|
1277. PsychProf - 9/28/2000 1:12:12 AM Quiv...I meant here in the Mote/Fray...many of us have known eachother since 1996-1997. 1278. quivver - 9/28/2000 1:22:34 AM 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 4:28:28 AM Good to have ya. 1280. AceofSpades - 9/28/2000 5:39:58 AM
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. 1281. AceofSpades - 9/28/2000 5:42:46 AM
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. 1282. KuligintheHooligan - 9/28/2000 5:44:15 AM Diva,
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. 1283. theDiva - 9/28/2000 5:48:54 AM Hoolio
man, all I can say is, I hate being involved in such things in any way. 1284. KuligintheHooligan - 9/28/2000 5:49:29 AM Ace,
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??!!! 1285. AceofSpades - 9/28/2000 5:49:48 AM
Kuligin,
It's "Lynch" mob, by the way, named after a chap named Lynch. 1286. AceofSpades - 9/28/2000 5:52:09 AM
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. 1287. KuligintheHooligan - 9/28/2000 5:53:31 AM 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.
Interesting. 1288. CalGal - 9/28/2000 5:55:52 AM 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?
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?
1289. KuligintheHooligan - 9/28/2000 5:56:43 AM Ace,
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. 1290. KuligintheHooligan - 9/28/2000 5:58:52 AM 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 6:21:48 AM KuligintheHooligan
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. 1292. glendajean - 9/28/2000 6:43:06 AM 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.
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. 1293. bubbaette - 9/28/2000 9:48:46 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.
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. 1294. Indiana Jones - 9/28/2000 3:33:05 PM 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?
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. 1295. Indiana Jones - 9/28/2000 3:33:21 PM 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.
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.) 1296. PelleNilsson - 9/28/2000 6:11:39 PM I wish it to be on record that I completely supported, and still support, wabbit's decision in the Nostradamus case.
|
