|
1496. Ms. No - 4/12/2002 5:52:41 AM 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.
Now, on to business. 1497. Ms. No - 4/12/2002 6:00:26 AM Fair Warning:
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.
1498. Ms. No - 4/12/2002 6:01:33 AM Reposted from The Inferno
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"?
1499. Ms. No - 4/12/2002 6:04:01 AM 12084. Absensia - 4/12/02 1:20:49 PM
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......
1500. Ms. No - 4/12/2002 6:04:36 AM
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.
1501. wonkers2 - 4/12/2002 6:34:49 AM 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 6:37:32 AM Re-posted from Suggestions
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.
1503. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 4/12/2002 6:45:36 AM " . . . He's annoying and tedious? I give you Cal Gal."
LMAF! I loves ya bubbs! 1504. Ms. No - 4/12/2002 6:45:45 AM 17389. Absensia - 4/12/02 12:40:15 PM
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.
1505. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 4/12/2002 6:46:11 AM LMAO !!! (F?) 1506. wonkers2 - 4/12/2002 6:47:43 AM laissez 1507. wonkers2 - 4/12/2002 6:54:09 AM 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 7:12:23 AM Wonkers,
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.
1509. Absensia - 4/12/2002 7:19:50 AM 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 7:23:27 AM 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.
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. 1511. CalGal - 4/12/2002 7:29:16 AM And that was the express purpose of establishing the Global Terrorism thread and killing it's predecessor.
This is untrue. The express purpose of the GT thread was to exclude spam.
1512. bubbaette - 4/12/2002 7:34:29 AM Except that when other people spam, there's a mitigating reason why their posts aren't considered spam. 1513. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 4/12/2002 7:44:57 AM The express purpose of the GT thread was to exclude spam.
Sure, Queenie! 1514. Ms. No - 4/12/2002 7:58:43 AM 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. 1515. CalGal - 4/12/2002 7:58:53 AM Bubba,
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.
|
