|
1129. dusty - 2/27/2000 3:30:55 AM CalGal
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. 1130. seguine - 2/27/2000 3:31:23 AM CalGal,
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?
1131. seguine - 2/27/2000 3:33:22 AM "I format the text and write everything until someone comes along and complains."
A terrible burden. Thankfully, Irving has offered to assist you. 1132. Seguine - 2/27/2000 5:19:48 AM 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."
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. 1133. Angel-Five - 2/27/2000 5:29:47 AM 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.
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. 1134. Angel-Five - 2/27/2000 5:42:22 AM 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 5:52:57 AM 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 6:02:11 AM Re: the FAQ
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. 1137. Seguine - 2/27/2000 6:50:44 AM 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:
"...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. 1138. Angel-Five - 2/27/2000 7:49:21 AM 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 7:49:40 AM 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 8:30:48 AM I want to make sure my positions are clear.
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. 1141. Angel-Five - 2/27/2000 9:03:59 AM I like Angel-5. It's grown on me a lot. Call that what you will.
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. Does that sound reasonable? 1142. CalGal - 2/27/2000 9:44:37 AM Seguine,
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. 1143. Seguine - 2/27/2000 9:56:13 AM Hey, A-5, I rather like that suggestion.
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? 1144. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/27/2000 10:08:07 AM Dusty:
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? 1145. CalGal - 2/27/2000 10:14:48 AM God almighty. You all must think Wabbit has unlimited time.
I'll leave it to someone else to rip that idea to shreds. 1146. arkymalarky - 2/27/2000 10:17:49 AM Message # 1143
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. 1147. Indiana Jones - 2/27/2000 10:20:56 AM 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.
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. 1148. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/27/2000 10:22:14 AM 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.
|
