic slurs. Please help me!
"If you're not going to get "exercised" when such "personal information" is used to "attack" Niner, Cal, and I, when *will* you become exercised? Only when such information is used to attack yourself or people you have greater empathy for?"
See my response to Dantheman in Message # 892:
DMan: "To take another example which occurred some time ago, in the middle of a discussion with Ace, I told him to go back to abusing plaintiffs. That can be taken as insulting (and was meant to be), and was based on information posted suggesting that he is an insurance defense lawyer. Would it be permitted under your rule?"
"Sadly, no. But I trust you'd be capable of exacting as much pain without announcing what he does for a living."
Um. Yeah. If someone wants to, that's what it means. If you don't want people using information against you, then don't post it online.
Of course, your "scour Home and Garden" is my "reading the thread and remembering what people say", but it's the same thing in the end.
It doesn't matter whether I think you "deserve" the right.
It has nothing to do with what people deserve. It has to do with what people have a right to expect. If they don't reveal information here, I think they have a right to expect that no one else is allowed to reveal that information, either.
But if they reveal the information, then I don't see why they should complain when it is referred to again. It was their own actions that made the information available in this forum.
Don't you think it's time for slightly higher standards than Cazart prefers?
I've never particularly cared who agreed with me or not. As most people can testify. What I do care about is the reasons why people agree with me. I recall agreeing with Caz's post earlier, although I can't remember what it was about. I see no particular problems with agreeing with Caz.
For that matter, Caz agrees with you about my fell purpose in this forum. Don't you think you should have a higher standard of conspiracy theory?
Seg:
I considered an alternative interpretation. See subsequent post.
Awwwww, Seguine... didn't mean to get your knickers in a twist.
CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!
CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!
CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!
Are you trying to insult Seguine and using the personal information that she's female? For shame!
CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!
CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!
CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!
CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!
CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!
CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!
CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!
CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!
CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!
CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!
CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!CAZ!
And I'm not "spamming." I'm doing what people do on-line-- having fun with a fellow poster. I'm sorry I don't meet your high bar of debate.
But my exchange with Pelle has, in face, shown the unworkability of your absolutist position. I can joke with Pelle or whoever all day using "attacks" with personal information. Obviously, this is not a case for deletions or suspensions.
You counter: But wabbit knows the difference.
Yes, she does. She exercises judgment. Which makes it sort of nonsensical to write an absolutish ban when you concede, in final analysis, it won't be absolute at all, but will all swing on Wabbit's judgment.
Why not just cut out the middleman and state from the get-go that it will depend on her judgment? Why claim it's an abolute ban, but with exceptions A-ZZZ, rather than just say "it's a judgment call depending on the circumstances"?
I also find it rather odd that you would choose to insult me in the midst of THIS conversation, in particular. I won't say why. Let's say "irony" of some sort is involved.
And have we seen these deeply personal relevations used to abuse these posters?
We have not.
And is this because a particular clause in the RoE forbids it?
It is not.
It is because when all has been said and done we are a decent lot around here.
And if anyone is out of bounds on this issue, he or she should, as PM suggests, have the head cut off and displayed at the Mote Gate.
Is that a new service from the House of Wax?
OK Wabbit is a girl? That explains a lot!
Irony of some sort is involved.Not that I think the idiots here will get it.
Even I can see that, and I don't know much about the background here at all.
However, once something's been beat to death, why not have fun.
BAN ACE!! He doesn't use Purple font often enough! He MUST be EVIL!!!
Ban Seguine!
The other problem with Seg's absolute ban is this:
Some of us argue from authority. Spuddy Boy claims he knows a bunch o' stuff on account that he's one of them big-city reporters; I have, sadly, occassionally told people I knew what the law was better than they because I'm a lawyer.
The natural rejoinder is: But reporters are idiots. But you're a BAD lawyer.
Unworkable.
Pretty sensible...for a Swede.
The obvious way to defeat an argument from authority is to demolish the authority himself, impugning his intellect and/or credentials by ridiculing them, most often using "personal information."
I say I'm a lawyer and I know X Law. SpuddyBoy counters: But you're an INSURANCE lawyer, and a bad one at that.
This is perfectly fair for SpuddyBoy to do. Indeed, my assertion more or less DEMANDED he make this sort of insult.
What matters is what promotes the interests of the forum while maintaining room for heated debate. I believe my proposal does this. Your interpretive latitude re the current rules, I believe, shortchanges the forum.
I am all for promoting the interests of the forum. One of the things I think essential to this forum is an atmosphere that does not encourage whining. Any rule that gives members the right to run complaining to Wabbit because of information they provided on this forum was used in a manner not to their liking is not in the interest of this forum, in my opinion.
Take the recent case with Pelle and Ace. Yes, they were kidding. So how would a newbie know when it was okay to use personal information? Oh, if you're joking, it's okay. But if you're serious and trying to be nasty, it's a bad thing.
But both uses of it involve "scouring Home and Garden" to find personal information. It's just how you use it. And who complains.
The interpretative latitude doesn't shortchange the forum. Wabbit could be far more ruthless if she deemed it necessary, and the rules support her if she needs the leeway.
And have we seen these deeply personal relevations used to abuse these posters?
We have not.
Sorry, Pelle, a very heart-felt post, and I wish I could agree with you, but it isn't true. As I can personally attest.
It is because when all has been said and done we are a decent lot around here.
Generally, usually, almost always. But there are exceptions. Painful ones.
I say I'm a lawyer
I say "I'm a lawyer"
I SAY I'm a lawyer
I say I'm a lawyer
Gawd, I feel better. Phew.
Hey, I'm a lawyer, too! Amazing!
I'm very sorry to hear that. I hadn't noticed. Maybe one positive outcome of all this is that we should be more vigilant about these things. But I still don't think it can be codified in any meaningful way. It's more a question of the "sense of the community".
But it's late here and I need to think more.
Or is their gender not personal information?
Frankly, I think many people have had situations where personal information is used to smack them up and down. It's not fun. But I don't think it's something we can ban.
Also, Dusty, I don't think you count as a "meek" poster, which means that any situation involving you doesn't automatically rebut Pelle's point. Unless I misunderstood your post.
I certainly don't object to your exchange w/Pelle. I do find pointless any attempt to shout above the din caused by the avalanche of interpretive diarrhea you habitually exude.
When you stick to comedy, you're a gem, bucko. When you pretend to think, the room erupts like a grunting chorus of ticket holders at an Arsenio Hall concert. You spam. Any hope of post-pubescent dialogue must thereafter be abandoned by anyone with a life to lead.
Fortunately for my adversaries on the point of this discussion, I do have a life to lead and must now allow all reservations, idiotic analogies, false charges and comparisons, tendentious arguments, misrepresentations, and distortions of my argument to stand, to take root, and to overwhelm everything I've argued.
As it happens, this place has increasingly little part in my larger concerns; ultimately, as things proceed here, I expect it will have none. I've made my suggestions. Take them in part or in whole, or leave them, folks; and enjoy yourselves.
Is it just me, or does Seguine sound a little ...bitter?
You do this on company time I'd fire y'er ass. Oh yes I would.
I just read back. You were quoting from a different post of Pelle's.
I still think it stands as abuse, not a privacy violation. But based on Pelle's post, it doesn't matter whether you are "meek" or not. Sorry about that.
I am not peeved at your post in the slightest, but I do have a question. This conversation began because a few people felt that there was not enough consultation of all forum members over the policy decisions.
But if we have a conversation and invite everyone, some people (and you are by no means the only one) complain that these discussions are needless and destructive.
So it becomes a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.
Any suggestions on how to avoid this?
preferably while shooting him down like a rabid dog.
sorry ace. vox populi, vox deai
preferably while shooting him down like a rabid dog.
sorry ace. vox populi, vox deai
Irv: As you guessed I wasn't going for 'concise'. It was a draft composed in five minutes as a talking point. Feel free to edit.
A few clarifications:
The main point of the RoE revision was threefold. The first was to canonize one notion. 'Moderator's' discretion is in everything. Rather than leave it de facto, I thought to make it de jure, for one simple reason -- to give those who need it a plain and simple statement as to how this forum runs. We can accept it very well but it's nice to spell it out for outsiders.
Cazart has manipulated many people here into making his "issue", if not himself, the main topic of discussion here over the past couple of days. I hope everyone's happy.
And now that it seems we are on the verge of reworking the ROE, solely because of Cazart's pissing and moaning (and make no mistake -his pissing and moaning have now become a loud, cackling laugh as he congratulates himself on the contortions he's put some of us through - to say nothing of the old scabs he's caused to crack and ooze fresh pus) - now that this place is about Cazart, you better bet your ass he will dance around the edges of the new and improved ROE.
No doubt, this will result in another toturous round of the pitiful hand-wringing we've all just been subjected to.
But the drama queens'll have something to do.
My own opinion has gone all over the place as various people have convinced me of various points of view... for a little while.
I was especially impressed by Seguine's detailed proposal. Apart from a difference in viewpoint regarding personal vs. private information, I saw a lot of good in the way she spelled things out and presented the rules clearly and readably, in some detail.
But I'm now back to my original opinion (one which I never actually expressed, in the interest of making sure my "weighted voice" didn't influence anyone), and unless I misread some recent comments, the general feeling is heading in the same direction I am. And that opinion is:
What we need is a simple set of rules, with the notation that interpretation and enforcement is up to the thread hosts and the moderator.
I think our original RoE expressed this well, and the people who put it together quickly did a good job. But I think it is a bit redundant. All we need is a short, simple statement which covers all cases.
So I have prepared the following as a proposal for a revision of the RoE, in the hopes that proposing this can lead to a kind of closure, for now, of this topic (though of course, even if my proposal is accepted, the subject can be revisited any time).
Nothing below (in the next post, actually) is my own. I thank Christin and CalGal for the original text, and AngelFive and Seguine for new wording. I have merely attempted to consolidate and simplify.
Rules of Engagement:
The Mote is a not-for-profit discussion forum hosted and run by member volunteers. Membership is free.
Strenuous argument is acceptable in this forum. However, certain important rules govern the exchange of information:
1. Don't reveal someone else's private information online*.
2. Don't make threats.
For violations of Rules 1 and 2, the offending posts will be deleted, and violators will be subject to suspension or banning by the Moderator, if the violation is deemed serious and intentional. The decision of the Moderator is final.
3. Don't make posts that are needlessly abusive.
4. Do not use The Mote for advertising, solicitations or spam.
Posts violating Rules 3 and 4 are subject to possible deletion by the Thread Host (or possible relocation of posts to the Inferno, in the case of Rule 3). In serious cases, the Moderator may suspend or ban the ID of the violator. The decisions of the Thread Hosts and Moderator are final.
The final judge of the behavior of any participant, or of a thread host's decisions and behavior, is the Moderator.
The Mote does not endorse or stand behind the truthfulness or reliability of any information posted by users and is not responsible in any manner for content, which remains the sole responsibility of the user.
By participating in The Mote, you agree to abide by the Rules of Engagement. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved.
*Private Information is defined as any information linked to an individual’s real-life identity which has never been posted in the Mote by an individual (or by another participant with the individual’s knowledge and express consent).
It does not go so far as to include the specific prohibition I proposed on personal info used to attack, insult, etc., but it does make clear that "needless abuse" is determined not only by thread hosts but, ultimately, by the moderator. And it spells out unambiguously that hosts' and participants' behavior is ultimately the moderator's to assess. I especially appreciate the removal of the weasel words, "It goes without saying that this [needless abuse] has holes you can drive trucks through. This is intentional. The inventiveness of a small minority forces us to be vague."
I have only a small criticism of your draft. In: "Posts violating Rules 3 and 4 are subject to possible deletion by the Thread Host (or possible relocation of posts to the Inferno, in the case of Rule 3)," I believe the "possible"s are redundant. The fact that a violation is subject to a sanction means that the sanction is "possible", no? A person who gets caught littering on the highway is subject to a fine; however, the judge may waive the fine if he sees fit.
Finally, I have a question. What, exactly, does "Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved" mean, in this context?
As it happens, this place has increasingly little part in my
larger concerns; ultimately, as things proceed here, I
expect it will have none. I've made my suggestions. Take
them in part or in whole, or leave them, folks; and enjoy
yourselves.
I considered eliminating the "possible," but I was being intentionally redundant to make things clear for those who don't understand "subject to." It's fine with me if we drop "possibly."
The disclaimer at the end was from the original version. I think we need an all purpose disclaimer, and perhaps one of the legally-minded participants can give some input.
I think the footnote at the end needs rewording, too.
I understand what PP is saying. I too felt a bit hurt when I read that sentence in your earlier post. Many of us feel a part of this place, and it sounded like you were discounting us (though you may well have other reasons... that's just how it came off). I'd hate to see you give up on this place.
If I were to leave this forum, nothing would be lost. (I trust there are folks who would be thrilled to see me outta here!) Anyone I've ever been in touch with would still have my email address or access to someone who remembers it, and anyone who wanted to reach me could still do so via seguine@hotmail.
If I "give up on this place", it will have precious little to do with the people in it whom I like and whose thoughts and opinions matter to me. But all parties come to an end. I don't like to hang around after all the cigarettes have been smoked.
'now
The fact is that these continual plaints for the past are a pain. If the people who were here from way back don't want to post here again, that's up to them.
I do not bewail the people who have left; I would be delighted to see them return. But to use their disappearance as indication of stagnancy is absurd. It is nonsense.
We're six months old, have had somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 new members, and given that normally you need a lot of new people to attract even one new member, I think we're doing well. "not enough" "top notch" people? (never mind defining top notch). We haven't even started marketing yet. We're doing very well.
I get a tad tired of people who show up periodically to complain about how old it is here, but make no effort to bring over new people and don't even post often themselves. If you want to help, bring people you know to the Mote, and help make it the type of place you want it to be. If you feel that changes in policies are necessary to bring people over, feel free to try that too. Speaking for myself, I see almost no change in Irv's proposed draft and it seems like a hell of a lot of fuss--over 300 posts--for very little. It seems clear to me that there is no major support for transparency or the rule that Seguine proposed, and Irv's draft makes no mention of either. And yet both Angel and Seguine are happy with the proposed changes. Go figure.
We have had a couple different people take on the task of a larger marketing effort--it needs to be done, and it's probably the biggest hole we have to plug. But in the meantime, we're growing by word of mouth and attracting far more regulars than I thought would be possible, given our small little forum.
Summing up: I don't think this policy set-to has squat to do with anything other than the unhappiness of a few people. And it is certainly worth debating, if they want to have that debate. We had it. But I see no connection with the request to revisit the policy and the state of the community as a whole. I think it's doing well, considering the volunteer nature of the marketing effort. I'll be interested to see how we do once we start actively marketing.
I have no real issue with your changes, since I see no real difference. I kept the rules as rules without spelling out the procedural accompaniments (deletions, moves to the Inferno, etc). I think the FAQ is best for procedures.
The primary difference is one of tone, and I'm sure that's what Seguine and Angel-five object to. I like the brisk, no bull-shit tone that acknowledges the objections in advance. I think it gives a good indication of the reception certain complaints will get here in the forum, and I think it makes it pretty clear that we consider the Moderator's decision to be final, rather than spelling it out in the RoE.
But if enough people want a more formal tone, I'm okay with that.
I should be clear--it's my brisk, no bull-shit tone that I like. I wrote it purposefully with that tone. Irv, your tone is more formal and may be what more people prefer.
?????
Where did I mention liking them? If you've heard from them, that's fine. Just say so. You happened to mention a few people who are posting here, which cast doubt on the accuracy of the rest of your mentions.
I was pointing out an obvious fact that strong and valued members of the community have departed and we need to replace them.
The people you've mentioned didn't leave the Mote. They left the Fray--for the most part long before the Fray ended. If they don't want to check out the Mote, that's their business. But they didn't weaken this community, which started without them. It'd be nice if everyone from the Fray came back, but we can't judge the strength of this forum just because some people who'd left long before don't show up here.
I have directed people I know at the Mote.
Wonderful. Good. You hadn't mentioned it, so I had no idea whether you have or not. You'll notice I didn't make an accusation. But as I said, sending over 10-20 people might end up with one regular. So the fact that no one has stayed means precisely nothing. Keep those cards and letters coming, and see what happens.
Yes, well, now, you complain every time I try to do that, don't you?
No, I don't. I have mentioned at least five times that I support your efforts to change the rules--even if I disagree with your proposed changes. I think we should check to see if there is a consensus for change before we start drafting changes, but like anything else that's just my opinion. But I completely support discussions, and have said so. Please don't make me go back and find the many times that I said so--although I will, if you insist on misrepresenting things.
Here's the odd thing, Angel--as much as I support your ability to say, "I want a change", I support my own ability to say, "I don't think a change is needed." To me, they are equivalent rights. What I find amusing is the notion that you all think that I say this with any authority, rather than just a simple expression of my opinion. Since I have no authority--as you yourself have said several times--why is it any less my prerogative to disagree with you than it is your prerogative to ask for changes?
So far everyone else has said they like the wording and the emphasis; you're the only one saying that the results weren't worth the effort
No, I'm saying that the results have no connection to the discussion. 300 posts aside, we have the same basic rules we started with. The only thing that changes if we adopt Irv's draft is the wording, not the rules.
I do still have reservations about spelling out procedures--there's no need to commit ourselves to what we do when a rule has been broken.
As for the rest of your posts, I'm not going to play. Have a nice evening.
No, I'm not replying in the Inferno. You started by saying that the Mote is dying, I disagreed. You want to go post non-policy complaints in the Inferno, it's not like I'm going to stop you. Have fun.
I certainly prefer Irv's neutral tone. What you term "brisk, no bull-shit" would be considered bossy and condescending to anyone I would consider inviting to this forum. (As would, not incidentally, much of your discourse.) One gets the impression from the existing RoE that the Mote, contrary to Pelle's peculiar avowal to the contrary, is indeed a kindergarten, and that it's presided over by a thirteen year old girl. Who doesn't express herself clearly.
As for the issue of transparency, although I advocated it, my proposed revisions to the RoE didn't address it. (The RoE should be concise enough that people can actually read it without their eyes glazing over.) I still think it's extremely important that transparency be achieved. The best place to do that is probably in the FAQ, which should be linked to the RoE, and probably linked elsewhere as well (e.g., the banner).
As for my proposal re personal info, I have not abandoned it because I think it wouldn't be helpful but because the RoE Irv has written achieves some of my aims and will surely benefit the forum. I'm not sure why anyone's compromises here should mystify you.
As you well know, when a collective situation is unsatisfactory to some part of a population, that cohort either attempts to change the situation or, determining that the costs of the attempt are too high relative to the potential benefits, leaves the collective.
What A-5 (and I, and others, be quite assured) have observed in the Fray, and even more so the Mote, is analagous to the American phenomenon of money abandoning cities for suburbs.
It's claimed by liberals (like Irv) that the rich and the middle class should stick around and contribute their resources to cities for the good of those communities. But when the people who supposedly benefit most from those resources openly resent the folks who ostensibly contribute so much, when their relative numbers swell, and when they make all interaction a power play whose outcome is an impoverishment of the community and nothing more, well, then it's time for the folks with the resources to go elsewhere and allow the proletariat to run things as it sees fit. The fact is, proles want control and power more than they want what their "betters" have to offer, for the cost of those goods in self-respect is too high. Thus we have ghettos, and chat rooms.
The fact that "a few" remaining people in the Mote are unhappy is testament, more than anything else, that the ones with the most to offer have already gone. At some point, even those of us with more modest contributions in hand must consider whether they might be given better elsewhere.
Pardon my sorry ignorant inner city ass but your condescension is unfuckingbelievable. Thank you for blessing us with your intellectual superiority, but you can catch the white flight bus with any others too pretentious to lower themselves to converse with proles.
It's unbe-fucking-lievable.
You'd know that if you weren't such a prole.
"You don't think the new rules are any different? So far everyone else has said they like the wording and the emphasis; you're the only one saying that the results weren't worth the effort
I'm curious about this "everyone approves of it" bit since only four people have commented on Irv's draft. Angel, Seguine, CalGal and Indy. That's two for and one opposed and one saying "It's fine but I don't see how it's different than the rules we have now".
I'll now weigh in and say that I prefer the RoE the way they are. I am open to change and Irv's draft is a worthy effort but as I see it the rules haven't changed and I think it's a bit silly to spend all this time on a change that is merely stylistic.
The reason I prefer to have things more rather than less vague is because the more specific your rules the more specific they need to be. We've had this argument before and in an attempt to make things specific Seguine was almost suspended because she crossed a line that was not set out explicitly but which was clearly against the rules so far as most everyone was concerned. I would rather we not end up with a 500 page document listing every single instance of what can and cannot be said. We're mostly grown-ups here. The abuses have been rare and handled responsibly by both thread hosts and the Moderator. If there were some huge problem then I'd be more amenable to making changes but there hasn't been.
If the prole/money analogy upsets your delicate constitution, Christin, then choose another. Lib arts majors overwhelming engineers. Libertarians swamping progressives. Much of the dynamic is the same. But something resembling a class dynamic is also at work here, like it or not. And some of the very folks who dominate discussion now, CalGal, and have invited folks to leave when they didn't like the way it was run by the royal "we", are the ones who used to bitch loudest about special people dominating the forum. Musical chairs.
There's another thing going on here, too, which I referred to in my party analogy. Ghettos of one sort and another--undergrounds, that sort of thing--can be extremely interesting. (Harlem in the 1920s, for instance.) But after a while the fortuitous mix of types that come together under pressure or by accident sort of homogenizes itself. "Outliers" go away; conformity takes hold.
The interesting mix can't just be recreated at will or by appeals to community obligation. It has to happen via the influx of new blood, and pretty much by accident. Moreover, the invitation of new blood should be as random as possible (the print advertisements you mentioned, CG, are probably an excellent start).
There's nothing unbelievable or condescending about any of this; it's just the facts.
Actually, what I didn't like is exactly the same notion you are promulgating here--the "betters"/"proles" class structure. I didn't like it then, and I don't like it now.
I have consistently supported the same approach to forum values and management and values from the "inside" (this assumes that I am on the inside) that I did when I was not involved in any way.
It's not that I don't want "your sort", Seguine. In fact, quite the opposite. I want all sorts, and I don't inherently value one kind over the other from a forum perspective. (As an individual, I like and value some more than others, but that's a different story.)
Happily, this means that both you and I are consistent. I can't remember the first time I heard you (and others) spout this idiocy about "classes" of members, but it's probably been at least two years. My position on this has remained unchanged--it still gets me a tad nauseous to see someone seriously recommend that a forum do what it can to encourage a superior class to come in and keep the barbarians in line.
It's your idea that's insulting not your analogy.
Since this is and has been comepletely pointless for the most part I'll take my leave.
The class issue in the Mote (or anywhere) is a matter of perception; you can't change that fact, and you can't change perceptions without changing their object (or by spinning and lying about it, but perhaps you realize this has its downside).
You may not like the fact that some participants in the forum command more respect than others; more curiosity, interest, deference, or whatever. I'm not troubled by it. That's the nature of honest human interaction.
It was the inequality, the variability of the Fray, not some imaginary, populist eveness of value, which made it interesting. If this forum fails to attract people whose extraordinary qualities attract others still, it will languish. If it loses people with extraordinary qualities, it will croak. Don't you know that?
everyone else has said they like the wording and the emphasis;
you're the only one saying that the results weren't worth the
effort
I'm curious about this "everyone approves of it" bit since
only four people have commented on Irv's draft. Angel,
Seguine, CalGal and Indy. That's two for and one
opposed and one saying "It's fine but I don't see how it's
different than the rules we have now".
No, we don't need to wonder why they left, really. No reason at all. Some people stay, some people go. The only reason I can think of to wonder is to a) try and get them back or b) try to change the forum in such a way that they'll come back.
Which were you proposing? If "b", then I suggest you put together a list of the valuable people, so we all know who we're to consult. The forum can then ignore the wishes of the non-valuables, and we'll go from there.
As for "replacing" them--let's not forget that the majority of the people you mention weren't here at the Mote when it started. So there's no "replacing" people who were never here. As far as increasing our numbers--regardless of whether we're "replacing" or "growing", yes, I hope we continue to grow. But I don't associate the two issues at all. Growth is achieved by marketing and communication, not wondering why a few people left the previous forum 6 months before this one started.
So if you are proposing that we put together a plan to bring back the better quality discontented folk, while still keeping the valuable people here happy, I suggest you start with a list. Include the current Mote members you want to make happy, as well as those who left.
That seems the logical starting point. I mean, you weren't just planning on speaking for them, were you?
The question on the floor is should we scrap the standing RoE in favor of something else specifically Irv's draft. My answer is that at this time and having read what is proposed I am against it for the reasons that I have stated whether or not you agree with them or think I've understood correctly.
What more is there to say other than that? You won't change my mind and I don't see the need to post endlessly about a change that exactly two people have decided is necessary.
Angel, you and I have had the conversation before about why the exalted have left. Do you really believe that either of us is going to change the other's mind?
I think you are concerned about a non-issue. Some people will leave and others will come. Our growth of new members here has been ten times better than at the Fray so I'm not sure why you are so concerned about us stagnating and dying. The forum has obviously been good enough to make you change your mind about never participating so it can't suck all that bad.
I've addressed as much of this as I intend to. Now I'm going to learn how to play bridge.
I prefer the new wording.
Whatever is "wrong" with the Mote currently--and it appears to me to be very healthy for an online forum of its size--it's not with the ROE.
I prefer Irv's version because it's simpler, but the rules don't really matter. The moderator does. If the moderator is not judicious, temperate and thick-skinned, the best of all possible rules will still fail.
I agree that there's been way too much discussion of this.
Seguine may or may not vanish. We've all sometimes regretted the amount of time we spend here, I suspect. I certainly should not be writing this post right now.
Contrary to what someone said earlier, I didn't make any penalties more specific. In fact, just the opposite. I tried to more clearly state that the moderator is the final judge on any rule violations.
The first draft of the rules were fine. I just tried to tighten them up.
I have finally read the RoE -- I think they are brief and clear, but I'm willing to compare them with any other drafts to see if it can still be bettered.
I can accept Irv's version.
I'm against the changes to the RoE.
I could support them, IF Irv & co. explained precisely what policy changes the changes in wording are supposed to effect.
If there is NO change, that's fine, then I guess I could support them. I wouldn't really see the point, but if everyone wants a change, that's fine.
My proposed version doesn't change any policies. It is an attempt to simplify and clarify the wording of our existing policies, and remove what I perceived as invitations to break the rules.
It is interesting that amidst all this ruckus, only four people have made a direct comment on Irv's draft.
There's a reason that I haven't bothered. It seems a waste of time to talk about proposed new rules when we do not have a procedure for deciding how to approve them.
Most venues have a rule for deciding how to adopt rules. True democracies (thankfully, rare) put the matter up for a vote, and let the majority rule. we aren't a democracy, so the fact that we have no voting procedure probably doesn't matter.
Absolute dictators have rule. Whatever they say, goes. There's not much point of debate if that is our model.
Some committees operate on the basis of formal voting, other on the basis of consensus. In the latter, debate ensues until someone (normally the chair) asks if there is a consensus. Silence is considered assent, and, lacking dissent, the policy is changed. Please note that lack of dissent is not equivalent to 100% approval. (Examples upon request.) I read the history of the RoE, and did not find a single instance where this question was posed. So this isn't our model.
A benevolent dictator asks for input, and then makes a decision, giving due weight (possibly zero) to those opposed. I thought that this might be our model, but it appears not to be the case.
After reading this thread, I cannot determine the date, or the action that occurred that signified the acceptance of the RoE by the community.
Until someone explains what the procedure is for changing rules, discussing alternative rules is pointless.
In summary, we are using a voting rule, we aren't using a consensus rule, we aren't using a dictator(absolute or benevolent) rule, so what are we doing?
1) I was getting very tired of the discussion dwelling on how the original rules were formulated and I wanted to move things forward.
I'm sympathetic to this concern, despite my last post that comments on how the prior rules were formulated (or to be precise, my lack of understanding as to how they were formulated.)
It is only of secondary interest to learn how the prior rules were formulated. If the answer is as simple as, "they just happened", so be it. But I cannot justify spending time debating changes to rules, if we have no procedure for adopting a change.
I recited my view of the history, because there have been some strong statements implying that the procedure was well defined. If it was, I missed it.
Our system has been mentioned often enough. We don't "vote" because to do so would be unwieldy. There are relatively few people who even care about the policies around here. and I'm sure many, if not most, would feel receving an e-mail asking them to vote would feel it was an imposition.
That leaves two possibilities:
1) Decisions could be made by the Moderator or the admin "team," without consulting the membership.
2) The system we have now, in which everyone is invited to provide their input, if they are so inclined, and a general community feeling (a consensus) emerges. The Moderator then makes a decision based upon that consensus.
It is closest to this system, of those you mentioned:
A benevolent dictator asks for input, and then makes a decision, giving due weight (possibly zero) to those opposed. I thought that this might be our model, but it appears not to be the case.
The main difference is that anyone can bring up a topic and ask for input and discussion. The Moderator makes the final decision.
Our system has been mentioned often enough.
With all due respect, I don't think it has.
We don't "vote" because to do so would be unwieldy.
Agreed.
There are relatively few people who even care about the policies around here. and I'm sure many, if not most, would feel receving an e-mail asking them to vote would feel it was an imposition.
Actually, the percentage of people weighing in with comments about policies exceeds the proportion who make such an effort in most other venues. Although the number who participated in the original drafting of the rules was far smaller than the group discussing changes.
I think we need to be a bit more formal when we make important decisions. As far as I can tell, the decision to implement the RoE occurred this way:
439. wabbit - 9/23/99 10:17:07 AM
I'm pretty happy with the revisions Cal has made to the RoE and I think we should get it posted asap. Any objections or suggestions should be made today.
There were subsequent objections, which were ignored.
I confess I'm still a little miffed that the decision to implement rules we all have to live by occurred in a thread that I did't know existed, and encompassed only six days of discussion. Only one day's notice from the time the revised rules were posted. Heaven help the person that might have taken a one-week vacation.
I think the procedure for adopting changes has always been pretty clear: the Mote staff makes changes based upon their own judgment.
Of course, if it really was clear, your description might have matched Irv's. And there wouldn't be all these other people calling for votes, when it is perfectly clear that voting isn't part of the process.
but both of us make it clear that the Mote administrators decide,
You refer to "administrators" plural. Irv refers solely to the moderator. That's not a minor difference.
As an aside, can you name the administrators? How does one become an administrator?
I think the calls for a vote reduce to earlier claims made by some participants that 'everyone' had expressed support for the adoption of the old RoE and a desire now to have as many people as possible voice their opinion on the matter.
You may well be correct on this issue. The statement that "everyone" had expressed support was absolute hogwash, as well as being meaningless, in light of the fact that the rules came into being by the decision of a single person. That said, I'm not in favor of a vote. I am in favor of more clarity.
The statement that "everyone" had expressed support was absolute hogwash, as well as being meaningless, in light of the fact that the rules came into being by the decision of a single person.
I can't find any statement asserting that "everyone" expressed support. The closest I can find is a post of mine saying that "we all believe" that the privacy rules are best for the forum, and even there I made it clear that not everyone was in agreement. But I don't think you'd want to go around claiming that the majority of the members support moving to transparency. (This statement was made before the current discussion began, btw.)
Other than that, in the original post I made to Seguine, I said this:
Did everyone agree? No. A consensus was reached. Who determined that a consensus had been reached? You seem to think it was me. You might want to think again.
I can find no statement from #685 to now in which it was claimed that "everyone" agreed. But maybe I missed it. Could you point it out?
To the best of my knowledge, the following statements have been made:
I don't see any gross misrepresentation in that, nor do I see a claim that "everyone" approved the rules.
There were subsequent objections, which were ignored.
Not that I could see. Spud asked what would happen in his case, Wabbit answered. The next series of posts were several days later.
I confess I'm still a little miffed that the decision to implement rules we all have to live by occurred in a thread that I did't know existed, and encompassed only six days of discussion.
Honestly. Statements like this just astound me.
(in response to my
No, "everyone" did agree. I'm not backing off of that.
Why is it ridiculous? Unless you wish to declare that everyone must be heard from? Silence is assent.
And if you note, I put quotes around "everyone". For a reason. My lord, I've been as clear as I could be about what "everyone" meant, and said so over and over again. And it was my very next sentence in which I said, "silence = assent"--which clearly qualified "everyone" as "everyone who posted". There was discussion; anyone who wanted to could participate. If you weren't around at the time, what is to be done?
The feeling ...is the main reason some of us have invited more people to participate in this discussion, and why Wabbit even put it on the listthreads.asp page for a while.
Jesus, that is such horseshit. At the time, the Policies thread was created and taken off the main page because a significant group of people said it made the Mote look bad and they didn't want to see it. There were plenty of invitations to people at the time, Angel. And even with it on the front page, and even with Christin's post in the Cafe inviting people to post here, we had relatively few people post (as a percentage of the whole). About the same as last time (when the conversation was spread through both Suggestions, Censorship (which was deleted) and Policies.
Which is four more people than posted in favor of transparency (after you and Jay) and two more people than posted in favor of Seguine's proposal (one of whom backed off when they understood it). All of these amounts being far fewer than the amount of people who posted against transparency and Seguine's proposal and in favor of the current rules (whether Irv's or the current RoE wording). Especially when you figure that the people who said "knock this shit off" are essentially expressing support for the current rules (even if they don't give a damn).
In other words, Angel, if you're going to count heads, please realize that the majority of those who commented expressed support for the rules that were developed. The majority also seemed to express no resentment about the rules or the consultation--many of whom mentioned that they said the same thing the first time round.
So it seems as if those who said, "Look. The current RoE is indeed something that the majority of the Mote buys off on" isn't all that far from the truth, is it?
I support your right to request changes. But I do wish you wouldn't pretend there was some conspiracy.
Also, please remember that it was wabbit--not me--who decided that the original discussion was sufficiently representative to justify action. Given your complete faith in her, expressed lo! these many days, I'm surprised you are then criticizing her decision.
If I understand what happened, the only issue on the table is Irv's changes to RoE wording.
I have to say that I prefer the anticipatory warnings, Irv. Mainly because it tells potential trouble makers that we've thought through this shit, and we won't feel kindly about those who try to push the edges.
I also don't think we should spell out penalties--"Rules" are just that. I see no advantage to limiting ourselves. The fact is that Wabbit can do anything she deems appropriate, so why should we leave ourselves open to people bitching because the exact letter of the consequence mentioned in the RoE isn't followed?
Finally, I don't care for the split between the first two rules and the last two. I prefer the format of the current RoE--spell out all four rules, then expand on the description of each. It is more structured.
We can point people to the FAQ, once it's completed (and would people please read the damn thing? Otherwise, I see another monster in the making.), to give a more detailed description of ourselves, our approach, etc.
I can change the wording to use Irv's more formal approach, and I can put that together to see if that works for anyone interested in reviewing it. But this assumes that the people who preferred Irv's version did so because of the more formal wording. If what was preferred was instead the spelling out of the consequences, then I'd like to debate that a bit more. I would like to see what the advantages are to spelling out and therefore limiting Wabbit's options.
In other words, Angel, if you're going to count heads, please realize that the majority of those who commented expressed support for the rules that were developed.
The only penalty spelled out in my version of the rules is that posts which reveal private information or make serious real-life threats will be deleted. Everything else is up to the thread hosts or the Moderator.
I don't think there's any doubt that such posts will be deleted, is there? Other than that, our options are open, as they should be.
I have a number of comments on the FAQ, but I haven't had a time to write them down yet. I think we definitely need an FAQ, and your effort is an excellent start. I hope others offer their input as well.
a) a short history of the Mote
b) who's who (the short list of staff)
c) what to do with tech problems
d) who to mail with questions
e) expectations for conduct
f) generally not anything which is going to really color a newbie's perceptions one way or the other except for on issues of civility. There's a lot, a LOT of things a newbie eventually learns when joining a forum, but few except for hard-data questions that you can answer in a FAQ.
It may be just a gut feeling, but I worry about saying even that much in the RoE. It's not a huge objection, it just concerns me.
On the FAQ, and this also works for the objection you had to the warning in the RoE, Irv:
I think it saves a lot of time to give a full answer. I remember recently, when Niner deleted the posts, there was a big hullabaloo in the Inferno. Some people were outraged--could a host just do that sort of thing? Answer came back, loud and clear, from a varied group of members: Yes. A host can just do that. We don't hold any truck with tolerating nonsense; we trust our hosts.
Now, I am sure that all members don't agree (Caz and Stone come to mind), and all of us might complain individually about our own posts being deleted, but I would consider that answer to be representative of the Mote's attitude towards thread hosts.
So if we put together a formal FAQ that doesn't address this, I think we're being deliberately disingenuous. I think that answer is a key aspect to understanding how things work here. It should color newbie's perception.
So if the tone is a problem, it can be made more formal. But I do think it's foolish to avoid spelling out our approach to deletions, abuse, etc. Frankly, if someone squawks about their free speech rights, I'd just as soon that anyone be able to link in the FAQ saying, "Perhaps you missed this?"
I should say that it was new folks (from TT) who were outraged.
Honestly. Statements like this just astound me.
??? Meaning what? That you don't believe what I said? Or that you are astounded someone would speak the truth?
This thread commenced on the 18th of September. Wabbit's pronouncement, if that is when the RoE were adopted, came on the 23rd.
Have you forgotten that there was a rule not to mention of the goings on of this thread in the general threads? Hardly the open process you are now characterizing. (BTW, lest you mistakenly think I am opposed to keeping policy discussion in a separate place, I'm not. I'm objecting to the spin that the discussion was open to all.)
I generally support the idea of a FAQ as outlined in Message # 1083. I haven't thought through the pluses and minuses of each individual item, so I may be persuaded that some shouldn't be in there, but I believe there was general agreement quite some time ago for a FAQ
Which is four more people than posted in favor of transparency (after you and Jay) and two more people than posted in favor of Seguine's proposal (one of whom backed off when they understood it).
If you are counting heads, I'm in favor of transparency. I thought that was obvious, but I guess not. (And I take it silence=assent doesn't apply to proposals you disagree with?)
I can't find any statement asserting that "everyone" expressed support.
A-5 has already identified it. How much clearer could it be?
If I understand what happened, the only issue on the table is Irv's changes to RoE wording.
Hardly. I identified the fact that we haven't been clear about the process for making changes. Irv thinks it is clear, but I cannot find a post, much less several, that back up his explication. I can find several referring to alternative rules. I'm not opposed to Irv's summary, but I'd like to see some evidence that his version, rather than others, is the model. Plus, as I asked, I would like to see elaboration of the ambiguity in his summary, as i asked before.
We've had a discussion about transparency. If we adopt the "silence=assent" model, then the overwhelming majority are in favor, and it should be adopted. Of course, I don't accept that model, so I'm not seriously proposing this. However, I don't agree that the issue is closed.
There is interest in a FAQ.
There's thee issues OTTOMH. I bet I could find more (including thread host duties and thread host selection criteria, if I looked.)
No, it wasn't obvious you were for transparency. Really (and as a separate issue), anyone who is for transparency and doesn't use their real name now doesn't warrant much consideration. Put up or shut up, if you think it's so important.
The thread commenced on the 18th, but there was a good week of discussion before that in both Censorship and New Features and Suggestions. Alistair deleted the Censorship thread, and we continued discussion in Features--much of that was deleted as well. Nonetheless, everyone was made aware that the thread existed, and anyone who wanted to could post on the issue.
I have answered the bit about "everyone" already.
Oh, and as A-5 points out, political spinmeisters will make this claim. But that doesn't make it so.
Yes, silence = assent for all proposals, IMO. If we posted an announcement in every thread that we were about to move towards a transparent forum unless we heard otherwise, silence would equate to acceptance.
Good crosspost. I agree if we did that. We didn't.
I wrote a FAQ, and posted it in New Features and Suggestions a while ago, as well as in this thread. I seem to recall you saying that you'd read it and didn't like it but wouldn't post why.
I identified the fact that we haven't been clear about the process for making changes.
You may have identified it, but I've seen no indication that it's moved past that point. As I said to Angel, go get a movement going. Or put a proposal on the table and get a discussion going. I was only referencing discussions that had moved to a point for action.
FWIW, I agree with Irv--the people who are interested will post here. A good percentage of members will read up and post once or twice if they are specifically invited to--which we should always do (and have, despite your impression to the contrary). Requiring that people vote, or forcing them to be subject to these discussions, will not be popular.
No, it wasn't obvious you were for transparency.
Well, we had a book thread on the subject. I started with a strong preference for privacy rules, but Jay, and the book he suggested made a strong case for tranparency. Over time, I became convinced that it was more workable than I orginally thought. I posted to that effect in the book thread, and in other threads.
We also didn't push for a move to transparency. We did indeed make people aware that the RoE was up for discussion. Anyone who was interested knew where the discussion was.
In fact, there was very little change to the RoE--none of the specific rules were changed. The definition of public vs. private was added, as well as a more open definition of abuse and threats. So it's not like there was a huge change--which is entirely different from a proposal to move to transparency. But nonetheless, anyone who wanted to protest or push for a change could have done so.
You may have identified it, but I've seen no indication that it's moved past that point. As I said to Angel, go get a movement going.
I'm trying. That why I spend hours reading the whole damn history to see what had happened in the past, wrote a response to Irv, and objected to your characterization that the issue wasn't open.
So what? There is a big difference between your own desire for transparency and mandating it as a forum policy.
Really (and as a separate issue), anyone who is for transparency and doesn't use their real name now doesn't warrant much consideration. Put up or shut up, if you think it's so important.
This is total bullshit. It's the same bullshit put forth by those who critize campaign finance critics for taking contributions. It's the same bullshit that critics of libertarians use when they point out that libertarians use certain services that they object to.
If you read the transparency book, you will see that the proposed world works when transparency is fully implemented. To use a common example, should women be opposed to transparency if they are being stalked? A short answer is that transparency will help then, if fully implemented. But a partial implementation, where the stalker can locate the woman, but can hide himself, is obviously the worst of all worlds.
Someone suggested that transparency can become the standard incrementally, by each individual adopting it. I disagree (but I'm open to alternative arguments.) In a fully transparent Mote, Cazart would be reticent to harass me, because I would know where s/he lives. If I post my name and address, but Cazart does not, the information asymmetry may work to my detriment.
me I posted to that effect in the book thread, and in other threads.
you So what? There is a big difference between your own desire for transparency and mandating it as a forum policy.
Christ, please pay attention. I said I thought you would know of my position. You said you didn't. I explained why I thought you might have known. That's the "so what".
We also didn't push for a move to transparency.
No kidding. Who claimed we did?
We did indeed make people aware that the RoE was up for discussion. Anyone who was interested knew where the discussion was.
This time. Not in September. And I don't think a single announcement this time stated that silence would be considered assent. Please refer me to it, if I missed it.
Dusty:
I'm not opposed to Irv's summary, but I'd like to see some evidence that his version, rather than others, is the model. Plus, as I asked, I would like to see elaboration of the ambiguity in his summary, as i asked before.
What ambiguity? The method we use has been mentioned enough in various threads, and it will be in the FAQ. Someone brings up a topic or makes a proposal, we discuss it (or ignore it), and wabbit makes a decision. That's the method.
And silence does NOT mean assent. Otherwise we would have adopted both A5 and Seguine's proposals. Silence can mean many things: disinterest, ignorance, disapproval, assent, etc.
CalGal:
I agree with getting more specific about what thread hosts can do in the FAQ.
In fact, there was very little change to the RoE--none of the specific rules were changed. The definition of public vs. private was added, as well as a more open definition of abuse and threats.
I didn't touch the definitions of abuse or threats, so how could they be more open?
What ambiguity?
You said: The Moderator then makes a decision based upon that consensus.
This could be interpreted as saying that the Moderator must make a decision consistent with the consensus. Otherwise, what is the point of the last four words? I propose a period after decision.
The method we use has been mentioned enough in various threads, and it will be in the FAQ.
You keep saying this, but I read the 1000+ posts in this thread, and I did't see it. I'm not asking for someone to find a post to contradict me. If we put it in the FAQ then it will be clear.
No, I wasn't referring to your draft at all! I was referring to the original discussion, back in September, when the RoE was changed in the way described.
I'm sorry. This gives me a headache, too, and I'm not clear even when migraine free.
And silence does NOT mean assent.
As I thought I made clear, I was referring to what occurs once we have informed people that a change is on the table, and what will happen when a consensus is reached. In other words, you give people the knowledge that a discussion is taking place, you give them the information that action might occur at the end of the discussion. At that point, if people don't become involved, then IMO they are accepting the decision that is made.
This is actually why I encourage people like Angel and Dusty to get people involved in their proposals--because unless there is a big push for change, we are more likely to maintain the status quo. But if lots of people chime in with support, it suggests that there is a reason to consider change.
CalGal:
No problem. I'm still a novice at interpreting CalGalese.
The first mention of a Policy thread was 1017, in New Features and Suggestions, made by Pelle. Wabbit then created it and directed people there at post 1100.
At that time, there was a Censorship thread that had just been deleted, and a chunk of posts in Suggestions had been deleted as well. (I can't remember where right now, and didn't feel like looking back). Anyone who wondered what happened to the discussion could have read in New Features what happened. If you are arguing that someone wondered, didn't ask, and was then deprived of their right to participate, I'm just going to reserve the right to be skeptical.
BTW, the discussion went on for two or three days in Suggestions, five or six days in Censorship, and then five days in Policies. I grant you, there was a bunch of wastage there. But at the time, everyone was very clear on what issues were being discussed, and anyone who wanted to could have easily found out where the discussion was.
The only people I recall offhand who have mentioned conspiracies are you and ChristinO. Others of us have said simply that the RoE was written and agreed upon without adequate notice to all, without truly representative input, in a politically charged atmosphere. The people who spoke up quickest and loudest, and the people who did the actual writing of the RoE, are those whose views were taken to represent a consensus. It should now be clear that there is some dissatisfaction with that "consensus".
"I am just making an observation, since I am responsible for UI and content."
In the interests of transparency (by which I mean transparency of rules and governance--I am not challenging your desire for anonymity in this instance), just what does it mean that you are "responsible for...content"?? Is not Wabbit, really, the one who is responsible for content?
"I can change the wording to use Irv's more formal approach, and I can put that together to see if that works for anyone interested in reviewing it."
Like Irv, I am not an expert in CalGalese, but if this means you are offering to put his change proposal up just as it is (or with changes proposed by people other than yourself and agreed to by Irv) so that it may be reviewed by Mote membership, then I formally request that you do so. If what you mean is that, because you are responsible for "content", you will rewrite it before offering it to the membership, then I strenuously object.
I'm possibly a little better at CalGalese, and I believe she was referring to the FAQ, which is our next project around here.
In fact, I hope we can get past the RoE and move on to the FAQ, which will require more than a little discussion, unless I miss my guess. Fortunately, CalGal has given us a well-organized starting point, though I don't have the reference number for the post.
I support the right of the moderator and thread hosts to scoff at free speech claims, but the "tone" of this remark is precisely what must be avoided in all Mote policy material, FAQs, and boilerplate. One does not accuse people who may or may not have legitimate complaints, of "squawking", "whining", etc. One does not ask archly, "Perhaps you missed this?" Mote policy and explanatory verbiage should not sound as though it has been uttered to a transgressive rival by a contemptuous Heather Locklear.
Dusty: “I identified the fact that we haven't been clear about the process for making changes. “
Yes you did. So did I, a long while back, and A-5 also recalled aspects of the original process that were at odds with what's been claimed to have happened. (We both wondered what's so hard about notifying people of proposed policy changes via email.) Your analysis is most lucid and I wish Wabbit and/or Alistair would now speak to it.
CG to Dusty: “No, it wasn't obvious you were for transparency."
Yes it was.
You can change that sentence to read "The Moderator then makes a decision taking that consensus into consideration" on your copy. But be careful to get the white-out on the right place on your screen.
???
I posted a legitimate concern and a proposed improvement. Why the smart-ass reply?
It should now be clear that there is some dissatisfaction with that "consensus".
Not much, Seguine. You, Angel, and Dusty. The change that is on the table is wording, not policy. Had you just stated an objection with the wording of the RoE, rather than declaring that it didn't represent a consensus, it would have been a different (and much shorter) conversation. And you yourself referred to "partisan" efforts, as well as my desire to control the forum.
Yet I see no acknowledgement on your part that the majority of people who posted here in this recent go-round expressed no agreement with your proposal or Angel's, but rather agreement with Irv's new wording or support for the existing RoE. This suggests the possibility that no misrepresentation took place, that those who told you that yes, the current Rules are supported by the membership weren't just making it up.
As to your other question:
I format all the text on this site, and write damn near all of it. I mentioned that because any RoE changes will be formatted by me and I wanted to move that piece to resolution--not because I was going to take action yet. In fact, I would take no action until I heard from Wabbit.
I don't see enough of a consensus yet for Irv's wording--more than a few people said either were fine, and some said that they preferred the existing RoE. Given that I had a few concerns, I thought I'd propose a third option, with Irv's wording (more formal) and my structure. I am not proposing this as anything other than a Mote member, so I really don't care if you object--strenuously or otherwise.
No one agrees with you. Please drop it and move on.
No, Dusty made no posts in the original debate for transparency. He's said so himself.
I support the right of the moderator and thread hosts to scoff at free speech claims, but the "tone" of this remark is precisely what must be avoided in all Mote policy material, FAQs, and boilerplate.
The "Perhaps you missed this?" would not be in the policy material, but by the person making the link. The point being that we would have an answer spelled out at the site, rather than looking like we make it up as we go along.
You transposed. Read the number again.
"Some questions that should be adressed in the FAQ:
Q. Who runs the Mote? [A. As of [date], the following individuals perform the duties described here and may be contacted via the Moderator: [list]]
Q. What's the definition of "personal", definition of "private"?
Q. Copyright issues?
Q. How did the Mote come into existence? [provide history, mention Fray]
Q. How do I propose a policy change?"
Note that some of these questions may be implicit to some extent in the FAQ CalGal linked in 864.
That last (of mine) should probably follow a Q. that asks, "How are administrative decisions contested" and another that asks "How is Mote policy determined and implemented?"
No, Dusty made no posts in the original debate for transparency. He's said so himself.
Seguine stated that she thought I made my position clear. As did I. Your retort isn't responsive to the issue.
You transposed. Read the number again.
I said 1107. I meant 1107. I missed the opening angle bracket, so it didn't create the link.
I'll try again. Message # 1107
Of course I have, for those efforts and your desire to control the forum are part of what is known as politicking, not "conspiracy" or "cabal". You enjoy politicking; others could give a shit, but nevertheless don't care to be dominated by a contingent voice.
As a partisan you are, in my opinion, about as fit to decide whether a consensus was ever reached (or whether sufficient antipathy to your version of policy exists now to warrant change) as any presidential hopeful is credible when he says, in public, that his campaign is poised to win a given primary. Claiming you have the will of the 'people' on your side does not make it true (or false, for that matter).
If, as you claim, you see no substantive difference in Irv's RoE from the one you drafted, then you should have nothing against putting it up for review. You should not be proposing to change it at all. ("I thought I'd propose a third option, with Irv's wording (more formal) and my structure.")
It should come as no surprise, incidentally, that I do not accept your explanations of your repeated questioning of the process of policy re-examination now under way. Were you truly disinterested--and in your controller-of-interface capacity you damned well should be--you should have no opinion about it one way or the other.
What the hell are you talking about? I referred you to an earlier discussion, since you claimed that no one had been notified of this thread and the discussion. I referred you to 1017 in Suggestions. If that's not what you're talking about, I'm uninterested.
As for the other, if you posted on your support for requiring transparency, please point me to it. I missed it. In any event, it is clear that there was one other person who is in favor of transparency. That still doesn't suggest the massive suppression or conspiracy to thwart the desire of the membership, which is what the accusation suggests.
No.
Irv's draft is up for review, and has been so since he posted it. Is that not clear? There is no next step.
Of course I have, for those efforts and your desire to control the forum are part of what is known as politicking, not "conspiracy" or "cabal".
Actually, I don't engage in politics. I express my opinion. It's you who characterizes it as politicking, and it's really not that big a leap from politicking to conspiracy. I certainly don't think you are "politicking" for change, and yet you are doing the same thing I am--expressing your opinion.
Were you truly disinterested--and in your controller-of-interface capacity you damned well should be--you should have no opinion about it one way or the other.
I format the text and write everything until someone comes along and complains. I have quite often made changes that I don't personally agree with, and will continue to do so. It's not required that I approve changes--in fact, I have no authority to do so. I "control", to a certain extent, the look and feel of the site. Not the policy.
Message # 1124
Too bad. I am allowed to do it, just as you are allowed to do it. There is no "No". It is clearly on the table to propose RoE drafts, so that's how it works. Anyone else can propose one, too. In fact, I think you did, didn't you?
What the hell are you talking about?
You quoted my request:
This time. Not in September. And I don't think a single announcement this time stated that silence would be considered assent. Please refer me to it, if I missed it.
Apparently you mistook my request for a reference to an announcement that silence=assent to a request for an announcement of something else. So when you starting making reference to things that had nothing to do with what I asked,
I did't understand. Was I unclear? Could the "it", in "please refer to it" mean something other than the prior sentence?
That still doesn't suggest the massive suppression or conspiracy to thwart the desire of the membership, which is what the accusation suggests.
Your word-twisting is tedious. I never claimed some conspiricy. That seems to be your favorite term. But you expressed the opinion that only two people "posted in favor of transparency", so I wanted to make it clear that others supported the concept.
I misunderstood what you said you'd do. If you're proposing making alterations to Irv's text and putting them up for approval here, I can have no objection; although of course it will then be necessary for the Calgalized version to survive a critique, which must then bring you and your ever-present intentions into the discussion once again.
You already have an RoE version on the table. It's linked on every page. Irv's is a compromise of yours and others'. How many more with your input in them do we require?
A terrible burden. Thankfully, Irving has offered to assist you.
CalGal I am one of the people who support Irv's RoE. I support it because I think it can produce genuine consensus, it does leave application of punitive measures unspecified, and because of the reasons I've cited previously (clarity, emphasis on the ultimate authority of the moderator, rhetorical neutrality). I don't see why it should matter in the slightest that my RoE generated little support. It's sufficient that my proposal, along with A-5's, seems to have got the ball rolling.
As I said before, Irv's version addresses some concerns of mine; I count myself a part of the consensus emerging around it.
"This suggests the possibility that no misrepresentation took place, that those who told you that yes, the current Rules are supported by the membership weren't just making it up."
There was not previously a fully articulated alternative to the current rules. Now there is.
As has already been pointed out (by me, by A-5, by Dusty), the existing rules were written and codified in short order. Objections were apparently overruled. Silence was presumed to indicate assent.
One wonders why silence might not as easily have been interpreted to indicate the realization of sheer impotence.
Oops. Hear that? Crickets! The sweet sound of assent! I guess you're voted down again, I have the silent majority behind me. And these are their telegrams.
When, exactly, was it decided to sell books through the site? Last I knew that was off the table.
I think the FAQ can bear revision for tone, and I suggest that we draft someone to do that, but I like the general layout and almost all of the topics.
"...a Q. that asks, "How are administrative decisions contested" and another that asks "How is Mote policy determined and implemented?" "
As far as I'm concerned these specific suggestions may be used, modified, or rejected out of hand, but I believe it's important that people joining the forum have a reasonably clear picture of how it operates and so I hope a FAQ will address that transparency issue.
1. I much prefer Irv's more concise and direct wording. I think the debate about whether they represent a change from the original ROE indicates some lack of clarity in that version.
2. I would prefer the site to be transparent. However, I would not want to impose transparency on even a large minority of opponents. I believe it is actually opposed by a majority of members. Those who are opposed feel quite strongly about the issue. The current privacy policy doesn't prevent unilateral transparency by any member. I suggest to people who currently have handles, and fear transparency, to consider that the most virulent posts, spam and other nastiness come from people with handles. There's a reason for this correlation.
I would find Dusty's and A-5's positions more persuasive, and believe it will help the site move towards more transparency if they would drop their handles.
But at this time I do not support any change in the privacy policy.
Unlike Jay, I don't see the point of unilateral transparency, but I'm willing to agree to it on condition.
I will post real data without hesitation provided that I can get one simple bit of agreement from Wabbit: that only the people who post here under their real names, and can verify that to me or to the satisfaction of the administration, are allowed to use or refer to that data. For everyone else, use of that data constitutes an infringement of my privacy, their posts are to be deleted and they are subject to ID suspension.
It appears that we were discussing two different forms of transparency. In this discussion, "transparency" refers to the practice of using real names and having no privacy rules. You apparently have been using it to refer to transparency of operations. If you identified this switch, I missed it.
I agree that Dusty has been clearly in favor of transparency of operations. When I said he had not come down clearly in favor of transparency, I was referring to the discussion on privacy. I am aware that you are not in favor of that sort of transparency, and have even referred to it on more than one occasion here.
And yes, I realize you support Irv's RoE. I have never questioned that. What surprised me--and still does--is that we had a long debate on your push for less use of personal (but not private) information, and then Irv's reposting of the same rules (with concise wording) gets your vote and you drop all mention of the personal information requirement.
Jay,
I understood that to be your position.
What do you think, Jay? It privileges those participants willing to use their real names by offering them extra protection against misuse of personal data, thereby requiring a degree of civility as the price of ID transparency. Or vice-versa: ID transparency becomes currency for an enforced degree of civility regarding all info.
One would have to be able to trust that Mote management would be vigilant about violations, but still... I might consider going back to using my real name (which I concede is already known) just to see whether such a policy might work.
What do others think?
I posted a legitimate concern and a proposed improvement. Why the smart-ass reply?
I responded to your concern. I tried to add a little humor to a dry and somewhat tense debate. My intention was only to lighten things up. I'm not used to being called a smart ass. Do you really think it fits?
I'll leave it to someone else to rip that idea to shreds.
If it were not a volunteer site it might be more feasible, but speaking for myself as co-moderator of one of the busiest threads here and as one who does not log on from work any more due to an increased workload, and who also has less time at home, I don't see how it would be workable, and I wouldn't want to continue hosting a thread, at least not one as busy and rowdy as Politics. The ones to ask, though, would be Wabbit and Alistair.
Look: there's a cost that comes with keeping personal info confidential. More than one Motier has contacted me via email, and started up off-board conversations. They share stuff with me, and unfortunately, I can't share much with them. I've seen too many times the consequences of such trust. And if you share real-life info with people and it comes back to bite you, you never really knew who did it, meaning you may suspect a lot of people wrongly.
Second, people treat you differently because of the "reserve." What does anyone know about a moniker? OTOH there's something reassuring when you know the person is real and has put his cards on the table.
So as a pseud, I have to put up with a lot of distrust and even sometimes lies--witness the Mote Cafe at TT--because without saying who I am, it's pretty difficult to prove who I am not. That's okay, though, because to be able to post while protecting my real life, that's the price I'm willing to pay.
On another subject, silence does not always equal assent. Silence sometimes equals fatigue. It's fairly obvious that a lot of blather occurs on this thread to accomplish very little change. When it actually appears as though something I care about is likely to be affected, I'll speak up.
Change requires a stronger advocacy than one or two complainers.
Irv, if I took any liberties that changed your meaning, rather than just standardize the text, squawk. That wasn't my intent. Also, if you think it really was preferable the other way, I can live with it. I just wanted the structure of the four rules in order, etc.
Coming up... Rules of Engagement:
The Mote is a not-for-profit discussion forum hosted and run by member volunteers. Membership is free. [one comment--is this appropriate for the RoE? I think it should be in the FAQ, but I left it here since it was in Irv's draft]
Strenuous argument is acceptable in this forum. However, certain important rules govern the exchange of information:
1. Don't reveal someone else's private information online.
2. Don't make threats.
3. Don't make posts that are needlessly abusive.
4. Don't use The Mote for advertising, solicitations or spam.
For violations of Rules 1 and 2, the offending posts will be deleted by the Thread Host or the Moderator. If the violation is deemed serious and intentional, the violator is subject to suspension or banning by the Moderator.
For violations of Rules 3 and 4, the offending posts are subject to possible deletion or relocation by the Thread Host or the Moderator. In serious cases, the violator is subject to suspension or banning by the Moderator.
The decision of the Thread Hosts and Moderator are final.
The final judge of the behavior of any participant, or of a thread host's decisions and behavior, is the Moderator.
The Mote does not endorse or stand behind the truthfulness or reliability of any information posted by users and is not responsible in any manner for content, which remains the sole responsibility of the user.
By participating in The Mote, you agree to abide by the Rules of Engagement. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved.
Your attempt at unilateral definition of terms is hilarious. I brought up the subject of operations transparency some 200 posts ago.
"What surprised me--and still does--is that we had a long debate on your push for less use of personal (but not private) information, and then Irv's reposting of the same rules (with concise wording) gets your vote and you drop all mention of the personal information requirement."
Why in heaven's name should this have "surprised" you? Does it surprise you when a political candidate ends his own campaign to endorse an opponent whose views are close enough to his own to advance at least some of the goals he considers worthy? Irv's a far better politician than I. Consider me a mere Alan Keyes: I'm here to keep the debate interesting and inclusive.
JayAckroyd, of course, is the AntiPerot, but only because Perot is secretive.
The Mote is a not-for-profit discussion forum hosted and run by member volunteers. Membership is free.
Strenuous argument is acceptable in this forum. However, certain important rules govern the exchange of information:
1. Don't reveal someone else's private information online*.
2. Don't make threats.
For violations of Rules 1 and 2, the offending posts will be deleted, and violators will be subject to suspension or banning by the Moderator, if the violation is deemed serious and intentional. The decision of the Moderator is final.
3. Don't make posts that are needlessly abusive.
4. Do not use The Mote for advertising, solicitations or spam.
Posts violating Rules 3 and 4 are subject to possible deletion by the Thread Host (or possible relocation of posts to the Inferno, in the case of Rule 3). In serious cases, the Moderator may suspend or ban the ID of the violator. The decisions of the Thread Hosts and Moderator are final.
The final judge of the behavior of any participant, or of a thread host's decisions and behavior, is the Moderator.
The Mote does not endorse or stand behind the truthfulness or reliability of any information posted by users and is not responsible in any manner for content, which remains the sole responsibility of the user.
By participating in The Mote, you agree to abide by the Rules of Engagement. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved.
*Private Information is defined as any information linked to an individual’s real-life identity which has never been posted in the Mote by an individual (or by another participant with the individual’s knowledge and express consent).
CalGal, you have edited out a measure of the specificity in Irv's three 'ultimate responsibilty' clauses by deleting the first, and introduced a redundancy by placing it directly after the second.
My understanding of the reason for the structure of the Irv Version, which I hasten to add is taken solely from reading it and not from any avowal on his part, is that:
For rules 1 and 2, the Moderator makes all decisions.
For rules 3 and 4, the Moderator and the Thread Hosts make all decisions.
However, for all four rules, the Moderator is the final arbiter. (That's why the clause "The final judge of the behavior of any participant, or of a thread host's decisions and behavior, is the Moderator" is in a separate paragraph. It refers to all the previous four sections.)
Note, too, that the meaning is changed from Irv's:
"Posts violating Rules 3 and 4 are subject to possible deletion by the Thread Host (or possible relocation of posts to the Inferno, in the case of Rule 3). In serious cases, the Moderator may suspend or ban the ID of the violator. The decisions of the Thread Hosts and Moderator are final."
to CalGal's:
"For violations of Rules 3 and 4, the offending posts are subject to possible deletion or relocation by the Thread Host or the Moderator. In serious cases, the violator is subject to suspension or banning by the Moderator."
CG's edit of the Irv Version has the Moderator as well as Thread Hosts deleting posts for abusiveness and spam. I believe this is accurate, but not essential to convey. That is, I don't object to "Moderator" being included in the paragraph per CG's edit; however when one reads the rules as Irv wrote them, I think one probably doesn't wonder whether the Moderator may delete or move posts, since she may do far worse and in fact is the ultimate judge of hosts' as well as posters' behavior.
As for the definitions of "private information," "threats," and "needlessly abusive", the first is defined adequately by Irv's asterisk text; the second and third are left undefined on purpose because their definition in any given event is the prerogative of the Moderator to decide. The "serious and intentional" language in Irv's explanation of items 1 and 2 makes clear that asessing the nature of disclosures and threats is the Moderator's job. There is no need to invite transgression by delving into specifics.
And Nos was removed as host at his request. Strictly speaking, he didn't even get in trouble for deleting all of RS's posts--rather, it was putting the thread on read-only and bringing the situation to wabbit that ultimately resulted in the two of them having a suspension (because as I recall, she had told them to cool it).
Given wabbit's generally benign hand in subsequent disruptions, I think it's safe to say Nos could have served his suspension and resumed hosting duties had he not requested to be relieved of them.
This centralization-of-power change IMO is what Niner was referring to when he objected to Irv's version.
Interesting. My understanding is that a thread host should immediately delete a post if it contains a threat or private information.
That was why I changed it--because Irv's wording gave the impression that only the Moderator could delete posts, and that only the thread host could move things. While this would normally be the case, I thought it'd be safer to describe what could actually happen. The Moderator can move posts as well as the Thread Host. Were Wabbit to move posts and people were to squawk, it wouldn't be very helpful to say, "Well, she can move posts, too, but we figured just didn't spell that out." I mean, who needs the aggravation?
If that isn't the case--if Wabbit will never move posts other than in her thread and Thread Hosts can't delete posts with threats or private information, then I agree the difference should be spelled out. But I would certainly delete any post that contained private information in my thread, so if I'm not supposed to, we should make that clear to all thread hosts now.
Also, Irv specifies that posts may be moved to the Inferno. This strikes me as a useful specific, so I'm not sure why the CG edit doesn't include it.
I should have underlined the "relocation", as I did with the "abuse", "private info", etc. My thought was to keep the rules simple, as Irv clearly designed it, but provide links (presumably to somewhere in the FAQ) to spell out what could happen in greater detail.
Agreed, but still: people will want to know what we mean by "abuse" and people will want to know what we mean by "threat", just as they want to know what is meant by "private information". My thought was to provide expanded information in a consistent manner. I think there is just as much need to explain threats and (particularly) abuse--even if it is just that yes, we do indeed leave the definition up to the moderator.
But whatever we do, the link (underlined) and the asterisk will provide the same functionality--more information on the term. So it's mainly an interface issue, not one of content. I would use Irv's wording regardless.
Also, Irv asked, in response to my query about its meaning, that the disclaimer "Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved" be reviewed by one of the Mote's attorney types. However, we haven't heard from the lawyers about the disclaimer yet. Would someone please speak up?
My impression of the disclaimer as it stands is that it refers either to copyright or to management's ultimate control of the site. Since the former is a dicey subject that the disclaimer doesn't really begin to address, then i'm guessing someone originally suggested this mention of "rights" thinking that it conveyed something about the speech rights of people who have been granted access to the Mote. But as far as I can see, it conveys nothing in particular. No "rights" have been granted at all; it's a little confusing to read that some mysterious rights I hadn't thought about having are "reserved". (By whom?)
If folks feel a disclaimer is needed, then in order to determine what the disclaimer should say, a clear understanding of what it is supposed to guard against must first be established.
No, but you could have suggested that "Inferno" be underlined and FAQ-linked in Irv's version, since anyone who had not visited The Inferno thread wouldn't know what it was for. (The explanation in the FAQ could simply be Wabbit's explanation from the thread itself.)
"My thought was to keep the rules simple, as Irv clearly designed it, but provide links (presumably to somewhere in the FAQ) to spell out what could happen in greater detail."
The spelling out of "what could happen in greater detail" is an exceptionally bad idea, for it may appear to circumscribe Wabbit's authority by detailing in x or y case just what retribution may occur. You will inevitably fail to consider some other, possible, case. All those links would be invitations to find loopholes to exploit.
Just as specified in Irv's draft, "we" mean by "abuse" and "threat" just precisely what the thread hosts and/or moderator interpret those words to mean. Attempts at clarifying the terms will simply intrude on host/moderator preferences. "Private information" is by necessity of membership preference (including your own!) not as vague a term, which is why it is defined.
"My thought was to provide expanded information in a consistent manner. I think there is just as much need to explain threats and (particularly) abuse--even if it is just that yes, we do indeed leave the definition up to the moderator."
Your statement is contradictory. Sometimes less is more, CalGal. Irv's text already spells out all a participant needs to know about the definition of threats/abuse: the moderator is the ultimate authority. The definitions are subjective.
"But whatever we do, the link (underlined) and the asterisk will provide the same functionality--more information on the term. So it's mainly an interface issue, not one of content. I would use Irv's wording regardless."
Personally, I prefer having the definition of "private information online" asterisked and located right where it is in Irv's version. Especially when they're eager to begin posting, people don't always use links. You're proposing too many as it is. A single FAQ link at the bottom of this short document should be sufficient. Every word in it needn't be hyperactive.
CG: "Interesting. My understanding is that a thread host should immediately delete a post if it contains a threat or private information."
Yes, I summarized too abruptly. I should have specified that the Moderator makes all decisions about suspension and banning from the Mote. (One issue that might ought to be addressed in the FAQ is whether thread hosts can ban posters from their threads.)
Read Irv's again:
"For violations of Rules 1 and 2, the offending posts will be deleted, and violators will be subject to suspension or banning by the Moderator, if the violation is deemed serious and intentional."
Note that it's non-specific as to who deletes.
fuck
Well, that's obviously not why you changed it, because Irv's wording gives no such impression.
It's only in the second explanatory section, for 3 and 4 (abuse and spam) that there may be an excuse for a revision that specifies that the Moderator may delete and move. As I said in the last paragraph of Message # 1161, the clarification would serve accuracy but isn't really necessary, as no one would presume that the God-like Moderator who can delete threats and private info references, who can suspend and ban, who is the ultimate arbiter of all host and participant behavior, for some reason cannot delete and move to the Inferno abuse and spam.
A5:
You questioned the book deal earlier. This has been discussed a number of times, mostly in the Suggestions thread. It's a good deal... it's voluntary, costs the buyer nothing, and provides a small kickback to the Mote, which we can use for a backup server or other purposes.
It will be in the FAQ. Your comment underlines the need for an FAQ, since there are other things we've decided and implemented which aren't explained in a single place.
Cal, Seguine:
Both of you have made good comments on my RoE proposal. How about if I attempt a rewrite, based on Cal's comments? Then I'll know what I'm saying and can explain further where necessary.
I'd rather not go through and respond comment by comment, especially since my connection isn't allowing me to move around the thread easily.
Seguine
I think having two sets of rules, depending on whether the poster is using a handle, is unworkable. This is especially so because it isn't always obvious when a handle is in use. And what if you post in the clear for a while, and then switch?
Generally speaking, I find the privacy rules fraught with problems, and am really glad we have wabbit around. The rules invite testing, hypothetical exploration, and people charging into the suggestions thread demanding bans.
But, again, to my mind the consensus is clear. I think Irv's rewording does a better job of expressing that consensus than any of the mods.
I'm not used to being called a smart ass. Do you really think it fits?
No.
For that reason, I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, and it still didn't come across as an attempt at humor. But I was probably in a bad mood, so I'll assume it was my bad reading. My apologies.
I was hoping you would.
Jay: "I think having two sets of rules, depending on whether the poster is using a handle, is unworkable. This is especially so because it isn't always obvious when a handle is in use. And what if you post in the clear for a while, and then switch?"
You lose your protection. (But never mind.)
"Generally speaking, I find the privacy rules fraught with problems..."
Yeah, but I have a feeling ID openness would also be fraught, and for the same reason it's unworkable to have two sets of rules: too much management required. For open-ID to work it would have to be absolute, and ensuring someone wasn't hiding behind a pseud could perhaps get complicated. Also, annoying. (Presumably, there's a Moderator Irritation Quotient that must be figured into the 'cost' of one forum model as compared with another.)
"But, again, to my mind the consensus is clear. I think Irv's rewording does a better job of expressing that consensus than any of the mods."
We agree.
That's why I believe all you can do is use moral suasion, and wait for enough people to see the light.
You're one of them Baha'is, aren't you?
Although I prefer the Type O Negative cover.
If transparency is a good idea, it will come about. The forums filled with ranting, anonymous lunatics will drive out the reasonable people. They'll be happy to come to a place where there is accountability for what members post, the simple accountability of knowing who is doing the posting. You can fear stalkers, but they're a lot less scary when you know who they are. And they are less likely to stalk, for that reason.
The medium is still new. People still think they have privacy, while DoubleClick merrily collects their activity, and then matches it up to databases compiled by merchants. They think they still have privacy, when they show up on a couple of dozen video cameras a day. They think they still have privacy as the SSNo becomes a requirement for more and more transactions. It's over. For better or for worse, the era of urban anonymity is over.
You can try to pretend otherwise, and hide behind handles. But it's an illusion.
Works for me--in fact, I just did the rewrite as a way of demonstrating what I meant.
Summer Breeze, makes me feel fine, blowing through the of my mind......
Jasmine... it's "jasmine of my mind" (whatever that means).
Cal:
Cool. I was waiting for your post. I'll do it in my morning.
"But if he really does want a toothless central leadership, I can't agree with that -- though it's irrelevant, because his argument is rooted in the concept that we have one now, and we don't. The central leadership in this forum is really the only body with any significant power at all. I don't mind thread hosts being more empowered under the aegis of the Moderator, but that's not a pressing concern. Niner, can you explain your statement a bit more, in case I misunderstood you?"
You may have misunderstood, but the fault lies with me. "Toothless" is a bad word. From my perspective, the central leadership is far too Neville Chamberlain with jack-booted troublemakers, whereas I prefer summary executions for folks that any damn fool can see are interested in masturbatory exercises (excepting me). Otherwise, I have no quarrel with the administrators, I find them judicious and conscientuous, and I am, in fact, hot for wabbit. Which, my luck the way it is, means wabbit is a man.
I'm finding that all the heads on a pike argument are beginning to sway me a little bit, especially having seen some more of Cazart in the meantime. It's always been a near thing for me, whether I should support swift executive action to remove people for the good of the forum, or whether I should support an idealistic point of view where we let miscreants and sociopaths roam the Mote at will. It's becoming much nearer of a thing.
I agree a lot with what Jay's said about how the success of the forum is dependent more upon the leadership than the rules themselves, which is why I find myself favoring a rules statement which emphasises the empowerment of leadership.
As Irv is working on a rewrite, I will refrain from comment for now, except to say that I agree with Seguine when she says "less is more".
Its purpose would be for hosts to remove any and all cazart droppings from their threads. Also, other posters who feel the need to say anything to this human offal would know where to go (figuratively, of course) to ream his/her/its asshole.
I'm sure many will volunteer to host.
What fucking jokes you are. If you've got a beef against me, air them---don't hide in this fucking subthread, assholes.
As for kicking the shit out of me, Stinky, I now realize that theMote doesn't enforce a prohibition against threats of physical violence--what's stopping you, cocksucker? Hey, I'll accommodate you any fucking time you wish. Think of the big hero you could be, dipshit. Why not back up your threats, shithead? Could it be that you're a motherfucking coward?
Fact is, after seeing your pictures, I can understand why you'd be unwilling to back up your threats of violence.
Say 'hi' to the cats, asshole.
No games.
It keeps going and going and going.
You are directed to have Stinky remove the picture by 0800 CST Sunday.
Thank you.
(And redundant and repetitive, too.) 
Do not forsake me, o my darling,
On this our wedding daaaayyyy.
Bump-da-di-boomp-boomp. Wait, wait along.
The noonday train will bring cuisinart.
If I'm a man I must be brave,
And I must face that lyin' fart,
Or lie a coward--a craven coward--or lie a coward in my grave.
Oh, to be torn 'twixt love and duty!
S'posin' I lose my fair-eyed beauty?
Look at that big hand move along,
Nearin' high noon!
He made a vow while in state's prison
That it would be my life or his'n.
I'm not afraid of death, but oh,
What will I do if you leave me?
Bump-da-de-boomp-boomp. Wait-along, wait along.
Here are some song lyrics, in keeping with Stinky's trend:
Oh Mickey, you're so fine you're so
fine you blow my mind, hey Mickey, hey Mickey) (Oh Mickey, you're so fine you're so fine you blow my mind,hey Mickey, hey Mickey) (Oh Mickey, you're so fine you're so fine you blow my mind, hey Mickey) Hey Mickey! You've been around all night and that's a little long You think you've got the right but I think you've got it wrong
373. Indiana Jones - 4/4/00 10:00:27 PM
This is to announce that cazart's ID was disabled yesterday for his disruption of the Mote Movies thread. I took this action in wabbit's absence based on precedence (she had previously disabled his login when he did the same thing in policies) and the initial list of duties Alistair assigned when appointing me to the position of Gatekeeper. I simultaneously notified wabbit so that she could override my decision if she thought it was in error.
Until wabbit had a chance to respond, I considered the matter closed. But as cazart's status has caused some confusion in the Mote thread at TT, I want to clarify the situation.
Disabling cazart's account was a unilateral decision by me that I judged the best response to his behavior. When wabbit returns, she will as always make the final call.
374. PelleNilsson - 4/4/00 10:29:19 PM
Indiana
With all due respect I consider the banning premature. It was not all that bad and CalGal handled it well. Knowing that there is a lot of bad feelings between you and cazart it could be construed as abuse of power.
375. CalGal - 4/4/00 10:34:57 PM
We might want to move this conversation to Suggestions/Features? or Policies, now that I think of it.
376. Raskolnikov - 4/4/00 10:40:05 PM
Conflict of interest be damned. If Wabbit had delegated admin responsibilities to me, I would have cut off Cazart's access after the first reposting of spoilers.
Cazart had spammed the same post about a half dozen times (CalGal says at least 10, but I'm not sure it was that many) with the thread host deleting it each time. I have no doubt given the temperament of the two that it would have continued much longer if allowed to. Perhaps it's unclear from reading the thread, but cazart didn't stop until his ID was disabled (i.e., my action wasn't punitive; it was to stop what was occurring).
Apparently his attempt to log in returns the message that he needs to contact the Gatekeeper to get back in. He hasn't made any such request, so apparently the bad feelings work both ways, as he certainly would have emailed wabbit (and likely has).
Did my personal feelings toward cazart affect this decision? That's cart before the horse. My personal feelings toward cazart grow out of his behavior on this forum, nothing else. I don't know him in real life and don't wish to. Despite his constant lying, I have never corresponded with him. He has never said one true insult about me, and I assure you I'm not nearly as sensitive to false criticism as many here. The only reason cazart has any affect on me whatsoever is that I think he is detrimental to the prospects of this forum.
Do you know why he keeps insisting on "accountability"? Because when someone takes accountability here that is someone he will be able to bully and intimidate. That's why he tried to get the POC for the server. If you say, for example, you are responsible for what goes on at the Mote, you will never hear the end of it from him. You will be threatened and harassed over every perceived slight to him.
I enjoy posting here much more than forum duties. Unfortunately, the only compensation at an all-volunteer forum is posting, so it's inevitable that perceived personality conflicts occur between volunteers and others. If the choice comes down to free interchange between myself and others and no duties or duties and no free interchange, then heck, man, take the duties away.
Bottom line: my judgment is that we had two precedents in which a thread was continually posted to despite requests by the thread host to desist: Rosetta and cazart. In both cases the ID was momentarily disabled.
I do appreciate that your judgment in this instance differs. That's why we have discussion forums.
As far as your decision goes, I have no problem with it. I don't know that I would have done it--on the other hand, I left for a two hour meeting and was relieved to come back and not find a mess of spoilers. And it is silly to have to be worried about such things. Why should he be allowed to be so destructive? (There, I have successfully argued myself from one pole to the other.)
I just think it is important that we announce these decisions right away.
For all I knew, wabbit would respond immediately and reinstate cazart.
As far as a policy about announcing this, how often does it come up (even for wabbit)? I certainly won't be making this a regular occurrence, but all this second-guessing of every decision made here is what keeps the forum from ever going forward IMO. The people who are trying to build something here should quit worrying so much about what the people who want to run it down think.
...
Anyhow, Moteheads, I'm off to San Clemente for tonight. Hopefully, the more benevolent dictator can return soon and you won't have Indy Jones to kick around anymore.
I'm not second guessing you. If you have the ability to disable IDs, then you should just do it and be done with it. Wabbit can always come in and issue a reprieve without it reflecting on you.
San Clemente? Are you local?
A brief word.
Speak no more of this. If you justify, you will get nit-picked to death. You did what you did, hopefully, wabbit will make the banning permanent on the reasonable basis that cazart represents 99% of social/interactive problems at this site. Moreover, justification of your decision will lead every minor democrat on these threads to wax eloquent about the rules ("I have great difficulty with the intemperate decision without consultation to blah, blah, blah").
Cazart and others live for a long discussion of the propriety of various actions by well-meaning hand-wringers. Everyone should shut the fuck up about it, and if wabbit reinstates him, then he can be reinstated. Do not make one more post on this topic. That is my advice, and I'm following it.
It really doesn't matter how often it comes up. When it does come up, it's not good for people to wonder whether someone is blowing smoke about being banned or not. If we commit to announcing it, then there is no need to wonder.
But as I said, I'm not second-guessing your decision. I think the charge that we err on the side of leniency is probably accurate. And his spamming and general unpleasantness isn't missed.
And I second this from Rask: "The thread host shouldn't be required to hang around endlessly to wage a post war with a pest."
The sky will not fall if semi-draconian decisions are made here occasionally. (Or more frequently, or less so.)
????
Unless this refers to our earlier confusion about the definition of "transparency" (I did go back that time to reread and saw where you had made the distinction), I don't understand. I have always been an advocate about forum management decisions being "transparent", to use your term. I only oppose requiring transparency of identity.
I think our disagreement arose because you didn't think that the original decisions had been handled openly, whereas I felt it had. That's certainly a good area for discussion (and lord knows, it was discussed), but I don't think I ever advocated keeping everyone in ignorance.
And in the specific case of announcing administrative decisions or who the decisionmakers are, I am more conscious than most about appearances.
My mantra - "It is easier to get forgiveness than permission".
People have put up with Cazart's impression of a tsetse fly for too long. Well done.
I didn't observe that cazart posted the same shit several times.
Consequently I withdraw my earlier remark. You did right.
Stop making comments about me, then. You had no reason to make the first remark, and it was inaccurate. I'm really quite fed up with your bullshit, and your LOATHE function can go to red alert for all I give a fuck.
My comment was not a slight, you self-obsessed psychotic. And who really cares what you're fed up with?
1. Cazart has behaved as Raskolnikov has characterized him: a pest.
2. CalGal dealt with Cazart appropriately in her thread.
3. IndianaJones dealt with Cazart appropriately; as he has pointed out, Wabbit may overrule him if she sees fit.
4. It was appropriate for CalGal to ask Indy to announce his decision publicly.
5. In future, as a matter of policy, all such decisions should be announced.
That being said, I agree with your 1218, and I hope we can all drop the Caz issue.
Thank god someone has set out to determine once and for all whether an energetic enough drill can drive a loose screw all the way to China.
Liberal.
The definition of "needless" and "abusive" are left to the thread host, whose word is final. Any posts that are deemed abusive will be deleted. Understand that standards are set by the host. Continually abusive behavior may be grounds for banning.
It goes without saying that this has holes you can drive trucks through. This is intentional. The inventiveness of a small minority forces us to be vague.
Except for the opportunity to read such fresh and sparkling prose as "holes you can drive a truck through," what's the point of this rule?
We are still waiting for a semi-final draft from Irving, who has until recently been on some sort of sports-inflected vacation in the Land of the Great Satan.
If someone used to use their real name for posting online and they ask that their name not be used here anymore, don't use it. Don't link to it either. It's a simple enough courtesy, isn't it?
The behavior of posters in other forums as alleged by those who have proven themselves to have little credibility is nothing to do with this forum.
If you have a problem with the behavior of a poster at another forum then pursue a solution within that forum. Continued attempts to do so here will be deleted.
Why you want to make this a bigger issue in TT is beyond me, ChristinO.
Clearly you don't understand the negative aspects of bad publicity.
Can you help me to get to the bottom of this one way or the other?
What can you tell me about Stinky's Piggery (a website allegedly set up by the soon to be former Mote Gatekeeper, IndianaJones)? Have you ever been there?
As I've said all along, all I'm interested in is the truth. If the guy's innocent, he should be cooperating instead of sending these 2 clowns to cover his tracks and hide the truth from this forum.
Did you not read what I said? Whether or not Indy had issues at TableTalk has no bearing whatsoever on his performance here. He was approved by a majority of members of this forum and he did his job well. As he is no longer to serve in that capacity his track record at some other forum is even less important now than it ever was.
There is no cover-up. Nos or you or anyone else is free to discuss this and pursue whatever information is available, but not in this forum. This is a TableTalk Issue and has nothing to do with us.
Much of the hostility between cazart and Mitch/IJ comes from the fact the he thinks cazart is JadeGold. And I believe him.
He did link to mote once a head shot of TT moderator Mary Beth. But that picture came from Salon's own publicity site of their employees. Big deal.
You've been misinformed and I think I can give you enough evidence to prove it. Email me jonathanferguson@sprint.ca or give me your email address.
Yawn.
Gee, this is exactly like home. And I mean exactly. I keep expecting muel powell to wander in with a new definition of hypocrisy or something.
The Inspector Javert wrinkle is a little dispiriting. Plus ça change ...
The difference is, they don't promote regular Joe TTers to Marybeth status, do you get the distinction? Here, this guy was (and as far as I know, still is) the gatekeeper. Do you not see why this makes concerns about prior privacy violations valid?
DH1000 was here at the beginning in the Politics thread but got beat up badly by our heavyweights (I'm as thin as a twig), and never returned.
At least we keep our garbage hidden. (g)
Besides, we have a lot fewer obsessives here.
Once again, the liar Nostra-dumbass wishes to stir shit rather than find truth. (Previously he demonstrated as much by not contacting Mary Beth Williams herself, who would easily know the answer to this matter without an "investigation" and who was the person I suggested, but rather Nostra-dumbass contacts a third person--making a jackanapish fool of himself in the process--and thus continues the libelous, hamhanded smear.)
Please check the first post in the following TableTalk thread in Salon Central: "To be opened in the the event of my death: The Last Will and Testament Thread."
You will see the post links to the URL for the so-called "Stinky's Piggery." You will also see that the post below that one describes the linked page as empty...and I could use that evidence to say the site has always remained empty, but it has not. (In fact, it currently houses the Mote Movie. Incidentally, the real problem cazart has always had with the site is that he didn't like the selection of Peter Lorre for his image and wrote to wabbit asking her to make me change it. Which I "sort of" did, hee-hee. Tell me, Nostra, just for curiosity's sake, who's the bigger crybaby, you or cazart?)
The topic has never been deleted from Salon Central, nor has the post linking to the Web site been deleted either. I suggest that were "Stinky's Piggery" to have ever housed a site "stalking" Mary Beth Williams, TableTalk would hardly have allowed a link to it to remain in Salon Central. Nor would the thread likely contain less than 25 posts, all of them purely boring in content.
In contrast to the bumbling, jerka-troid who accuses me, I will also state categorically that I have never lied about any sysop (as has Nostra-dumbass about wabbit) nor harassed one to a fraction of the degree Dumbass has done to wabbit in this very community. So by his own standards, I suggest he has sentenced himself to never be trusted with any position of authority here, including thread host or gatekeeper.
Actually, it has occurred to me to request that Nostra-dumbass be banned for his accusation. That is, if his accusation is true, then he has revealed real-life information about me, which is clearly in violation of the Rules of Engagement. (As I dispute said information, it is impossible that I have revealed it on this forum, and since it's only existence is in the mind of cazart, I have not revealed it elsewhere either.) Therefore, if Nostra-dumbass believes his slur, then he has committed a bannable offense; if he does not, then (despite his lofty protestations) he's a slanderer and liar (which of course he is, but that's beside the point). As ChristinO correctly points out, the history he relates is no way pertainable to events on this forum, which according to the RoE is all that is addressable re other posters.
And Dumbass's allegation clearly would be real life information in the sense that it is likely a real life criminal offense punishable by real life courts.
BTW, this Nostradamus nonsense started up only in the last week and is not typical. If anything, the community has been excessively calm lately.
The difference is, they don't promote regular Joe TTers to Marybeth status, do you get the distinction? Here, this guy was (and as far as I know, still is) the gatekeeper. Do you not see why this makes concerns about prior privacy violations valid?
Frankly, no. I understand what you're trying to sell, but I'm not buying. I never had the patience for usenet, but that has to do with the software and the technical flakiness of Usenet. When I go out to play I don't feel unsafe. I post in my own name, and I'm easily located.
Because of the vast number of teenagers and fools on line, I prefer a moderated forum with a lock on the door -- but I am more inclined toward anarchy (which presupposes a civilized polity) than not.
I have an abiding prejudice against people who feel a compulsion to yammer endlessly about the faults of other posters -- although I will admit that I will gossip as readily as the next person. You are welcome to your crusade, Jones seems very equipped to defend himself.
BTW, now that I know more than I needed to know about this, I want to say that the warmth of your welcome to me is considerably diminished by the fact that one of the first things you did was to ask if I know "Stinky." Attempting to drag a newbie into your fight was not an act of kindness. It tends to undercut your claims of acting for good, as opposed to pursuing a vendetta.
I won't speculate on what this particular group of people will do in the next sixmonth or so (the mote will limp along at least that much longer, i can already tell), but it will be interesting to see how these personalities play out long-term, to see if certain patterns occur in this environs.
It is always a new adventure entering a community and watching humans interact positively and negatively in beautifully delineated patterns. I wish vr was viable currently. Anyway, enough quasi-sociology. Consider it all the comment this new kid chooses to make on the debating and whatnot and derive what meaning one may from it. :D Bom dia.
aem.
aem.
Kuligin,
Please. We all know who's ready to rumble and who's more or less here for nice chit-chat.
In real life, you'd distinguish between someone picking on a polite soul and someone insulting an insult-artist.
In the former case, you'd call the baiter a cad and jerkoff. In the latter case, you'd call the insults fair play.
And this isn't a case of who's "Connected" or what not. Granted, Diva *is* connected. But, to an extent, so am I. I doubt Nos would have been banned for baiting me.
So it's not a matter of who's in better favor. It's just a simple matter of real-life social rules -- you don't go after someone who avoids fights. You only pick fights with people who like fighting.
Again, I didn't see the posts. I only saw that he had said something to you. But there were so many posts that I missed, that I didn't have the time or desire to wade through them all.
But that isn't really my point. So you say my kids have three heads and hump turtles. Do you think I really care what you say? I don't. Sometimes people just take themselves waaaaaay too seriously here. And I don't mean you. You were just the example I saw noted in the Suggestions thread. I just think it is silly to get so worked up over these things. That you ignored him was your best option I suppose. But others did not. No, they throw barbs right back at him, then go whining and crying to the management about how awful he is. That is just pathetic.
There is clearly a "linch mob" mentality in this place. With some people, you can treat them entirely like shit and we don't care. But oh, man, don't mess with this or that person, or we'll ban your sorry ass.
Pathetic really. In my humble opinion.
man, all I can say is, I hate being involved in such things in any way.
So if I understand this correctly, Nostradamus was banned for attacking Diva. And Diva never said anything to him back, she just ignored him. So what we basically had was Nostradamus posting things to or about Diva, and she saying nothing, and he got banned. Is that correct?
Somehow I don't think it is. The posts I at least saw had many people attacking him and he fighting right back. I didn't see the posts in question concerning Diva, so I somehow doubt that this was all about Diva.
Again, it is just a mob mentality. Nothing else.
As for your basic point, I see it but don't agree. Some people attack in very overt ways, others in very covert ones. Who determines how to act for which ones? Obviously, at least in this case, Diva didn't respond or ask for banning, and it happened anyway. So someone else made the decision. I suppose that in the future, should I choose to whine about being attacked, I can expect similar banning of the offensive party?
Somehow, I doubt it very much. But in one sense, that isn't even my point. I don't care what you say. Get a life people! Someone on the Internet is saying untrue nasty things about you. Who cares??!!!
Kuligin,
It's "Lynch" mob, by the way, named after a chap named Lynch.
Kuligin,
I dispute your implication that Nos was *only* banned because he attacked Diva.
As I understand it (mind you, I don't understand it *much*), he was banned for stirring the shit for an entire week. He admitted he was deliberately provoking "meltdowns" (in his words).
I am simply saying that you can't be that shocked that Wabbit would have an itchier trigger finger when it comes to baiting Diva than when it comes to baiting me.
That's life. That's how the game works. Not just here, but everywhere.
Interesting.
He insulted Christin, Irv, Wabbit, Pelle, and me--not just once in anger, but constantly. Check out his very first post as God, back in the Anniversary thread. He then came back as Nostradamus, played nice for a few days in all the threads but the Policies thread, where he ran a disgusting "investigation" of Indy, in which he posted all sorts of private emails from rabid TT folks.
Indy, who is already busy, leaves. (I'm not suggesting any connection, but I don't think any volunteer needs that type of shit, either.) Nos volunteers for hosting his thread and Gatekeeper. One can wonder if that was his intent all along?
In any event, he is turned down based on his prior privacy violations and the fact that he is already acting like a jerk. He gets pissed and starts shitting all over the forum--including escalating his "investigation" of Indy, making confusing and unpleasant posts to any newbie, and goes beserk in the Inferno. He didn't only attack Diva in that series, hers was just the most personal.
I can see having a legitimate policy issue and raising it. I've certainly done that myself. But that's not what went on here. He just wanted to create trouble and wreak havoc.
Now. Was this a person who wanted to be a part of this forum, or a malicious little screw who enjoys fucking it over? And if the latter, explain to me why this forum should have to tolerate it? Doesn't the above behavior count as abusive?
So don't go around comparing ugly posts. Everyone makes unpleasant posts on occasion (although this was particularly cruel). What is the motive of the person making the post? Anger, temper, meanness--or a desire to destroy the forum itself?
You know, I typed "lynch" and then looked at it and thought, "That's a guy's name and probably isn't right."
Anyway, actually I don't think you or I have read all the posts and know all the facts. I just note that it is far easier to ban an unlikable person who is only one person than to deal with several who are for all intents and purposes doing basically the same thing.
I also don't think the rules should apply more or less depending on the person in question. That is just plainly stupid. Because in the end we then apply them in the best way for the people we like the best. And shut out the ones deemed unlikeable or unacceptable.
But again, I speak from ignorance. Have a nice evening.
If Nos had "merely" said something unpleasant to Diva, there shouldn't be a banning.
But CG summarized some of the relevant crap that lead up to the decision.
and there was a lot of it.
wabbit decision was well-justified.
I didn't get into any arguments with Nos. But I appreciate his banning. Usually when people get into fights here, they have the ability to do it and a place to do it that doesn't involve all of us. Nos tried to involve all of us, and particularly someone who was not involved in any way with him. In the past, he trashed another woman in the Mote and treated her in a way that I believe crossed a line, too.
Again, Kuligan, that's my opinion.
That being said, I didn't call for Nos' banning and did my best to ignore him until he took out after Diva's daughter and baby appropos of nothing. I certainly don't miss him.
This is indeed the entire point. Forget all the stuff about free speech and fairness. In fact, it doesn't even matter whether the person is actively trying to harm the forum. If a motier tries to force the community in a direction that the vast majority of the polis doesn't like--particularly those members who work the hardest to build the Mote and have a stake in it--then of course the community has the most fundamental right of all (self-defense) to expel that person.
The expeled poster doesn't lose anything but the ability to associate with others who don't want to associate with him. Dissenting motiers are of course still able to communicate via email with the banished--or, let the dissatisfied lot do the work necessary to create their own forum and govern it as they see fit. Cyberspace has plenty of room for homesteading. Moreover, should the community continually err by "skimming its cream," then it will eventually receive its own just reward: conversation exactly as its participants deserve.
To govern otherwise is to ensure that any scofflaw can run roughshod over such a community of would-be pacifists and Quakers. Proto-Nazis have the right to make their revisionist speeches...but not in Jewish living rooms.
In short, I think it was an excellent move.
Also, Nostradamus had no effect whatsoever on my decision to curtail my online activities both here and elsewhere. I'm just too busy for the time being (which is one reason why I'm posting this at 2 a.m.)
As for his posts concerning Diva, all I could find was some odd reference about a "Mr. Hankey" or some such thing. I suppose the comment was akin to saying something like, "I hope your baby doesn't look like the mailman." That is innocuous at best, unless of course you are saying it to a super-sensitive person or in the presence of super-sensitive people. Now then, given Diva's recounting and her non-response, she doesn't appear super-sensitive, but given the response of others here with what is basically a harmless statement, they must be super-sensitive.
However, again, CalGal pointed out various other matters that I was unaware of.
If Nos was banned for what he said to Diva, it is just plainly silly, because far, far worse has been said here in the Mote by people that are considered some of its best posters.
But practically speaking, it is a done deal nonetheless.
bubbaette, you do say "as I recall," which is the out you need on this one. Because you recall incorrectly.
Or maybe I do. I don't honestly remember why he was banned the first time, but I can't imagine I had anything to do with it. In fact, had I, I suppose I would remember it well!
And I also never acted as "his advisor," which just shows that you really don't know what you are talking about on this one bubbaette. However, if you would please provide substantiation for your claim above (no need for exact posts, just the general gist of what you mean), I would be more than happy to address the matter. Otherwise, please apologize for incrimmating me in something that I had no part in. Thank you.
However, I didn't think that was what Nos was doing. Was he questioning some of the Motie "norms"? Sure he was. Was he attacking some of the Moties that others wouldn't dare attack? Definitely. And I thought it was limited to just that. And thus my comments about lynch mobs and the mob mentality here and a certain level of hypocrisy concerning the matter (and not by all people by any means, but definitely by some).
Personally, I think if you come here and do not expect to be attacked at least occasionally, or find it entirely offensive to ever be attacked, then you should leave. Because such forums as these are not the place for such people.
However, I do agree in principle that a person that contributes nothing positive and only "shits" on the place shouldn't be tolerated.
I guess I am alone on this one...
no... i wasn't really for banning either. i liked his non-personal topical posts and tried to get him to post more of those. he chose to be as ass. oh well.
anyway, while i certainly don't miss him and think theMote will get along fine without him, i wasn't for the banning, but then, i am 99% never for them to begin with. that being said, i have no problem with Cal's Message # 1288 and find myself agreeing with it despite my objections.
aem.
To go in detail into Nos' first banning would almost be to repeat the offense that justified his banning. Suffice it to say that there are enough of us who remember Nos's past behaviour that lead to his banning and your part in it so that your professed bewilderment now rings false.
As I said before, Nox's behaviour in his first banning far outstripped anything that he accused Indiana Jones of doing. So egregious were those actions that I don't see why his ID was re-instated in the first place. Nox in attacking IJ repeated that pattern by dragged a dispute from another venue into the Mote and refusing to let it go when advised that it was inappropriate. He followed his past pattern of attempting to trash people in the Mote over disputes that happened outside the Mote. I think that no one was buying this time because of his past track record.
If, by questioning Mote norms, you mean attacking non-combattants and lashing out at Diva in the most hurtful way he could come up with for no reason at all, then I question the value of that type of "participation". Overall, his behavior over the past week, coupled with the fact that he'd been previously banned for particularly egregious behavior justifies reinstating the ban.
I'm not a fan of banning either. I'd much prefer to ignore the fool til he goes away. And though I didn't call for Nox's banning in the first instance, I think it was justified and question the reason (if there was one) for reinstating him.
but, was it "justified"? well, i dunno. most anything can be justified in the proper context. that being said, this is probably reached the point of diminishing returns in terms of discussing it.
Nos was never banned. When he showed up as God, he committed a rather horrific privacy violation. He wasn't banned for that, either. (although many thought he should be.) He then continued to try and violate privacy, and I believe that he was then banned (as God). At that point someone logged in with a number of ids and began spamming the place. It was very ugly; tons and tons of posts. We actually shut the place down from new logins for a bit, it was so bad. God/Nos/JF denied that this was him, and we had no real proof--but it was the same night, and I've always believed it was him.
That same night, Nostradamus showed up, and started posting in the Spiritual Issues thread. I would say most of us knew within a week that it was the same guy--same interests. But no one acknowledged it, and he was a generally pleasant part of the community for a few months and hosted the Religion thread--until he acknowledged that he was God. He was never banned as Nos; the incident with thread hosting caused his suspension and removal of as thread host, I believe.
So really, the thing you need to do is either 1) substantiate your current claims with facts, or 2) retract your lies (or let me be a little more forgiving and say your "inability to recall things accurately.") But in either case, it is clearly evident that you don't know what you are talking about in this particular matter.
Also, just for clarification, many people are saying that what Nos said to Diva was horrible and disgusting and whatever. Again, all I saw was one post to the effect that "I hope the baby doesn't look like the mailman" type of comment. Nothing horrific about that. In fact, we have seen far, far worse here - even by the likes of bubbaette, for example - that has been quickly excused. If Nos was banned for "shitting on the threads" and contributing not substance, then fine, ban him. But puhlease, ban him for that one comment to Diva?
So far most people that have been for his banning have cited his comment to Diva. Perhaps I missed some other comments to her from Nos? [the comment I am referring to involved pelle in the discussion with Nos]
And silence on this point will have to be taken by you to mean that you still prefer to perpetuate the lie (or error) than to correct it, since your claim sits openly on the table now. Unless you retract it, there it sits. And unless you substantiate it, the lie will continue to be a lie.
But I am even willing to allow it to rest with this, if you so desire: perhaps you simply recall incorrectly the facts surrounding his previous banning? If you at least allow for error on your part in this recent claim by you against me, then I will be happy that you at least allow for error on your part, and then we need not go into any details concerning the matter (although I prefer the details, since clearly there you will be shown your error).
It is your choice.
Of course, thread hosts should have broad discretion. But the suggestion that a post containing commentary on the Presidential debates in a thread on Presidential debates can be considered abusive, seems like an odd interpretation of abusive.
I said that were Jack to repost an entire article instead of linking it in Movies, I would delete it. I was only semi-kidding. But were I to delete it, I would also relink the article in.
I certainly think it is within any thread host's purview to say that they don't want five posts dedicated to an article that could be linked in. I would warn several times first.
Do not be needlessly abusive of other posters.
I expect there's nothing I can add that hasn't been seriously considered before, but, if possible being a little more objective enforcement could be applied .... looking at behaviour as much as the moniker.
The RoE looks fine to me, just an enforcement issue. If a newbie used the term "menapausal hyena" when referring to one of our well liked ladies here, they would face banishment ... if CG used this same term referring to a newbie, what would happen.
I'm not out to get CalGal and sincerely hope that she gets over the anger she's obviously dealing with, but we should be equally considerate of others.
Wabbit, again, I am posting this respecting that you (and others) have pondered these issues before ... but you screwed-up and asked for opinions (hehe).
We have this thread just for hammering out these rules.
In the past, we have tried to keep the rules few in number and vague, which allows leeway in implementation. For most, this seems to work, but for some it becomes an issue of inconsistency. There is no way to be absolutely consistent in enforcing civility. Those who dish it out should also be willing to take it, and usually they are.
Newbies are cut a lot of slack. In the case you mention, someone would probably warn them off, but I doubt they would be threatened with banishment. And while it would be nice if everyone would be a bit more careful with how they speak to newbies, I don't see how that is enforceable. I also think it's unreasonable to expect moderators or thread hosts to have to act as babysitters. btw, while CalGal seems to be everyone's favorite example, there are others who have been unnecessarily rude to new posters in the past couple months. None of us are perfect.
I used name(s) in my earlier post in an effort to be specific. It's not my style to point fingers or rashly accuse .... If you care to delete or edit that post, I certainly understand.
I have been banned twice, both times without cause. The 'needlessly abusive' excuse has been used when everybody knows that Cal is by far and away the most 'needlessly abusive' regular Motie, bar none. She's gone apeshit on me, Judith and MsGreer in the last 24 hours alone, without provocation.
I expect that I will soon be banned a third time, this time citing the 'We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone' clause.
It's time for a triumvirate who are willing to behave like grown-ups. I strongly recommend Maria, Jay and PP for the jobs.
And put this thread on the front page where it belongs, already.
I guess I approve of the new RoE. To be honest, I'm not sure I really understand the difference between the new RoE and the old one.
If there's any subtle new wrinkle, I don't see it.
Then again, I'm a moron.
Under no circumstances can you deliberately use someone else's name for your username.
I'm a little uncomfortable by the level of threat in the proposed RoE. I think I prefer the kindler, gentler current version.
Rick - Which RoE are you happy with? The current or the proposed, or both?
I don't see how you can phrase "Don't be an annoying twit or we'll ask you to leave." I especially don't see how you can do so when annoyance is personal, and when we have more than one annoying twit (IMO).
I think wabbit's the best of all possible moderators, patient but ultimately firm. The rude people who constantly complain about other people's rudeness would find me a disappointing moderator, because I think these rules are impossible to state clearly and enforce consistently, so I just wouldn't enforce them.
I don't think the rewording of the RoE changes anything.
The kinder and gentler version, or even better the non-existant version, would be preferable, but there are people who would like things spelled out in detail, so the group strives for some compromise.
Is this what you don't like?
Repeated attempts will result in our contacting your ISP with a complaint.
Wabbit - No, it's not a specific item, it's that there are ~five explicit threats of account deletion/suspension in five bullet items.
Could you please provide a few examples of this spam (i.e., repetitiveness) or are you just spouting the party line and/or pissed off because I recently took you to task in the slow thread?
Thanks.
I couldn't agree more. Well stated, VK.
Gee, the problem seems to be that we're driving posters away because there's too much arbitrary and capricious abuse of power by PTB and certain thread hosts.
I know the solution! Let's make up even more vague and threatening rules in the privacy of the Policy sub-thread (that very few bother to visit and many don't even notice) so that the PTB and certain thread hosts can power trip even more and drive even more posters away!
Curiouser and curiouser.
WRT your request to document the evidence for my comment, that request itself is evidence. It's how these repetitive things start. You say "Prove your point." The respondent offers his or her evidence. You reply "That's no answer. Prove your point." If they reply again, you reply "That's no answer. Prove your point."
That kind of thing gets really old, really fast, especially when it's about something self-referential.
Fine, I helped you out after you made an error (sounds kind of patronizing, but as you say, 'whatever floats your boat'.)
What would you like me to do when people repeatedly make false statements about me and attempt to have me banned without cause for the third time? Defend myself once and then walk away?
I didn't repeatedly tell wabbit to prove her point. I pointed at the proof she provided and said it was laughable. Because it is. See post 11263 for this so-called 'evidence' that I make 'post after post' in an attempt to 'hurt the Mote.' The response I've just characterized is 11274.
Why don't you just be honest, Jay. You know wabbit personally and you don't know me from Adam. That's why you're taking her side. That's fair enough. You're not alone in that respect.
That's no way to run a forum, though.
Thread Hosting guidelines:
The primary duty is to set the tone of the thread and keep the discussion as focused as you can (or want). You are free to promote any level of civility you desire. As long as participants do not violate the Rules of Engagement, how far they are allowed to go is entirely up to you, but please try to be as even-handed as possible. You have the ability to move posts to a more appropriate thread, or delete posts if necessary. Please be very thoughtful and careful about exercising these options.
Clarify your ambitions for the thread. If you don't like personal abuse or sexual references or off-topic posts, say so at the start, and repeat it as necessary. Posters should not have to discover the hosts likes and dislikes though his or her deletion/move policy.
As a rule, a first-time violation should not result in the post being moved but in a reasonably polite explanation as to why it is objectionable.
To move or delete a post without comment violates common decency. If you must move or delete a post, please post a notice.
cont.
The first two are in the Rules of Engagement. The others are things to consider. You should be discreet and lenient in hosting. Most participants are pretty well-behaved and we don't want to be heavy-handed. Recognize that in the heat of a discussion, things can get ugly. Try not to take it personally.
Links to information at other websites may be posted in the butter sidebar. If you need help doing this, contact us with the link information. A particularly interesting discussion may also be posted in the News section of the homepage.
When the thread is ready to end, please put up an RIP tag. After three days, the thread can be placed into read-only mode and moved into the archives.
Most threads will run pretty well on their own if you are busy and can't spend much time there for a short period, though some threads require a good deal of attention. If you must be absent for any length of time, a new host can sometimes be found, or the thread can be retired. We realize that this is a volunteer operation and real life sometimes imposes constraints on cyber-life.
Enjoy your thread and thank you for hosting.
re: Personal relations
I've never met or spoken to wabbit and, while I used to know her rl name, I've forgotten it. I've spoken on the telephone once to ChristinO, several times to CalGal, both related to a service outage.
The only motie I've met in person is Alistair.
Re: boats floating
You're the one who characterized your posts as taking me to task. IMO the tone of your response was out of keeping with the general tone of the slow thread. But you did provide useful clarification of a point I'd misstated and I always appreciate that.
Re: Hurting the Mote
I think discussions like all the ones now going on in the thread thread share the characteristic that your exchanges with wabbit had. Repetitive messages of people talking past each other are annoying, boring and make the people involved look bad.
Do I think you do that with malice aforethought? I don't. But I try to stay pretty naive regarding malicious motives.
The interesting part of this experiment was to see if a self-governing community would arise. The apparent result is that such a community is easily undermined by a small subset of participants. You see this all the time in commercial discussion areas--strong disagreements between strong personalities destroying the ambiance. In the past, these meltdowns here have been contained by wabbit's good sense and restraint.
You will probably find more success in hosting your thread if you do not discourage points of view from any angle. You also will probably find more success if you maintain a level of civility with the participants in your thread that is higher than what you are shooting for within the thread.
Why can't we just state a default rule? Why must this be at the discretion of the host? Why can't the rules state a standard that hosts as well as posters are expected to live within?
I'd say it's because some people like to hang out in the Cafe and others prefer the Ace's Lounge. What flies in some threads is totally unacceptable in others. I think it's a bad idea to require all hosts to be as lax as JayAckroyd or as diligent as Autodaffy or any standard in between.
If people have problems with hosts they should let the Moderators know it. If a host is not doing a good job then let's remove that host rather than curbing the powers of more responsive hosts for the infractions of a minority.
I think the Hosting suggestions look good. I like Jay's addition too, but I wouldn't want to get any tighter or more specific that we already have.
If you'd like me to respond, let me know. Otherwise, I'm happy with letting our discussion end here. I really don't like to beat a dead horse.
All
re the proposed thread hosting guidelines
They sound great. I also favor Jay's addition.
Unfortunately, the Devil (as always) is in the details. Specifically, in this case, selective enforcement of said guidelines. Which has always been the problem around here.
If they are used to curb some of Cal and Stinky's excesses, great! However if they are only used to pick on folks like Auto, XTC (if he gets another thread) and Greer, they are less than useless and just exacerbate the current problem.
I still worry about this one. No, not because everyone will be able to complain more about me. But because it will create a means for everyone to complain more about stuff that is basically normal, every day life in the Mote and that seems like it would create more hassle.
I think the text in the original "Don't make posts that are needlessly abusive" covers the same thing but it doesn't specify "other posters" in a way that makes people expect more protection than we generally provide around here.
Other than that, I think it spells out a few more things that we all take for granted but is just as well having detailed.
This revision smells like an about face (the advice I asked for and received before taking on education was that no explanation was required) to mollify a favorite who has objected after calling the host an idiot and after having it pointed out to her that she was being intemperate beyond what had appeared in the thread previously.
Moreover, I believe that her objection to my hosting is based entirely on her differing from my opinions about the state of education, the effect of teacher's unions on education, etc. I urge you to read all her posts in education and in the suggestions thread this morning--both for accuracy and tenor. Her efforts on the issue of my hosting are entirely a product of her desire to see my opinions stiffled, and to a limited degree you are aiding her purpose in making a change that is clearly intended to send me a repressive message.
I like the guidelines. I think that a host does owe it to the thread's constituents to be clear about the thread's parameters AND when/why a post has been moved/deleted.
The other stuff, the informal "do your best" and "be consistent and transparent" parts, are also useful, and in the short run may cause hosts to give more thought to their actions. In the long run...I foresee having this conversation again (and not because the majority of hosts don't do a fine job, because they do). But no guidelines could stop that.
Please don't jump to conclusions regarding the hosting parameters. They are not aimed at you specifically nor were they brought on by the protests of any specific poster. It's been one of those weird coincidental things that has nothing to do with causality.
To support your claim about your authority I'm copying in the specific text of one of my emails to you:
"you have full authority to delete and move posts. It's usually best to tell people why you've done so but the bottom line is that you don't really owe them an explanation. This will only cause problems with the moderators if you were to target certain posters unfairly."
You are correct that I clearly stated that it's usually best to explain your actions but not required. I can only mitigate my stance by saying that at the time I was thinking about those who most frequently get their posts moved or deleted and then spend hours and days trying to argue about whether or not their posts were really objectionable.
Unfortunately in trying to be rigid enough to keep delinquents in line I set up a situation in which it is all too easy to step on the toes of non-delinquents.
With all of that said and having looked over the Education thread I feel that you were not abusing your priveleges as host but that it would've caused less furor if you had warned first and then moved posts.
I will add Jay's suggestion and repost in a bit.
MsIT, I don't know that it's possible to create hard and fast rules for behavior. It seems like the old argument about legislating morality. But if you can come up with a reworded version that you prefer, please post it so and everyone can make comments/contributions.
Cal,
I think the text in the original "Don't make posts that are needlessly abusive" covers the same thing but it doesn't specify "other posters" in a way that makes people expect more protection than we generally provide around here.
Frankly, I don't care how abusive people get of George W or Al Gore, hence the change, but I'm not married to it if people agree that it implies too much protection.
I don't think it does. There's no reason people should feel like they can just unprovokedly slam someone repeatedly or dog them from thread to thread. It doesn't happen that much, but for people who don't tend to slap back they ought to at least feel they can reasonably avoid being intimidated and can enjoy being here.
In the Fray the constant hostilities that resulted from an initial set of conflicts and personality clashes and went on for months (years?) drained the entire forum at times. People who hated other posters, for whatever reason, would not let them post anything, no matter how innocuous, without diving in.
The statement gives a basis for dealing with such situations, though it may be redundant; I haven't read everything that closely.
First, let me say that I think the work you've done on all this is great, and you know that I'm a nitpicky wonk, so take this for what it's worth.
The reason I like "needlessly abusive" alone:
1) it covers a situation when someone is doing something that I can't even possibly foresee, but is "abusive"--to the thread, the forum, the community, the world, whatever. For example, the reason I called for Ferguson's banning is because I think he is being needlessly abusive--even if it isn't directly to any one person.
2) To add "to other posters" could give the impression that it is there purely to protect everyone from meanness. And then you get into the whole hassle of defining mean. Leave out the specifics and it still covers posters, but they're only one protected class--the forum, the community, the world at large, the children, whatever, is included.
So the more generic statement covers posters still, if necessary, but doesn't specifically exist to protect posters.
I realize in advance this probably sounds stupid, but I always prefer rules to be broad, rather than narrow. Gives more room for maneuvering in all directions.
That makes sense.
These are not the same things in my book. The current rules encourage an atmosphere of arbitrariness. I disagree that hosts should be arbitrary. I disagree that they should have absolute control over the way discussions occur in their threads, and I disagree with this whole notion that they have to be bribed with the lure of personal power to step up to the task of hosting.
But then, I've been outweighed in this matter, so as far as I'm concerned, the issue is over.
I would have said outvoted rather than outweighed, but it's been clearly stated that this place is not a democracy and thus voting doesn't matter.
I admit the term is merely an adequate substitute at best. Proposed Thread Hosting Guidelines
The primary duty is to set the tone of the thread and keep the discussion as focused as you can (or want). You are free to promote any level of civility you desire, but you should maintain a level of civility with the participants in your thread that is higher than what you are shooting for within the thread. The most successful threads are usually those which do not discourage points of view from any angle. As long as participants do not violate the Rules of Engagement, how far they are allowed to go is entirely up to you, but please try to be as even-handed as possible. You have the ability to move posts to a more appropriate thread, or delete posts if necessary. Please be very thoughtful and careful about exercising these options.
Clarify your ambitions for the thread. If you don't like personal abuse or sexual references or off-topic posts, say so at the start, and repeat it as necessary. Posters should not have to discover the hosts likes and dislikes though his or her deletion/move policy.
As a rule, a first-time violation should not result in the post being moved but in a reasonably polite explanation as to why it is objectionable.
To move or delete a post without comment violates common decency. If you must move or delete a post, please post a notice.
The first two are in the Rules of Engagement. The others are things to consider. You should be discreet and lenient in hosting. Most participants are pretty well-behaved and we don't want to be heavy-handed. Recognize that in the heat of a discussion, things can get ugly. Try not to take it personally.
Links to information at other websites may be posted in the butter sidebar. If you need help doing this, contact us with the link information. A particularly interesting discussion may also be posted in the News section of the homepage.
When the thread is ready to end, please put up an RIP tag. After three days, the thread can be placed into read-only mode and moved into the archives.
Most threads will run pretty well on their own if you are busy and can't spend much time there for a short period, though some threads require a good deal of attention. If you must be absent for any length of time, a new host can sometimes be found, or the thread can be retired. We realize that this is a volunteer operation and real life sometimes imposes constraints on cyber-life.
Enjoy your thread and thank you for hosting.
1. Very good start.
2. A host's authority to explicitly ban a specific poster should be addressed. Either in the negative or in the affirmative.
3. These rules seem to give hosts the sole authority to determine when their thread should be RIPped. Is that a correct interpretation? I think that should also be clarified.
replace 'poster' with 'ban' in 1362.
Sorry for this mess.
I think we need a set of proposed Moderator/triumvirate guidelines. Dusty made a good start with his suspension guidelines in Suggestions.
It should incorporate something like the 'you should maintain a level of civility with the participants in your thread that is higher than what you are shooting for within the thread' component of the thread hosting guidelines. We could call it the 'Irv' clause.
Something like: 'Moderators should maintain a high level of civility with Mote participants. You are the goodwill ambassadors of the Mote and it is incumbent upon you to behave accordingly.'
Now, I know that you guys will need some time to adjust to this new guideline, but if you model yourself after my posting style, you should do okay. (g)
Since you want a similar guideline for the moderators, and since you have made it abundantly clear several times over that we are incompetent on many levels, we would no doubt also fail in this, so feel free to write up a suggested guideline and post it here for comments.
...since you have made it abundantly clear several times over that we are incompetent on many levels...
Given that I've been banned twice without cause and most recently just over 24 hours after you said that I was not violating the RoE and would not be banned, I think I've shown remarkable restraint in my criticism of both you and the 2 other PTB, who each fully supported your most recent unjustified decision to ban me.
I don't wish to harp on this issue, but now that Cal has seemingly made it her mission to see me banned without cause for a third time, I think it warrants a brief comment:
I have difficulty understanding how Cal, of all people, can get you to buy into the 'Jon's hurting the Mote' argument when she is the most abusive poster around. I realize that she's not a moderator, but she is unquestionably a PTB, and her frequent recklessly abusive and destructive posts drive people away. If it's not a question of posting style, then what is it? Am I right to often? Am I brutally honest too often? Am I just too damn articulate? Or is it that I ego trip too much?
I have done nothing whatsoever that even remotely warrants so much as a warning since I returned and I'd like to think that you are capable of realizing this.
As far as moderator civility goes, do you agree that there's a problem (particularly with Pelle) or not?
If you don't agree that there's a problem, then there's not much point in me spending time drafting a proposed set of guidelines, is there?
Thanks.
You're not capable of "remarkable restraint". You criticize regularly, despite the fact that the only reason you are allowed to stay is by their discretion. Your inability to understand how absurd your self-congratulation is in these circumstances is indication of that narcissism Pelle mentioned.
The decision to ban you is never unjustified. But in this case, you have spent all of your time bitching and moaning in Suggestions, or posting in other threads purely to create complaint fodder. That alone is worth it. The Mote doesn't have to tolerate people who want to hurt it.
I will continue to recommend that you be banned, and I hope the moderators decide to take action.
I agree that there is no point in your drafting guidelines. But given your inflated opinion of yourself, it seems as good a way to waste your time as any. So go ahead, take a year to draft the perfect guidelines. Devote your life to it.
One has only to observe our conversations over the past week or so to see that I am indeed capable of 'remarkable restraint'.
Using your 'logic', nobody should be able to criticize anything because we are all here at the 'discretion' of the PTB. I don't share your worldview.
IMO, JF thrives on baiting people, and those who rise to the bait are as guilty of causing ugliness as he is. There are other people who post in exactly the same way as JonF--trying to set people off. I see it routinely in the politics thread, and regret the level that it lowers the thread to. I've already had comments in email that the tone in the thread discourages people from participating.
I don't think Pelle acted appropriately. There was no RoE violation that I saw. I don't think people who waste their time arguing policy with JonF are acting appropriately. I don't think JonF's reiteration of false grievance is appropriate. I don't think Ace's reflexive ad hominem nastiness is appropriate. I don't think CalGal's defensive nastiness is appropriate.
If it weren't for wabbit, this would all have died long ago.
I propose making a subthread here for people to bitch about each other, demand bannings, accuse them of host abuse, and otherwise bitch and moan about each other. We can call it the woodshed. The eight or nine of us who enjoy that kind of thing can go there.
I disagree, at least based upon the posts I've read.
I don't think I can say it better than Jay.
lest this be misconstrued as a post of support for Jon, I'll note he can be insufferable and obnoxious most of the time, but those aren't sufficient reasons for banning (or, if they are, some others are in the same ballpark, including some calling for his banning).
That said, it appears that some recent posts have been deleted, and may contain material that would change my mind.
1) JF was banned already, and the reason given for his being once again allowed to post was insufficient. The idea that someone can just change logins and continue posting while under a ban makes banishment meangingless.
2) Should JF have been given a third (fourth?) chance, his behavior should have been circumspect, rather than outrageous.
3) Criticizing what has now happened would be quibbling considering all circumstances.
4) This post by JF should settle the issue:
If these people can't run this site that you have so generously provided the server space for, maybe it's best to pull the plug.
It's painfully clear that JF has an agenda when he visits the Mote, and it's not a constructive one.
I indicated earlier that we should settle the issue of what we mean by ban affirmatively, not by default. My impression is not that someone woke up and realized he was banned before, but that the current banning is for some current offence.
I could be wrong.
Dusty: My impression as well. Hence my #3--but rather than quibble with the rationale for what has transpired, I can't argue with the results.
And I can see a case for summarizing the entire episode as 1) Ferguson returned while banned; 2) the moderators decided rather than immediately enforce the ban, give him room--or rope, as the case may be--to demonstrate worthiness of having the ban lifted; 3) Ferguson--while not necessarily doing anything worthy of banishment had he been a newbie--hardly demonstrated that lifting his ban would be a desireable thing; 4) the moderators then decided to enforce the already existing sentence.
They might not--and have not--characterized their actions in this fashion, but it's close enough to what actually happened to satisfy me.
I think no-one will contest the legitimacy of banning him for imitating another poster. Since being banned yesterday, he has made several attempts to register new IDs. They have not been enabled (I don't think anyone will argue that they should); and no ID which is suspected to belong to him, will be enabled in the future. If he manages to register an ID without being noticed, that ID will be disabled as soon as it becomes apparent that it's him. No warning, no justification, no appeal, nothing.
This isn't any sort of official announcement. I'm just trying to explain what I have understood about the situation, which I haven't followed in detail, other than the technical aspects.
Rules of Engagement
"Sorry, Jexter, I don't shut up for morons or bullies, or spammers like you. You repeatedly post for the sole purpose of annoying or disrupting discussion.
The lamebrained asses, wabbit, pelle and ms. no, who rule here have some sense of what you do to rational discourse, and you seem intent on proving the obvious to them, although I judge that their political prejudices protect you to some extent. Thanks for the help."
I looked at Jexster's posts to see what inspired your reaction. Frankly, if you consider linking to a website and an article spam, I can live with your opinion of me as a lamebrained ass.
Firstly, what exactly is Beano's so-called administrative role here?
Point B, I have pursued the so-called thread hosting guidelines and in point of fact find every contradiction with what has been my own individual personal experience as a thread host.
In such case, I would like a justification from those rules as to why standard operating procedures were not followed in my own unique invidual case.
Seeing as how that it appears a egrevious error has been committed, I should like my domicile restored, though in point of fact it's new shingle could be: "Dr. Coltrane's Psychic Hotline."
By the by, I do not share the opinion of Madame Wabbit et al expressed by Daffy Duck above. Insidious forces are here at work led by Nilson to affront my person but lamebrainery is not one of them.
No one is as wise as the good doctor, but many peradventure rise above the level of the ass.
Many so-called mote dwellers have a good groat of intelligence--including the martinet and his harem--despite not being durst able to contend with yours truly.
Daffy doth quack falsely.
Both look good to me. There's a typo in the Hosting Guidelines---second paragraph, last line "though" should be "through".
It's nice to know that you can be relied upon to treat others with the same respect with which you have yourself been treated.
I note by the by that no one has addressed either of my questions. Perhaps the only way to recieve a response here is to insult the improprietors.
Bless the heavens but yours truly as well as being a doctor and scholar is a gentlemen and shall peradventure not stupe to such poltroonery.
Methinks I was encouraged to nail my missives here rather than the new thread domicile so that they could be ignored with impudence. Yet, patient wight that I am, I shall ask gently once more, what exactly is the administrative role of Beano here?
Chief crowd control enforcer?
Frankly, yes, I've been ignoring you. 90% of what you post is needlessly verbose, deliberately antagonistic and generally only for the purpose of complaining about how badly you feel you've been treated. It never occurred to me that you might have a legitimate question buried in there somewhere.
JJBiener is the Mote treasurer and a thread host. He is not a Moderator nor does he have moderator priveledges. He is, however, one of the founding members of this forum and as such has a deeply held affection for it and a large personal investment in its running. I believe that anyone in such a position might have comfortably spoken to you in the "We" form, meaning "we" The Community rather than "We" the Moderators of whom he is not a member.
Zounds--would that the so-called "moderators" who are in point of fact a harem of harpies for the jackbooted martinet known as Nilson were as derilectable in their duties when dealing with the good doctor's domicile. In point of fact they are most efficient when commiting theivery upon my person.
> 90% of what you post is needlessly verbose
A wight who uses the redundency "needlessly verbose" has little to offer the good doctor in efficient verbiage.
> deliberately antagonistic
Unlike your valued so-called "treasurer," in point of fact I have not threatened to kick anyone's ass.
> It never occurred to me that you might have a legitimate question
buried in there somewhere.
It never appeared to yours truly that by commencing my missive with "The good doctor has two questions" further indication would necessitate itself. In the future I shall endeavor to fire off flares and garnish with garish neon colors.
One need not threaten bodily harm to be antagonistic as you well know.
If 90% of what you write is worth skipping then it's hardly surprising that I ignore you until you've sifted out the pertinent issues. Not unlike RosettaStone, your constant harping becomes a distant background buzz most often overlooked because of it's ceaselessness.
I have been toying with the internet title, but have not deviated from the theme of "exploring the internet".
If I am mistaken, I will pick something and stick to it... but my intention was only to drum up interest.
It depends on how much you'd like to change the topic. If the deviation is particularly great then it's better to retire the current thread and start a new one in most cases. If it's still going to be a links-based thread then I see no problem with just making a statement about the change, changing the profile and re-naming the thread.
I'm not a big fan of multiple re-names of a thread. Expecially not in the manner that occurred a few months ago with Ace and Francis or even the earlier case where Fielding and Dr. X were vying for alphabetical supremacy in the thread list. I completely understand that you may be "shopping" titles at the moment and need a bit of time to settle on one, but I think it's best if eventually there is a definite name for the thread.
Khanzab:
"As the person who gave Rosetta's real name --I'm no fan of his--I find it absolutely reprehensible that Charlie L*******(real name given) has used it to harass the right-wing loon this way.
But not surprising after having been further exposed to L****'s bland brand of idiocy.
Rosetta, you should take this scumbag's criminal actions seriously and report him. It's not funny."
RosettaStone:
"CharlieL is protected by mote moderator Ms. No, his friend. The fact that he can use information he got in Slate's fray three years ago to dig into telephone databases and repeatedly publish my full name, correct address and daughter's phone number for political reasons is of no concern to her.
When I bring it up here I'm warned that I will be banned from mote.
Cazart is right. Mote doesn't protect its members privacy."
This is not the place to discuss Table Talk's policies or infractions of their rules. It is for Mote Policies.
It is not the Policy of the Mote to police other internet forums. However we might feel about what takes place in those forums we have no authority over them. Were it even possible to police the entire Internet according to the rules we've established here, we have neither the time nor the resources to undertake such a monumental task.
Were CharlieL's actions in Table Talk deplorable? Yes they were. Should he be punished here for an infraction at another forum? Should you be? That is not our policy and you should be no less glad then he is for it.
In any case, CharlieL is in the position of having revealed his real name as well. I don't know that he has ever done so in the Mote or whether he's linked to his band website where his name is posted from the Mote, but it is not a secret in the sense that it can be revealed.
However, Charlie has never gone by his full name nor has he ever been referred to by that name in forum and the use of it is inappropriate without his explicit consent---hence my deletion of the post.
Because of him, hundreds of people at TT know it now and regularly use it.
And because I bring this up here, warning people, I'm threaten with being banned.
Even in the Tabled Talk thread, this subject is being edited out.
He brings it up not in an effort to warn people but in an effort to create discord and as such he will be suspended every time he does it. If upon his return he cannot or will not behave in a manner that is less destructive to this forum he will be banned permanently.
Well, you're a warning about something, that's for sure.
Irv: I don't intend to discuss this further here, there, or anywhere--other than through private email. If there is something else you want me to do, you can post it wherever you like or send me your request.
mgleason:
Communication via the moderators is just as much a 'Mote channel' as posting in the forum itself.
This is none of the Mote's affair. CalGal made it clear beforehand that I was not to speak for the Mote and that my views did not represent those of the Mote. Her pronouncement should be sufficient, given all that has occurred, to make it clear without anyone else weighing in, what the Mote's position is.
You and Irv have made your views known publicly. IMO that is sufficient to clear up any misunderstanding. Be that as it may, if you wish me to correct msgreer personally of any misunderstanding you think I have conveyed to her about your respective positions, I will certainly do so.
You made it 'the Mote's business' Indiana, when, in the text of your e-mail, you listed Irv and myself as being among those who had posted support for msgreer in the Mote. That is an untruth. CalGal's opinions don't enter into this one way or the other; you purported to speak for us as members of the Mote.
We attempted to handle this through a moderator so as to spare the feelings of everyone involved; your post in Notices and Queries signalled your unwillingness to proceed in that fashion, which would have been much the simplest solution. I imagine that there is now no need for you to write to msgreer to rectify this situation, as someone is bound to notify her, if she does not read of it herself.
Here is the applicable part of your original post:
2183. Indiana Jones - 7/11/01 6:36:29 PM
In accordance with 2182 above, I propose to send msgreer an email inviting her to reconsider her (apparent) decision of leaving the Mote and abandoning her post in the Health Thread.
I intend to affix to that post the "signatures" of all signees of the Age of Urquhart, as well as her two co-hosts, Jenerator, my own, and anyone else who wishes to email me (indianajones@resourceful.com) their desire to be included, or just posts it here. (If you think I'm going to include your name and don't want it included, do either as well.)
It never occurred to me that you would be including me in your e-mail, since I did not meet the criteria you listed. The fact that you purported to speak for a subset of the Mote's membership makes it a Mote matter. What makes it a serious one is that you did so, in my case, at least, without any sort of consent, stated or implied.
Wrt your post in Notices... I don't know of any specific actions you could take, but I'd like to know how I ended up on that list, too... a list you decribed as affixing our "signatures" in the post mgleason quotes above. I saw the post above, and, though I didn't agree with the effort, I also didn't feel like e-mailing you to tell you to leave me out, and I didn't want to post, to avoid making this a major issue. That's why I was surprised to find that my name was on the list, but most of the AoU signees were not.
Again I will point out that they have said that they don't intend to discuss here their email regarding policy or other Mote issues, and unlike me, they are responsible for speaking for the Mote. Hence, I cannot fathom why you or anyone else would think this matter involving email exchanges between non-moderators should be handled differently.
(Because so many people here see hidden motives in every action, I should point out that my reference to moderator policy above expresses no desire that they change it, but rather is to show that my attitude is in no way unreasonable or unique.)
It is not, however, your prerogative to take it upon yourself to speak for me as a member of this forum. I don't know whether this is an explicit policy violation or not, but it certainly comes close. It is for that reason, among others, that I attempted to have this issue mediated by a moderator, because it goes beyond 'personal correspondence.'
You are conflating several things when you speak of the moderators having 'said that they don't intend to discuss here their email regarding policy or other Mote issues.' I believe that they have said that they are under no obligation to do so. As an unwitting party to your action, it was my prerogative to make it public when you declined to accede to the request for rectification as proposed by one of the moderators.
You obviously felt compelled to state publicly that you wished to handle this matter privately. A course of action which you apparently disdained since you could have at any time after being informed of the complaints emailed Irv or Maria privately.
As you have pointed out you are not a Moderator and, so, cannot speak for the Mote and yet you took it upon yourself to do so. In fact, you didn't just take it upon yourself to speak for members of the Mote but you LIED about some of their positions.
At the very least you owe both Maria and Irving an apology. You owe it publicly since it is by your actions alone that the matter has become public. What you do not need to do is waste any more time in supercilious side-stepping.
Suppose Indy sends a note to MsGreer that purports to be from MGleason directly--he creates a web email address and sends it to her.
While I suspect he thinks the second is wrong, I don't see a whole lot of difference between the two.
If Indy had written, "I think what happened sucks and Irv does too" in a note to MsG, and MsG forwarded it to Irv and Irv got annoyed and sent it on to MsNo, would that be the same thing? No, there is something about it being a "signatory" that implies permission and consent, as opposed to gossip. MsG might get the wrong idea, Irv might be annoyed, but it wouldn't be the same thing.
Indy thinks it should be handled privately. Where is the line drawn? Should he, or anyone, be allowed to write emails and sign other people's names to them?
Is this a Mote issue? To the extent that it is, I disagree that it has anything to do with the specifics of the MsG "incident". Either it's acceptable to use other people's names without their permission or it's not. And if it isn't acceptable, is it the Mote's business, from a policy perspective?
If it is, it is an issue of either privacy or abuse. I'm not sure I have built a case in my own mind for it being a Mote concern, but it feels like it is.
The list is followed by Indy's email to MsGreer. I don't know that it's a violation of anything in the ROE but it's problematic that an id can be attached to a sentiment that hasn't been expressed by the individual.
I would like to see MsGreer active. I would like to see a lot of the people who have come and gone since the Fray died be active here, whether I personally cared for them or not. This place will not survive if too many of the once committed members lose interest. We're not gaining enough new posters to make up the difference. That's the main reason I didn't voice an objection to my name on the list. But the fact remains that I didn't publicly express what my name is attached to, and even if I did, I still think people should be asked and grant permission before their names are attached to anything.
Nor do I. Certainly the first case is quite clearly a violation of privacy as it involves forging an email. The second, however, also involves a sort of forgery by claiming "signatores".
Indy thinks it should be handled privately.
So he has claimed quite publicly at least three times. He could have contacted Maria and Irv and dealt with the matter privately as they had been willing to do until he made a public announcement about it. So, as the first person to go public with this issue his calls for returning it to the private sphere seem only to benefit Indy by not requiring that he discuss his perfidy where the rest of the Mote can see it.
Should he, or anyone, be allowed to write emails and sign other people's names to them?
No. It is a privacy violation.
Is this a Mote issue? To the extent that it is, I disagree that it has anything to do with the specifics of the MsG "incident". Either it's acceptable to use other people's names without their permission or it's not.
I agree. It could have been a letter to anyone and it is not acceptable to sign other people's names without their knowledge and consent.
...is it the Mote's business, from a policy perspective?
It's Mote business because the original proposal was published in the Mote, the complaints were directed to a Moderator and the attempt to handle it privately was declined it in order to make a public post about the situation.
Specifically:
"I can't come up with any way that we can ban someone for what they do at another forum."
And:
"No, the moment he linked to it in this forum [emphasis mine], it was a violation. Likewise, if Charlie linked to what he posted, I would expect him to be banned."
Certainly your opinion must be then that email is extra-jurisdictional.
Moreover, unless someone here wants to make a case that I a) outed a Mote member, b) spammed a Mote thread, or c) was needlessly abusive in my posts to someone, then I will ignore any post(s) that purports to speak to Mote Policy regardless of the source--with one possible exception. (The RoE site appears to be down, so I cannot be sure that's all of the relevant violations, thus I quote from memory.)
I would like to see a Mote "policy" statement issued that says our email comes under the purview of the Mote moderators and its reception. If such a policy is announced, I suspect I will not be alone in being banned for refusing to obey it.
It's a bit more serious than that since Indy can't even seem to bring himself to admit that he did anything wrong.
I believe we could move on if he would apologise to those he blundered against. So far he has seemed unwilling to do anything except claim that he either made no blunder or just doesn't feel that the matter should be discussed publicly despite the fact that he's the one who brought it to the attention of the public forum.
I essentially agree with Pelle if the matter has been settled to the satisfaction of Irv and Maria (except that to them it was a bit more than a simple blunder), but it's something that some might want to review in terms of the current policy, which is how I read Cal's post and why I posted the one following.
This isn't an issue of email, but forgery and fraud (small case "f" in both instances).
Email is certainly not an issue for the Mote. Is forgery? Given that it didn't happen on the Mote, I tend to agree that as distasteful as your behavior is, it may not be a matter for the Mote. While it definitely feels like a privacy violation, I suppose that if we tolerate someone who posts a phone number in TT we can equally tolerate a forger who uses email.
That said, it is entirely within the rights of any Mote member to complain about it openly, and I see no reason why they can't publish the email in its entirety online without your consent. After all, in putting their name on it you implicitly said they wrote it. And to the extent that this means someone can regularly refer to you as a forger and a liar, you'll just have to cope.
Regardless of how you and others here wish to characterize it, such inflammatory language will have no effect on my decision to discuss the contents. It is none of your business.
An acknowledgement that people's id's should not be attached to statements (they were not attached as signatures to the email) without their express permission and an assurance that it won't be done in the future might be more helpful.
I agree.
it's something that some might want to review in terms of the current policy,
I also tend to agree with this. Long long ago we had similar problems and it was agreed upon that such things as impersonating other posters and forging emails were unacceptable. It was such a huge deal that I don't think it occurred to anyone to include it in the RoE.
At the time it would've been like saying "You're not allowed to kill other Moties" ----Kind of a big, Duh!
In light of the current situation, however, maybe we DO need such a rule to keep people from violating the privacy and identities of others in the forum.
Proposed RoE #5
Do not represent other Moties without their express knowledge and consent.
As for it not being my business--yes, actually, it is. "It" being whether or not a Mote member can forge or otherwise sign someone onto a statement in email. Thanks to your stupidity, it is now an issue for a policy discussion.
Besides, you seem not to have noticed that I am agreeing with you, for the most part.
The really irritating thing is that your asinine behavior will probably spur any number of copycats to send forgeries around. After all, you've just established that people can do anything they want in email.
The problem I have with your rule is that we wouldn't stop anyone from posting Indy's letter at TT, even if he put all those names to it. The people in question could object and say no, they don't agree. But we wouldn't--and couldn't--force him to delete it and I don't think we'd ban or suspend him for it.
So how is email any different? And how will that rule differentiate a comment like "Irv agrees with me" from putting Irv's "signature" at the bottom of a letter?
If we handle it at all, I suggest going the other way: say explicitly that email is not the Mote's jurisdiction, and that if you get group letters or any letter purporting to be from another Motie, remember to confirm the receipt of it.
Even saying that much pisses me off, though, since it will probably scare people. But then, all we're doing is spelling out what is true in any other forum.
I myself haven't asked anything at all from Indy. As for behaving as we do IRL, are you suggesting that the real world is copacetic about using someone's name without their permission? Things must be different in Sweden.
That proposal was unacceptable, apparently, and a public notice was placed directing us to contact Indiana directly with our concerns. Believing, as we do, that this is a Mote matter, we took the matter public. This folderol is exactly what we tried to avoid from the beginning, and could have been accomplished very easily. I won't be chastised for having done the right thing.
Ordinarily email wouldn't be any different, But as I believe I have stated we're not talking about just any email. We're talking about an email for which the idea was publicly presented and discussed in the Mote and which claimed to have been "signed" by a number of Moties.
If you want to send a private email then send a private email. Don't send an email by committee.
As for an explicit statement in the RoE that "Anyone who wants to can use your name and identity outside the Mote forum for whatever reason he likes and suffer no consequences within the forum". Well, I suppose this is currently true, but that people are going to dislike it immensely.
I don't personally have a problem with changing Mote policy to make exceptions for certain privacy violations that happen outside the Mote. In the case of CharlieL, I would have had no problem changing our policy to ban members who reveal such private information in other public forums as he revealed about RosettaStone. I also have no problem suspending people for forging email identities. Do you recall what the outcome was of Squids' forgery escapades?
The reason that I see these as legitimate exceptions is because they cause turmoil here in the Mote and also because there is no reason to do any of these things EXCEPT to cause turmoil. I feel that it's an abuse of the Mote community and therefore an abuse of the Mote.
I think doing one's "level best to keep this quiet" would have been to approach me directly. However, that was not done, but as mgleason and Irv have a grievance with me, I don't expect that they acted with my personal preference utmost in mind (nor do I hold that against them under the circumstances). My post in N&Q mentioned no one by name or described any other specifics, leaving to mgleason and Irv the decision whether they wished to respond there or by email.
Regarding any acceptance or rejection of a proposal by them to me, I suggest that they reread my post and my email, which I assume Ms. No forwarded to them without alteration:
I will be happy to correct to msgreer any mistaken impression my actual message gave of their views that they wish corrected, should they make their wishes known to me directly.
I am not "chastising" them for the course they took. It is perfectly within their right to involve the World Court if they like. But if someone wants anything from me--be it clarification, explanation, or even apology--they are more likely to get it by asking me, rather than contacting an extraneous third person.
Especially in the case of the last--i.e., apology--I would think that a brute force extraction would render such useless. And in this specific case, I see no such brute force to which I will respond.
While CalGal may have not have seen the actual email, Ms. No has. Anyone who has seen it and characterizes it as a forgery is being dishonest.
I do think if that becomes the case that it should only be with a formal complaint and the act verified by at least one moderator, since we all know how certain embellishments of molehills have been known to occur in the past just to be an annoyance.
To Pelle's undoubted relief, this is my last post on this matter.
Your post in Notices and Queries was by way of being a thrown gauntlet, the principle of not 'recognizing the Mote's jurisdiction' apparently taking precedence over the principle of not mischaracterizing the positions of others, and not using them to buttress your own position without their consent.
The e-mail you received from Ms. No identified Irv and myself by name, quoted from our letters to her, and stated very clearly the remedy we sought. Yet because we did not approach you directly, you would not rectify a situation in which you were clearly in the wrong. Indeed, you continue to defend your untenable position because we did not ask you in the appropriate manner. I can only imagine that in your mind, this would involve much obsequiousness and tugging of forelocks, assuming we had the audacity to ask it at all.
A very strange code, that, which places your ego above honor.
No I have not seen the actual mail. My name wasn't on it and it wasn't addressed to me, therefore it was not copied to me. Nor did I forward a copy of your email to Maria or Irving as it was not addressed to them.
I informed them at your request that you desired for them to contact you directly and privately but you completely undermined any of that by posting a public notice about the incident in N&Q.
The truth is that you and you alone are responsible for violating privacy. You have only yourself to blame for having been unwise enough to add their names without their consent and then when approached about it in a private manner to have climbed upon your clay-footed high-horse and started issuing decrees about what is and isn't private and how people with legitimate complaints against you should or shouldn't behave.
Your actions in this matter have been reprehensible and you full well know it.
I do think if that becomes the case that it should only be with a formal complaint and the act verified by at least one moderator,
Absolutely. I don't know that this ever will be the case, but certainly it would require more than an hysterical accusation.
Well, you certainly are free with your characterizations of something you haven't seen. Moreover, you mean to say neither Irv nor Maria sent you a copy of what they were complaining about and you interjected yourself into this without such a copy?
My name wasn't on it and it wasn't addressed to me, therefore it was not copied to me.
Right. Something strange, though, the notion that you ought not read it for those reasons, but you still should be brought in as arbiter without having read it.
Nor did I forward a copy of your email to Maria or Irving as it was not addressed to them.
Strange, the Ms. No Post Office works only way.
I informed them at your request that you desired for them to contact you directly and privately but you completely undermined any of that by posting a public notice about the incident in N&Q.
I made you aware of my intent at the time.
Me: "I'll post a suitably vague Notice so as to relieve you of having to continue in the role of Henry Kissinger."
You: "I'll let Maria and Irv know about your post in N&Q, but I know that Irv's public email address is available from the Cafe Link if you don't wish to wait....Regards, Christin"
Indy's e-mail didn't say anything more than (erroneously) claiming that the names listed had posted support. The idea of being "signatories" came from Indy's post in the Mote before he sent the e-mail (Message # 1422).
Personally, I had hoped that Indy would admit he was in error, and apologize to any people whose names he used without authorization. But that is obviously never going to happen, so, for my part, I will be posting no more on this topic.
I am actually travelling right now and only able to check in sporadically. Taking a vacation from just about any activity now and then is generally a good idea and perspective-enhancing.
There was no intention of backing Indy against any wall... both Maria and I tried to handle the misrepresentation of our positions quietly, without posting anything here in the Mote. It was Indy's choice to bring it into the open. I don't think there is anything counterproductive about trying to clear up a situation in which one's name and views are misrepresented. And I don't think trying to handle it quietly is confrontational.
I also think the issue has been cleared up, to everyone's satisfaction, including Indy's, and that no one holds any grudges over it.
Get a little perspective, people. This is a chat room. Shit happens. Sometimes deliberately, mostly through more or less innocent fuckups. Life isn't perfect. Live with it.
When you boil it all down, this place consists of about 100 (?) more or less posters, almost all of whom have been here for a while (in other words, the place is static), all of whom should realize that their words of wisdom are really just being put out there for the most part to satisfy some sort of personal need for recognition or satisfaction at seeing them in print or, for some, some sort of need to feel part of a "community".
Forgive the rant - the above is mostly just a stream of consciousness. It just seems that so much energy is spent around here nitting and picking on nuances of rules or purported abuses of etiquette or whatever, that what I would think should be the larger goal of trying to make this place more diverse and attractive to more than just that said 100 or so posters gets lost.
For myself, there are good friends and interesting people here whom I enjoy conversing and discussing issues with, and whose opinions and insights I enjoy reading. That's all. This place is no more or less to me than that, but that's a lot, especially when so much effort and generosity on the part of a few went into creating the site in the first place. Those few will decide when and if this place is no longer worth their time, and I can live with that. In fact, some of them have disappeared already or are extremely scarce.
In the meantime, though, I think it's important for people to speak up when they perceive that certain issues or actions are a threat to the site, whether their perceptions are correct or not. Having said that, I rarely do speak up, and like the others who are gone, I'll likely just move on quietly when it gets to the point that the irritation or boredom or even anger outweighs my enjoyment of the place. If people who were here long before I see when it's time for them to move on, why should I be any different?
Of course, there's also the elephant in the living room that will evidently never be addressed and will help speed the site's demise, in my humble opinion, but I don't feel like being the leader of that lost cause, either.
However, unlike a club or some other sort of venue where one can assert some sort of selectivity, the engine that runs places like this, namely cyberspace, is open to all. (Subject, of course, to the banning/suspension process, which has been engaged in around here for highly subjective and ultimately prissy reasons.) Thus, one must endure the "bad" to be able to enjoy the "good".
What I find to be most harmful around here doesn't really relate to the "bad" - it is the degree to which everything becomes repetitive. Posting becomes predictable, in terms of what kind of responses will be engendered and by whom. Put-downs, feigned (hopefully) outrage, supposed humor -all becomes like day following night.
A direct result of too few people. Period.
Not that I would have expected anyone to notice, but over the past few months I've been "away" for various sustained periods. Some of that relates to travel, but mostly it relates to ennui. And, I find that increasingly when away I quickly forget about this place.
Well, having stated what I perceive to be the fundamental problem, I have no easy answers. Except that it does seem to me to be very silly and ultimately very self-defeating to have this place seem to be ever-vigilant to BAN or SUSPEND. Oh, revealing personal information is one thing, but quirkiness, even nasty or "clever" quirkiness, is one of the elements missing here.
I have noticed when you were gone, and others too, and I always wonder if they're out for a while or for good, but I do know that the more posting and numbers of posters shrinks, the less there is to attract members back or to encourage new membership. It also, imo, causes certain elements of our core character and interactions to drive discussions in a way that further discourages diversity.
I've begun to think it's part of our collective personality, along with some liabilities others just aren't willing to endure--the rewards aren't enough for them, and I understand it. Sometimes they aren't enough for me and I've been here almost four years.
FWIW, people with your perspective and more removed nature are sorely needed here to provide a balance, but many who would have that approach and come in from the outside either spend too little time here to have much impact on the overall feel of the place, or decide they can get discussions that are just as engaging without all the baggage elsewhere.
Like you say, it's just too few people, and once it shrinks beyond a certain point, like anything else, it will not be revivable. IMO, it's very near that point, and I find it disconcerting, to say the least, that some of the site's most ardent supporters and regular posters, including myself, seem to be losing interest.
BTW,
I bet we could carry on a torrid affair in here and no one would be the wiser! (wink, wink)
You are one of several who allude from time to time to what I guess I will call the good ol' days (in cyberspace time crunch terms). I wish I had been around during the time of the Fray to be able to have gotten the flavor firsthand. But, I've delved from time to time into the archives and it does seem clear that there was a diversity and corresponding vitality that this place does not currently evidence. Oh, it is quite clear that a number of the most interesting posters from then are still here. And, it may very well be that a lot of others are here under i.ds that I don't recognize. But, am I correct in thinking that posters like KurtMondaugen, Eliot 805, Coral Reef, Spudboy, Trialshark, Labajare, Resonance, Trouserpilot, Underwater Squids, TMachine, some whom I clearly would never have agreed with but who nevertheless added some diversity like Boomerjeff and ThomasD, and a few others whose posts caught my eye but whose names I don't come to mind either never came here or have now left? And there were a couple who I know were here for a time but now seem to be gone, such as Jade-whatever-the-rest-of-his/her-id was.
In a place as small as this, regardless of any individual merits or demerits that group had, posters of that diversity are sorely needed. Discussions will always have an ebb and flow, some will work and some won't, but to succeed this has to be a place where the dynamics don't become static. Different compositions of diverse posters - that's the ticket.
Excuse the length of this post, but your posts have stimulated the verbalization of thoughts that I've been formulating for awhile.
Of course the Fray had a magazine to attract people to the site in the first place, and that brought an influx of more diverse posters who also tended to come and go with much more frequency; and imo, Slate could have done much more to promote the Fray, but decided to take an opposite course and can it, but not before taking steps to ensure its insular nature (Irv could elaborate much more on that). It had some similar problems to the Mote, insularity being one toward the end in particular, and some very ugly infighting and divided camps, which made the successful establishment of the Mote seem sort of like the dawning of a new era to cheesy romantics like me.
Of the ids you mention, some are just busier than they used to be, others were not happy with one thing or another, and several with one poster or another. Two or three are still here under other ids. Recent disappearances which interest me are Wonkers, JJ, MsGreer, and VonK, among others.
Divisiveness is very easy to create and very difficult to mend, and it's plagued this group since I've been part of it. The problem is that as more posters drop off the division becomes life-threatening, yet it continues, and the ones who sense it most seem to be at a loss as to what to do about it, while others, at least imo, are satisfied to continue to pretend it isn't there or isn't causing serious problems. Others are truly able to ignore it, which is great.
Divisiveness is an enemy of diversity, because no matter what their backgrounds, posters who participate very much find themselves either walking a tightrope between camps or falling off into one side or the other. It's hard for them to avoid, particularly in certain threads. Witness the most recent dustup. I have walked the tightrope myself until recently, and jumped off it based on my own perceptions of a trend and the belief that I really didn't have anything left to lose in the deal.
WRT bannings, we actually bat it around more than we actually do it. We've banned Cazart and JonFergusen, but although Rose is threatened he's not been banned, and only a handful of others have been suspended. Cal is the only other poster around whom any significant controversy over behavior has developed, and no one's entertained thoughts of banning or suspension; though I, for one, find her tendency to selectively attack people without provocation--and her sheer ubiquitousness which makes such attacks almost impossible to avoid--incredibly damaging and divisive to an already weakened forum.
But, I gather that you find the banning/suspension aspects to be a minor part of the problem. I can agree with that. Diversity and numbers - that is the core issue. And, no question, much harder to develop when there isn't a "natural" road in, such as being an adjunct to a zine.
But, I can also agree with what I think you are saying about the damaging effects of pervasive and negative, cutting (as in personal attacks, not in opposing thoughts or ideas) tones. Attitudes to the effect that "I can say anything I want (as long as I'm on topic) and as often as I want" won't be tolerated by many for very long. Polite ignoring by some, fight back by others, leave for some. No problem, I guess, as long as those who do things that way and everyone else realize that that is the import.
On the numbers--you've hit the nail on the head. It's crucial that we not lose long-standing and regular members when we have no real prospects of a significant number of new people, but that's exactly what I see happening.
I will probably continue to visit here because of the people I do like to read and because of a feeling of responsibility re the two threads I host, but any sense of optimism is gone.
We need to explore what people want, and then see if it's possible to deliver. For starters, this conversation should be featured more prominently, because I'll wager that most of us don't even know it's going on.
Wonkers is always gone for months at a time and then comes back. vK is rich and travels a lot now, although I'm sure he's also in the "The Mote sucks because of CalGal" club.
Myself, I've not cared much about this place since June, when the most recent whining about me started. But I don't think the slowdown is more than tangentially related to the whining--I think no more than three people I can think of have actively left because they couldn't tolerate me even with their trusty support group bucking them up. It's slow in large part because it's always slow this time of year and yes, if something doesn't click again it could be a deadly slowness. I doubt it, myself--it will probably come back. Either way, I don't care as much as I used to.
If you want to revive a forum, the way to do it is to talk about the things you want to talk about. Introduce new topics, expect it to be slow at first, and see what happens.
I also think it would be fun if we could do some group activity--a book reading, a movie festival, something to that effect.
It's also time for our anniversary; it might be fun to send out another mailing if we have anything to announce. I haven't heard from Alistair; if he hasn't done anything with the new look maybe I'll give it a shot.
A group activity would be good if it were coupled with an anniversary mailout to bring in enough people to keep it going well.
And don't flatter yourself, Cal. One statement was made about you and I meant it for simply what it was--no more. You needn't attempt to lather it up into the fount of the entire series of posts in here.
As far as attracting more people for group activities, I don't think it much matters whether we do or don't. If it's something that interests the people who are here, great. If it brings in others too, fine.
Arky, I wasn't flattering myself. You made more than one reference to things you've said before in regards to me. Besides, you didn't answer my question about JJ and MsG. Are you saying you don't believe them?
We have had slow periods before; last year at this time was particularly bad. Then it picked up. So your comment that it can't be fixed is innacurate. I don't know if it will pick up again, and as I said I'm getting to the point that I don't care--not because it hasn't been busy, but because I'm tired of giving a damn about people when a group of them bitch so incessantly.
In any event, the way to address bringing people back is by doing what I said--introduce topics you are interested in, suggest group activities that others might enjoy, and go from there.
I have never been a bitcher about conditions in here. In fact, I've been an enthusiastic supporter of the forum from the beginning. I have posted my perception of what I have observed in recent weeks. You are free to disagree with my assessment, but your disagreement isn't good enough to make it invalid.
And yes my dear, you were, as usual, flattering yourself. The fact that 3/4 of your post was about you and what you think others think about you is proof enough of that without my bothering to point it out.
You made more than one reference to things you've said before in regards to me.
Where?
WRT JJ and MsGreer, I made a short list of regular posters who are no longer regular. Unlike you, apparently, I do not hang onto their every post and file away their reasons for being absent, or concern myself excessively about whether they were telling the truth. Yes, JJ and MsGreer said they were busy, but the fact remains that they were very regular and they're not any longer, and every loss of a regular poster, for whatever reason, hurts a forum this small.
period.
this bit about people not getting (somewhat immediate) log-ins will be the death of this place. i like theMote and all, but would i wait days at a time for a log-in for a site with no content other than a poster forum? um, no.
i've said it before, give any and everyone provisional access until the gatekeeper can do whatever review needs to be done and give a pass/fail evaluation. it's that simple. that is the only thing that will facilitate new blood.
this has nothing to do with GJ or Diva wrt their gatekeeping abilities, but we are kidding ourselves if we think theMote is soooo important that we have to hamstring ourselves just to keep pests like Jon & caz out. frankly, given my druthers, i'd rather see both here causing a stink, because at least then there is something interesting to read and participate in.
enough already. imho, they've won a battle already in that we have a net loss in membership due to our over ... vigilance in this area.
i'd appreciate a moderator response as well as what other people think.
any feedback re: my Message # 1485
I also thought this problem had been resolved. I'll check again.
Now, on to business.
I'm not feeling tolerant of any petty sniping. Keep the personal insults and cat-fighting outside of this discussion or find your posts moved.
12070. Absensia - 4/12/02 10:10:52 AM
Posts that Jex made to CG's thread re terrorism, appear to me to be on topic, and not "Jexster spam." I believe CG has a personal vendetta against Jexter and it seems evident now when Cal announced: "After two days of patiently moving out all of his garbage, he rarely posts there. I consider that a win."
If spamming's a problem, then I think Ms. No, Pelle or Wabbit should deal with it.
I don't thinking "winning" is what is supposed to be going on here.
In addition, I think sending on posts to the inferno when they are not personal attacks, or spamming, but are on point, sets a dangerous precedent. If it's up to the thread host to decide what they don't "like," then the Inferno will be about the only place people post.
Now apparently RP is allowing JC to act as a host in I&P to dump Jexster's posts or spam. And, a determination of spam is objective around here. Which host will be next, and whose posts will he or she send to the inferno.
12077. PelleNilsson - 4/12/02 12:19:40 PM
Absensia
the governors have punted to the thread hosts. IMO, the "governors" have not deal with this in any appropriate way
Two questions:
Do you want a more centralized governance of this forum?
In what way did "the governors" not deal with this in an "appropriate way" and what, in your opinion, would have been the "appropriate way"?
Yes, a real surprise, Wabbit...lol (Note from ms.no:This addresses the Motie, labwabbit, not the Moderator, Wabbit)
Pelle, your quote first came from JC and I quoted it and said I agreed that it has been punted.
As to your query,
1. Yes I would like to see a more centralized form of governance. Once that sets out clearly what are the b asic rules for moving posts, deleting them, and why. I for one think vicious personal attacks that occur over and over should be a basis for banning or suspension.
2. I think there are several instances: you deciding to delete certain threads and Ms. No putting them back; telling certain posters, in email, to just grow up and ignore a poster who makes repeatedly nasty personal attacks; setting up a thread when some one asks for it and claims it will take care of jexster. It looks as if anarchy is near. Leaving some decision to thread hosts is fine, especially with more concrete rules of engagement.
More......
12085. Absensia - 4/12/02 1:23:10 PM
I recommend that the governors talk to one another, perhaps by email, icq, or whatever, to decide such things as creating new threads, deleting old ones, who will be suspended or banned, if a poster feels another is personally attacking him/her in a mean and vicious manner, what role the governors should have, and how to deal with spammers as well as thread hosts who delete on topic posts. And, as I said above, be clear as to what is not tolerated in the Mote, as sent out in the r o e. For instance, if someone is spamming, and there have been a few who have done it, why not have the governors speak up and deal with it, rather appointing (by giving her a thread when Cal stated before she was given the thread, that her reason was to stop Jexster. And either today or yesterday she said she had "won" against Jexster. Cal's thread has some excellent posts and I am not attacking her. I think the "getting Jexster" if he is so bad, should be done by the governors.
As I said above, if this filling the Inferno with on topic posts continues, then we, as hosts, may decide that we should be "enforcers" as well, and delete or move posts of people we decide violate the rules of our threads?
As you asked a few days or so ago, why have a parallel thread?
I don't like censorship either, but if it's going to come, and sometimes it must, then I think it's something the governors should decide and then enforce.
I do understand you and the other governors donate your time, and it can be a real hassle, and I appreciate your efforts. I do think that you have "punted" in giving hosts almost unbridled authority to move or delete posts. It seems like it could end up as vigilante justice.
17382. Property of Jesus - 4/12/02 8:49:41 AM
For the record: I don't like this ganging up on Jexster that's happening in the political threads.
We are all born mad. Some remain so.
17385. bubbaette - 4/12/02 11:43:07 AM
As much as I hate to find myself agreeing with Rosetta Stone, I find myself agreeing with Rosetta Stone. What is being suggested to shut Jexter up cannot be expressed in any kind of standard that does not apply to other people's posts. He posts too many links? Many people post links here -- nobody's talking about moving or deleting their posts. His posts are inane? Puhleez -- if not being inane were a requirement, a large portion of forum would be deleted every day. He posts too many in a row? So do many other people. He's annoying and tedious? I give you Cal Gal. Show me one set of standards that you can use to shut Jexter up that you can apply even-handedly throughout the Mote.
17388. rubberducky -4/12/02 12:28:49 PM
i agree with bubba wrt jex. i generally don't care for much moderation in threads. CG is doing a pretty good job in making a readable thread. it sucks that it takes one to ruin the batch, but that's the way these things go.
LMAF! I loves ya bubbs!
I think a US foreign policy thread is a good idea...the topic is an important one, and doesn't really fit into International or the Global Terrorism thread, or American Politics. It's not just about what we are doing to other countries, but such things as who decides foreign policy, does foreign policy change much based on whether the president is a democrat or republian. What glaring problems have been made by the president or foreign policy officials, et al.
Ducks, it's not just one person who has "ruin[ed] the batch." imo.
17390. rubberducky -4/12/02 12:52:39 PM
Abs:
i think it is, in this single, particular instance. i was this close to giving up hosting my own thread because even i didn't want to read it. endless links, goofy slams on Bush/GOP, constant CNN news updates and multicolored posts are fine for some people, i suppose, but not something i want to read very much of.
CG's doing a decent job with the hand she's been dealt. i may step down as co-host because it has mostly been a name only thing since the thread got rebooted anyway.
as with Politics, the thread is getting to be more trouble to read and participate in than it is worth.
I think it allows a wider range of choice for a greater number of posters if we don't require all threads to have the same tone.
We have a large number of posters who don't find it at all liberating to engage in flame wars and insults. I don't think it's curtailing anyone's freedom to have some threads where those things aren't allowed.
By letting individual thread hosts set the tone for their threads people can then self-select what kind of tone they're comfortable with. That way someone who prefers it rough and tumble doesn't have to walk on eggshells around the fainter of heart and the less volatile among us don't have to live in fear of ambush.
And despite the way Cal painted it, I did not make a dramatic announcment that I would not be participating in that thread because she was being meeeeeeeeaaaan to Jex. I HAD made that decision when the thread was established because I don't at all like the idea of establishing a thread to exclude someone when you can't provide a standard policy that can be applied uniformly as to what is unacceptable. The only reason that I stated my reason for not participating in the thread is because Cal stated that she would be posting a response to me in that thread.
This is untrue. The express purpose of the GT thread was to exclude spam.
Sure, Queenie!
I don't know if you saw my Message # 1497 but I'm quite serious about it. Your comments on the issue at hand are welcome but random cheerleading and sniper shots are off topic.
No one else spams. There are only two people who have ever spammed the Mote more than once. One is Cellar, who does it only occasionally. The other is Jexster, who does it continuously.
Concerned doesn't spam. You just don't like his comments. So what? I don't move posts I disagree with. In fact, I don't even read Jex's posts enough to agree or disagree with the swill; I just read enough to determine whether they are spam and then I move them.
I don't much care whether you agree with me that Jex spams, provided that you stop misrepresenting the thread's purpose. It was not set up to exclude Jex. Indeed, he has 35 posts in the thread, which is more than anyone except me. Over seventy additional posts of his were moved to the Inferno. Seventy seven posts, I believe, to be a bit more exact. Had they been left there, Jexster's spam would be consuming over 30% of the posts in the thread.
And that is why the thread was set up. So that his garbage wouldn't consume 30% of the posts.
Jex was warned about his behavior in Politics as well and took Jay's admonishment to heart refraining from the kind of posting that caused so many people to complain.
People keep talking about a personal vendetta, but what I see is that Jex is aware of what kind of posts were annoying people and he is capable of restraining that impulse if he so desires. He apparently does not so desire in Cal and Ducky's thread.
Neither Cal nor Ducky has asked that Jexter be suspended for failing to obey thread host instructions even though this is well within their rights.
We have very few rules here at theMote and we're really pretty permissive about even most of those, but blatant disregard for host authority and repeated antagonistic behavior isn't a protected right.
Cal, YOU spam. How many threads did you post that "wilding" photo in? Or maybe I'm just not up on the current Cal definition of spamming.
What makes it spam? Is it the posting of links? Or non-substantive posts? Most everything you moved was on-topic. Is spamming having too many posts by the same person in a thread? No, wait, that can't be it, because JC has a thread in which only he can post.
I have no issue whatsoever with Concern posting about whatever "concerns" him. It's just that when Concerned does what Jex does, it's not spam. I don't find Jex's posts particularly entertaining or enlightening, but that could apply to several other people as well. I don't often agree with what Jex says or how he says it, so that's not the reason for my speaking up about this. My issue is simple -- there has been no definition of what Jex does that makes his posts spam that doesn't apply to others. There have been no standards explicated that can be applied even-handedly across the board.
Ms. No
As for people keeping talking about a "personal vendetta", I haven't used that term, so don't let Cal put words in my mouth. I did say that it was based on a personal animus. Not that Cal doesn't bear a personal animus for many people on the mote -- hell, all you have to do to trigger it is to disagree with her.
So in my opinion (and you are certainly entitled to your own opinion) the discussion leading up to the creation of the Global Terrorism (and everything that JC has said with respect to Jex recently in the Israel and Palestine thread)has been motivated with the desire to shut Jex up. I would prefer that Jex control himself, but I deeply disagree with the way in which you are going about this mission.
Two. One, to announce it. The second time because it was relevant in regards to media bias. It was posted a week later when further stories came out.
And the very fact that you would call two posts "spam" in that instance is evidence that you're really stretching, toots.
What makes it spam?..My issue is simple -- there has been no definition of what Jex does that makes his posts spam that doesn't apply to others. There have been no standards explicated that can be applied even-handedly across the board.
Continual posts, over and over again, links not of opinion piece but minor reportage with a misleading title, play by play of trivial press conferences and CNN reports, random rants, no reference to others' posts, no hint that he reads others posts--he doesn't respond or reference them, as a general rule. He posted 25 posts in a row in less than an hour.
That's spam, Bubba. It is clearly definable, and no one else does it. You can insist otherwise, but that just puts your objectivity in question. I don't care whether you agree or not. People have been bitching about Jex's behavior for a long time--at least 18 months, probably longer.
As for your very nearly asinine distinction between animus and vendetta--my moving of Jex's posts is not based on personal animus. I don't dislike Jexster at all. I don't care about him one way or the other. My moving of his posts is based on a single goal: to provide a place to talk about a subject without his endless spasms. I doubt it will work, but it's worth a try.
Each of these sins is committed by others in the mote. I'll grant you, not as consistantly and not in the same volume. But each part of the above litany of sins requires a subjective reading that lends itself to censorship. That is my issue -- it is not a list of things that can be or is applied consistantly.
You recognize that Jexter posts in a manner significantly different from all other posters with regard to consistancy and volume. If it is a recognizable difference then I'm not sure why you consider it inconsistent to enforce a policy which everyone else seems able to follow-----which Jexter himself has proven able to follow when he wishes to do so.
This is not a case of multiple posters engaging in a particular behavior for which only one of them is being criticized for. That would be inconsistent. This is a case of a single poster not following the guidelines of a thread.
Disagreeing with the guidelines of a thread is a completely different issue than accusing a host of inconsistent or unfair behavior. If people dislike the guidelines of a thread then they should vote with their feet. I've made that as easy for people to do as I possibly can. People who don't want to read Jexter's spam in I&P can participate in the Global Terrorism thread. People who dislike the absence of Jexter spam can participate in I&P. Those who have no preference may happily post in both.
Concerned, please don't use such long anchor text, and provide the link without too much editorializing. You can editorialize right below (in the same post). And if all you're going to provide is links, I'd rather you put them all in one post.
She feels compelled to lecture people on How to post and What to post and what they SHOULD have said, etc. It is getting old.
You state: blatant disregard for host authority and repeated antagonistic behavior isn't a protected right. It certainly seems like antgonistic behavior by a host when one is constantly berated for the manner in which they post. It is the main reason I'm not posting in that thread. I look on it as saving Cal the extra work of having to either lecture me or send me to the Inferno.
I think bubba is making a point that's being overlooked. We need to draw up clear guidelines of what Spam is. Twenty posts in a row, all of which are relevant and add perspective to a topic, doesn't seem like spam to me, it just seems like somebody's got a lot to say. And unless you want to hear endless bitching about the arbitrary way in which this seems to be enforced, there are going to have to be clear guidelines or free speech.
From Cal's definition of Spam there is a lot of gray and room for interpretation, we need to have a real definition adopted in our RoE or else hosts become cranky little dictators who are difficult to predict and can act on personal agendas. I'm not saying that it has happened yet but it sure feels that way from the hostility around here lately.
Wiz,
I don't know if you saw my Message # 1497 but I'm quite serious about it. Your comments on the issue at hand are welcome but random cheerleading and sniper shots are off topic.
Sorry, No -- I didn't see it [. . . and I'm glad!].
And I'm bringing Hell with me.
CG has acted within the ROE. those that don't like don't participate - that's the way it works here.
reattach this thread to Suggestions and let it go.
don't like it, don't participate
And she will not like what she hears.
Either a thread is open to all on a fair and equal basis or it should be open to none.
She removed the following from her "Bitch Fighting Thread" yesterday
What is Behind Bush's War Drive?
Will be the topic of a discussion at SFSU today
Unfortunately I will be in Housing Class doing battle with a representative of The Mother of the Axis of Evil.
However, thanks to Wiz's timely and excellent link of the Immanuel Wallerstein article from the LAT, I will be doing my part in the War Against Global Geopolitical Incompetence.
Thanks Wiz!
She started this.
I will end it.
Sounds good to me. Wabbit mentioned in Suggestions that she'd like to leave Policies up for another day and then re-anchor tomorrow.
Oooooooooh!:)
I'm not sure what registration problem you're referring to. Automatic registration has been back up and running for nearly two months now.
Was there something else?
Thanks for the information. Are we keeping up hyperlinks from other sites?
Lighten up how? I mean, do thread hosts set the tone of their threads or not? Jexter had ample opportunity to comply. He had 31 other threads in which to post if he didn't wish to conform to the tone of that particular thread.
Clearly Jexter wished to cause havoc in that thread. Clearly he wished to needlessly antagonize and abuse the hosts of that thread. Clearly he wished to ignore the RoE.
Clearly CalGal and Ducky did not attempt to prevent him from posting as is evidenced by the fact that there are more posts by Jexter in that thread than by anyone other than CalGal. That's not even remotely close to banning him from a thread.
Are we keeping up hyperlinks from other sites?
We are registered with several search engines but I don't know what was done about reciprocal links. I very much doubt that Salon would have agreed to such a thing or any other forum that's making money off subscriptions somewhere, but, honestly, I don't know for sure as I wasn't involved in that.
It's probably clear by now that I haven't paid much attention to these things, but I'm now curious as to whether the Mote has created catchy little banners for other sites to use to attach their links to the Mote to. If the Mote hasn't in the past, I could imagine that reducing the willingness of other sites to link to the Mote, in some cases.
Most places will link to you if you will also link to them. It's the "also link to them" part that I think people originally balked at. We didn't want to become a site that subsisted on advertising other sites. We currently have no ads whatsoever. It means we don't make any money, but we didn't get into this to make money. It means that we aren't getting as wide an exposure as we could, but there are pros and cons both to wide exposure as any Playboy model will tell you.
I don't think the idea's been revisited for quite awhile, though. We've had more than 20 people register with theMote in the last two months. Several of them are posting. Not a lot yet, but this is a tough crowd to infiltrate and it takes folks a little time to warm up to it.
Please, whatever you do regarding ads, no popups! Have mercy!
That's just my point, nobody wanted any ads at all on our site. I'm fine not having our link on other sites if having them means putting up other people's ads. I don't think we're so hard up for posters that we need to do that.
I like your idea for a logo, though. I recently went back and looked at Pike's front page logo submission and laughed my ass off----in a good way. It was great the way he pulled quotes from all over theMote. Very funny.
The slew of posts at the very end were awful, out of line and gross, though i've seen MUCH worse around here. However, Jex's more abusive posts appeared predictably. Everytime Cal moved an on-topic post, Jex would attempt to make an issue of it(see Message # 1531). while Cal is entitled to run her thread however she damn well likes, i think that her stated goal, of "avoiding spam" was less than genuine. Further, Wabbit's Message # 1532 states You'll either learn to differentiate between an on-topic post and spam, or..., I argue that Jexster has little difficulty differentiating between the two...rather Cal has this problem as demonstrated by her selection of posts to move from her thread to The Inferno (12098, 12100, 12150, 12162 and 12149)
Given that there is no stated "spam rule" (and that Spam has not been formally defined),
the justification of "Spam" as the reason for suspension (as stated by Wabbit in above linked post) is invalid, though I do think his final posts where abusive.
However, suspension for abusive posts would open up suspension for Cal and her numerous personal and unsubstatiated attacks on several members of the community. I agree with Jexster, and many other here that enforcement has been selective.
Thus ends my formal complaint.
Can Cal be abusive? Sure. But I haven't seen her make an abusive post and then repost it ten or more times in a row just to try to piss someone off. That is a temper tantrum and this isn't kindergarten. Nobody here is paid to follow anyone around just to wipe their ass when they decide to shit all over a thread. So Jexster has a few days off. He isn't the first. Probably, unfortunately, won't be the last. You disagree with me. Oh well.
When Ms. No set this thread up as a separate post a couple of weeks ago, it was, at t hat time, done to set out my response to Pelle, about the concerns I had about things, as far as changes that, imo, would avert the type of things that have been going on. The posts were moved here. See post #1496, infra. I was n ot talking about Jex. I noticed that there were posts from last august addressing the same issues as I raised.
Yesterday there was mention of moving this thread and putting it back into Suggestions. RD seemed to think the "issue" was over. He meant, I think, what he saw as the Jex issue.
However, I have never gotten a response to the issues I raised. Nor have either I or betty gotten any response to our requests for a US foreign policy thread. It is not a frivolous request and wasn't to lessen cal's thread...us foreign policy has many issues, not just terror, and also to discuss in only in the International thread only clogs up the thread.
You and others may not agree, but it is very frustrating to have "some" posters suggestions ignored while others arew not.
I don't disagree that we should all act like adults, but that's a subjective, and in the case of a community, useless term. I'm not saying that we need to spell out every little detail of Mote participation, rather I am saying that if Spamming is such an easily recognizable and flagrant disregard of the kind of discourse we are shooting for in these parts then we do need to, at the vey least, say something about it in the RoE. and more than that, we need to define it.
We have definitions and rules not because people aren't adults, rather because we are all adults and we must develop civic understanding because we do not all come with the same moral compass.
If the reason Jex is being suspended is because of Spam, as stated, then his suspension is invalid because there is no public agreement on what spam is, there is no rule against it and he never agreed to not spam. I'm sorry if this is a headache and a pain in the ass, but it seems like there would be less headaches if we all had clear expectations of one another. if any attempt to address my concerns had been made I wouldn't be bringing it up again. and if my concerns aren't addressed now, they will continue to be brought up everytime a poster accuses another of "Spamming"...which is an offense that has no meaning here because it has not been defined. It would also make the moderators lives easier because difficult people, like myself, couldn't come in here and say, "there is no policy against spam you're just acting like dictators" (extremist parody of myself).
Jex's posts were abusive, like I said, there are plenty 'round here who can be abusive, and few of them are as funny about it as Jexster, if that's the reason for suspension, fine. I can live with that, though i will site his "abuse and suspension" as precedent when someone crosses the line, and I will expect it to be enforced.
So try your hand at a definition of spam, then.
1) No need for another international thread.
2) Whether or not spam is expressly prohibited in the RoE, we have at least two precedent cases (CellarDoor and cazart) in which a poster was suspended for it. A host isn't obligated to keep removing the same post or content over and over again.
If the host is doing a bad job, then this is the place to complain, but it's not the prerogative of a participant to inflict everyone else on other threads with the problem. (Moreover, what jexster did also could be considered as falling under the prohibition against threats.)
posting the same shit and ignoring the host(s) will earn a reward from the powers that be - that's just the way it is folks.
the Rules of Engagement are clearly posted in the Mote Links section
he's only suspended, he'll be back. no real harm done, really.
"Moderators...crack heads when they deem it necessary. necessary."
(The error is in the original.)
This "cracking of heads" is in addition to enforcing the RoE, which is already covered in the previous sentence.
I didn't mean to ignore your posts. I just got sidetracked and then it looked as if things had died down. I know that much of this was actually addressed to Pelle, but since you mention me as well I figured I'd take a stab at repsonding.
If spamming's a problem, then I think Ms. No, Pelle or Wabbit should deal with it.
I disagree that a Moderator should be the first person to do that. It's why we have thread hosts. There is not enough time in the day for the Moderators to watch each and every thread for any violation. I think it also quite unlikely that everyone in the Mote would wish to conform to my personal ideas of what is abusive or what is on-topic etc.
Allowing thread hosts as much autonomy as possible provides the greatest amount of personal choice for posters. Not everyone wants to post civily enough to hang out in the Cafe and not everyone wants to put on the bullet-proof vest required to post in Politics. The more centralized the decision making on tone the less freedom of tone there is.
If it's up to the thread host to decide what they don't "like," then the Inferno will be about the only place people post.
This has always been the rule here and we still have plenty of action in threads besides the Inferno. Some hosts are more strict than others. Those who don't like it have the option of not posting in those threads, or requesting alternate threads. If a poster has a problem with a thread host then it should be brought to the attention of the Moderators. If the answer that the Moderators give just isn't good enough for that poster the poster does not then have the right to purposefully disrupt a thread and flout the authority of the thread host.
I would like to see a more centralized form of governance. Once that sets out clearly what are the b asic rules for moving posts, deleting them, and why.
We've always tried to have less rules rather than more at theMote. They work 99% of the time. The other 1% of the time is generally more to do with accusations of personal bias than true misunderstanding of the rules.
I think it's important to note that this furor is not about post moving in general. It is specifically instigated by the recent posting by Jexster and CalGal's handling of it. Indy's been moving posts like a steamroller in Religion, but no one has come to Policies or Suggestions and demanded that he has a personal vendetta against posters even though sometimes he leaves personal comment posts and sometimes he doesn't.
I'm not criticizing Indy's behavior. It's a pain in the ass to move posts. It's even more of a pain in the ass to move them when posters are purposefully violating host instructions. It is not a perfect system, but a "perfect" system would be hell. Kind of like the anti-sexual harassment rules in corporations nowadays. You can't say to your friend and co-worker "Hey you look nice today" because it falls under the rigid definition of sexual harassment to comment on a member of the opposite sex's appearance.
What happens is that then you have very specific rules which don't always get followed because mostly everyone knows that they're not talking about "this" situation and it's still arbitrary as hell when they get enforced. Think of Georgia: nobody is going to arrest a man and his wife for performing oral sex even though it's in violation of the sodomy laws there, but let a couple of gay guys indulge and they'll be in jail before folks can even get the sheets over their heads.
In the hosting guidelines it clearly states that a host may move any post at any time that s/he deems off topic or in violation of the thread's tone or in violation of the RoE. That decision is solely up to the host. It also states that deleting posts should really only be done for revelation of private information or other serious violations of the RoE. It's not a hard and fast rule because deleting is faster and easier than moving and once you've had to move a post or posts two or three or five times I really don't blame a host for just deleting at that point. If people can't control themselves then I don't see why a host should go out of his or her way to respect an obnoxious poster's grafitti.
I recommend that the governors talk to one another, perhaps by email, icq, or whatever, to decide such things as creating new threads, deleting old ones, who will be suspended or banned, if a poster feels another is personally attacking him/her in a mean and vicious manner, what role the governors should have, and how to deal with spammers as well as thread hosts who delete on topic posts.
We do talk to one another, but it isn't always feasible to wait to make a decision until all three time zones have checked in with one another. It's why we have three Moderators---because nobody can be available all the time. If we were available to talk to each other all the time then that would mean that one person could be available to watch the Mote all the time and there never would've been any need for more than one Moderator to begin with.
For instance, if someone is spamming, and there have been a few who have done it, why not have the governors speak up and deal with it,
People did speak up and I did deal with it. If I'd known it would be such a problem I wouldn't have attempted a compromise at all but just suspended Jexster from the get go. Instead, I offered Jex a way to keep posting as he wished and a way for others to post without being inconvenienced by the way in which he posted. Consequently we have an argument that amounts to "Why isn't the Inferno held to the same standards as the Cafe."
My response to that is: Because we didn't design this place to have carbon copy threads in which all players must act and think and post alike or bear the Wrath of Wabbit.
Cal stated before she was given the thread, that her reason was to stop Jexster. And either today or yesterday she said she had "won" against Jexster.
I think it needs to be pointed out that this wasn't about Jexster but about the spammy posts that Jexster was indulging in. Jexster was free to post in Cal's thread. He did so. He has a lot of posts still there. The fact that he acted like a spoiled brat and decided to pitch a fit in that thread is what got posts moved and finally got him suspended. Cal didn't count it as a win against Jexster but as a win in general if she could avoid having spam in her thread because he got fed up and quit posting it rather than her having to move the posts every two minutes.
I think the "getting Jexster" if he is so bad, should be done by the governors.
We tried to avoid that, but that's eventually what happened. Contrary to some popular belief none of the Moderators particularly likes suspending people. It's bad for morale and it always causes a meltdown because of the differing beliefs about what is acceptable behavior and what should be allowed in the forum. What people fail to realize is that disagreement isn't necessarily a bad thing and no matter how well we define the rules or how meticulously they are enforced there will always always always be someone who vehemently disagrees with what was decided. I don't think that that is sufficient reason to re-design the forum. It's not something that can be eliminated so folks need to look at it like tornadoes or floods or something. You may not like it, but it's not a preventable phenonmenon and having a ruckus as if it could be prevented and wasn't does no good whatsoever.
As I said above, if this filling the Inferno with on topic posts continues, then we, as hosts, may decide that we should be "enforcers" as well, and delete or move posts of people we decide violate the rules of our threads?
Yes, as I stated that's the way the RoE are written. It's laid out in black and....er...yellow. Thread hosts have as much autonomy as we can give them. If they start to abuse their power then folks will complain. The Moderators will take a look and if we decided that the host is abusive s/he will be removed. If we decide not, then posters get to vote with their feet.
It seems like it could end up as vigilante justice.
It could if there were no Moderators to curb the hosts, but there are. We try to let hosts be autonomous, but that doesn't mean we won't or don't step in when a host gets out of line.
Of course it's subjective, much like defining pornography. But let's start with the original internet meaning of the term spam.
Selected from the Webopedia:
Electronic junk mail or junk newsgroup postings. Some people define spam even more generally as any unsolicited e-mail. However, if a long-lost brother finds your e-mail address and sends you a message, this could hardly be called spam, even though it's unsolicited. Real spam is generally e-mail advertising for some product sent to a mailing list or newsgroup.
...the generally accepted version is that it comes from the Monty Python song, "Spam spam spam spam, spam spam spam spam, lovely spam, wonderful spam…" Like the song, spam is an endless repetition of worthless text. Another school of thought maintains that it comes from the computer group lab at the University of Southern California who gave it the name because it has many of the same characteristics as the lunchmeat Spam:
• Nobody wants it or ever asks for it.
• No one ever eats it; it is the first item to be pushed to the side when eating the entree.
• Sometimes it is actually tasty, like 1% of junk mail that is really useful to some people.
Now take a look at the Inferno, starting with, say, post 12169. I see this in the Fighting Global Terrorism thread and I think spam without batting an eyelash. I'd like to hear why these posts are not spam. Furthermore, Jexster promises to continue posting this way until he gets to post any way he wants to in any thread he chooses. Sorry, that isn't the way things work here and he knows that.
You want a separate US Foreign Policy thread because "International is getting all clogged up with Posts that are relating to US foreign policy again...some of us want Swiss brand nuetrality explained to us." Here again, I don't see why US foreign policy doesn't belong in the International thread, or even in the American Politics thread, but if enough people think it warrants a thread, we can create one for you to host. Just remember that the reason the Fighting Global Terrorism thread was started was because enough people thought Jexster was clogging up discussion.
And by the way, what you "expect...to be enforced" won't bully me into doing your will any more than the same tactic has worked for anyone else. Ask Cal.
"We have definitions and rules not because people aren't adults, rather because we are all adults and we must develop civic understanding because we do not all come with the same moral compass."
This doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. If we are all adults, why can't we be expected to observe and learn? If your moral compass is radically different from mine, what rule is going to satisfy us both? Sometimes people have to be adult enough to agree to disagree and not behave like spoiled brats when they don't get their way. Sometimes being an adult means you have to suck it up and not bulldoze your way along. But that's just my vague idea.
btw, I'll leave this thread on the front page for now, since we haven't finished with this yet.
I should add that I'm not against adding to the RoE, I just don't think we can ever satisfy everyone, so some amount of subjectivity is going to be present regardless.
concerned, I'm still trying to catch up after a long absence, was I baring my teeth and being ferocious?
as I've said, Jex's last posts were indeed totally over the line...I think even by his standards. Of course those last posts were "spam". I agree with Ducky that they were abusive. And I'm not trying to bully anyone, what I am saying is that there needs to be some mention of spam in the RoE, even if it is "No Spam", letting each individual host decide the definition of spam on hir thread.
All i'm saying is, if SPAM is the offense, then we need to make sure "no SPAM" is a rule.
I am happy to get behind this.
In other news, thunderstorms are moving through Boston, so if I disappear it will be only until power returns.
Thanks for responding, I know there have been "other" issues around here. My point re moderators and spam, was to say that if thread hosts abuse power or if the masses yell "off with his/her head" and it's becoming an issue that is quite devisive, then I think a moderator should warn, even if a host has warned, and and if it still continues, then the person is suspended.
Wabbit, I do like your comment about spam...hahaha, I do thing the Rof E should list it, and while I don't want to pose any unnecessary duties on the Moderators, I would like to see clearer Rules of Engagement. That's my opinion only...but this all (not Jex) was an issue last August in this threat raised by several people. Seem to me it's still an issue.
Ms. No...when I said "talk to one another," I was talking about the recent time when Pelle was going to remove certain threads without notice, and you disagreed and reinstated them, as most wanted to be done...and then Pelle announced he was an exmoderator. Such comments are not good to be aired in front of the "children," inter alia. You bother were here at the mote at the same time that day. I don't think all three of you must agree regarding discipline, etc. Maybe someone could set out what things required an agreement by all three of you, what can be done by a majority, and those that can be done by one moderator.
I do understand the work you do and also know what a hassle it can be to do it, inspite of the huge monetary rewards...heh.
I think thread host autonomy sometimes has merits. : ) Of course we can then get into a discussion of what is "abuse." I think mosts hosts have different visions of abuse, whether it be that by a poster or a thread host.
And, I hear no one complains about Indy because he is so cute. ; )
I do appreciate you talking the time to respond, I know it takes a lot of time.
Thanks for responding, I know there have been "other" issues around here. My point re moderators and spam, was to say that if thread hosts abuse power or if the masses yell "off with his/her head" and it's becoming an issue that is quite devisive, then I think a moderator should warn, even if a host has warned, and and if it still continues, then the person is suspended.
Wabbit, I do like your comment about spam...hahaha, I do thing the Rof E should list it, and while I don't want to pose any unnecessary duties on the Moderators, I would like to see clearer Rules of Engagement. That's my opinion only...but this all (not Jex) was an issue last August in this threat raised by several people. Seem to me it's still an issue.
Ms. No...when I said "talk to one another," I was talking about the recent time when Pelle was going to remove certain threads without notice, and you disagreed and reinstated them, as most wanted to be done...and then Pelle announced he was an exmoderator. Such comments are not good to be aired in front of the "children," inter alia. You bother were here at the mote at the same time that day. I don't think all three of you must agree regarding discipline, etc. Maybe someone could set out what things required an agreement by all three of you, what can be done by a majority, and those that can be done by one moderator.
I do understand the work you do and also know what a hassle it can be to do it, inspite of the huge monetary rewards...heh.
I think thread host autonomy sometimes has merits. : ) Of course we can then get into a discussion of what is "abuse." I think mosts hosts have different visions of abuse, whether it be that by a poster or a thread host.
And, I hear no one complains about Indy because he is so cute. ; )
I do appreciate you talking the time to respond, I know it takes a lot of time.
I think this is the second time that I have let you know that sophisticated and lady and such silliness are completely inappropriate in reference to me.
I was asking, and of course I was trying to pick you up...I love Mediterranean Men...Israeli, Moroccan, Italian, Spanish, and yes, even Greek. As long as they don't speak. once they start talking it all goes to hell.
I think wabbit has presented a good example that demonstrates why thread hosts should be the given a fairly long leash to make these kinds of decisions.
In my little corner of the Mote, I would allow a post with three paragraphs of crap and one relevant sentence to stand. Why? Because social issues often touch upon intimate aspects of the human condition and many people get very heated in the discussion of them.
So early on I decided and stated that posts devoid of any relevance and that seemed to only have been posted to make personal indults or to agitate would be removed. Therefore “You F*#@ A$& mother-doinking wanker, you’re never correct” would be removed while “You F*#@ A$& mother-doinking wanker, you’re incorrect. The Supreme Court declined to hear that case in 1987, not 1982!” would remain.
If I were hosting another a Gardening thread, they would both be deleted immediately just because posting about treating a gardenia for black spots is different than posting about abortion.
Requiring that a conversation about abortion be carried on in the same tone and conform to the same rules as a conversation about gardenias is unworkable. Allowing hosts to set the acceptable tolerance levels for “heated discussion” in each thread allows different types of conversation to occur.
(more caffeine please)
Meanwhile, please see RoE, section 3 on Needless Abuse, for additional small blurb about spam.
Comments requested.
...although, I don't suppose that's the kind of comment you were looking for.
I like the addition.
this says it all, really.
yeah, me too. I think those links are rillllly old. The link in 1601 works, however. I think Wabbit's traveling at the moment but I'll drop her a line to let her know about the links.
i think it is an all-or-none game, really.
It isn't a permanent decision, But after three days of watching folks abuse their power as hosts to take shots at other Moties by changing thread titles it was deemed better to suspend a little used priveledge than to suspend a bunch of posters.
I would prefer that no one be suspended, but when I got on this morning I was ready for mass suspensions just to get a little order.
fair enough and i can completely understand. i just hope it doesn't become permanent.
You don't need to suspend people. Just use the maintenance tools to remove them as hosts.
I know, but it wasn't a question of suspending the priviledge or susending the host it was a question of suspending the priviledge in order to stop a chain of events that would eventually result in the suspension of posters. If someone is adamant enough about causing a ruckus to keep abusing his hosting priveleges, then he's adamant enough to get wild when those priveleges are revoked at which point he'll likely do something to get himself suspended......like try to derail his nemesis' thread by spamming it continuously. We've seen this behavior before.
Halting the escalation of hostilities caused by the changing thread titles was a small move that will hopefully have a widespread calming effect.
(And just how long was everyone going to sit around and let me misspell priviledge?)
2) When you do so, please note that I will be closely comparing your description of what is out of line with what has been tolerated in other threads in exactly the same period of time, and what is eminently reasonable.
3) My intention with and in the US foreign policy thread is exactly as stated openly and repeatedly, there have been zero hidden agendas.
What do you call it when a poster in a thread repeatedly violates the thread host's instructions? You continued to re-post a message that the Islamism thread host deemed inappropriate for the thread. Rather than bring this issue to the attention of the Moderators you chose instead to try and duke it out with the thread host. 9 times out of 10 you will lose this battle as our RoE state very specifically that
The definition of "needless" and "abusive" are left to the thread host, whose word is final. Any posts that are deemed abusive may be deleted. Understand that standards are set by the host. Continually abusive behavior may be grounds for suspension of posting privileges.
It goes without saying that this has holes you can drive trucks through. This is intentional. The inventiveness of a small minority forces us to be vague.
Now if you'd like to argue that Thread hosts should have to justify their every action to the screaming horde trying to derail a discussion then you're welcome to try that, but I doubt you'll get much support.
The most recent prior example of this behavior is Jexster's antics. Previously both RosettaStone and AceofSpades tried these tactics. Without fail every single one of them was suspended for the behavior. I don't expect to have to keep warning people not to do something so decidedly puerile.
If you have something to say on topic in the thread then you have as much right as anyone else to post it. If you want to lodge a complaint about your treatment at the hands of a thread host and have made a clear statement to that host and not received satisfaction then you should come to the Moderators. You don't get to run around with your hands over your ears singing "La-La-La I'm not listening to you!!!" and disrupting the flow of discussion in a thread.
Thank you for clearly spelling out the perceived problem.
We're all ogling butts now in a giant rippling love-fest.
back to top