|
1357. Jon Ferguson - 4/4/2001 1:31:30 PM Outweighed? Is that how things get decided around here? Well no wonder ... (g) 1358. MsIvoryTower - 4/4/2001 10:42:52 PM As I said in the regions above....
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. 1359. wabbit - 4/7/2001 4:02:18 AM Proposed Thread Hosting GuidelinesThe 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.
1360. wabbit - 4/7/2001 4:07:43 AM Possible reasons for deleting/moving posts:
- personal information revealed about someone other than the poster him/herself
- threats or harrassment of another poster
- pornography
- excessive off-topic posts
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.1361. Jon Ferguson - 4/7/2001 10:16:37 AM Three comments:
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. 1362. Jon Ferguson - 4/7/2001 10:18:43 AM Typed too quickly. 'explicitly' probably works better in front of 'addressed' than in front of 'poster'. 1363. Jon Ferguson - 4/7/2001 10:20:39 AM Hmmm. Ever have one of those days? (g)
replace 'poster' with 'ban' in 1362.
Sorry for this mess. 1364. Jon Ferguson - 4/7/2001 10:58:31 AM Oh, one more thing.
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) 1365. wabbit - 4/7/2001 1:11:02 PM Jon, #'s 2 and 3 are both good points. Rewrite forthcoming.
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. 1366. Jon Ferguson - 4/8/2001 11:01:03 AM wabbit
...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? 1367. Jon Ferguson - 4/9/2001 12:11:32 AM I object to my imminent banning. Pelle should be removed as moderator forthwith.
Thanks. 1368. CalGal - 4/9/2001 12:16:03 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.
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. 1369. Lord Ferguson. - 4/9/2001 8:02:05 AM Cal
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. 1370. JayAckroyd - 4/9/2001 9:28:16 AM 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.
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. 1376. JayAckroyd - 4/9/2001 10:40:28 AM Please delete 1372 through 1375. 1377. Dusty - 4/9/2001 6:19:33 PM It appears that Jon was banned?
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. 1378. Indiana Jones - 4/9/2001 10:20:44 PM 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.
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. 1379. Dusty - 4/9/2001 11:37:22 PM Indiana Jones
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. 1380. Indiana Jones - 4/10/2001 12:36:03 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.
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. 1381. Ms. No - 4/10/2001 2:22:18 AM The deleted posts were Jon Ferguson impersonating another Mote poster.
|
