Policies

Host: Ms. No,PelleNilsson,arkymalarky

Jump right in!

Mote Members: Log in Home
Post

Cal:

Well, I only suggested the "victim" thing because the victim can always ask for clemency, so the victim's willingness to do so will be a factor.

And, you know, I want to get away from what will inevitably happen: The supporters of the violater will claim that it wasn't "intentional," and the supporters of the aggrieved party will claim it was. To cut through that inevitable shitstorm, I thought maybe we should give the victim's thoughts on the offense some weight.

But it was just a thought. Didn't really think it through.

I would be personally disgusted, however, if someone who makes these decisions ended up "believing" some implausible story the violator tells and thereby letting the violator off the hook. We know how it works: One need only claim "It wasn't clear, yadda yadda yadda" and suddenly we're talking about warnings again.

I don't know how to avoid that. I think that's why all along I've favored a group making these most-important decisions, rather than a single person.

153. Ace of Spades - 9/18/1999 6:54:22 AM

I also think that people are more willing to take unpleasant, but necessary, action in groups.

If it's up to just one person, a person may tend more to feel the weight of the decision on his shoulders, and may err on the side of mercy too much. The whole "Who am I to judge?" thing, the feeling of "How can I impose this penalty on someone?"

Whereas with a group voting, the responsibility is more diffuse, and people will more likely decide what it is right, rather than simply taking the convenient, tempting "let me just let them go and let God sort out the consequences" route. They know the unpleasant thing won't come to pass UNLESS a majority of the group is also convinced. That's why we have juries.

154. CalGal - 9/18/1999 6:55:05 AM

In the fray, I only know of one person who did it, and he did it maliciously to hurt someone. He got banned. He immediately came back under another name and he did it again with much gusto. He got banned again. Supposedly he came back again as someone else, but he didn't do the name placing again. I think, in this case, the system worked.


He not only didn't do the name-placing, he didn't identify himself as that Fraygrant. It was fairly clear who he was, but he never made any reference that pegged him beyond doubt. Had he done so, I think (but don't know) that he would have been banned again. I think that would be the correct response. Leaving him there until he identified himself--or did something to warrant banning--was also the correct response.

And actually, I think that's okay. At that point, the person can't act identify him or herself (without being banned), can't refer to past history that would identify him or her, can't really be that abusive (being that he wouldn't get any further chances)--in short, they won't be able to either re-engage or be "themselves", so to speak.

So if he or she is a productive poster within those limitations and the Mote has no confirmed knowledge of their identity, I think that's a situation that can be lived with.

I hope understanding and acceptance of this (which seems to be the only possible policy we could have) will enable us to avoid the accusation fests that used to occur whenever a newbie didn't meet someone's approval.

155. CalGal - 9/18/1999 6:58:25 AM

Re: Politics.

Just my opinion--I think the part about turds can probably go elsewhere. Also the rape/prison stuff? Balloons up one's ass?

I might be wrong, but I think that's what Arky is referring to. Since that generally turns into a "riff" of sorts, anyway, I don't think it'd be too terrible to send that to a different thread.

156. Ace of Spades - 9/18/1999 7:10:00 AM

Cal:

Well, other people may be annoyed by stuff like that, but I enjoy it, as long as it's not extreme and as long as it's funny.

The "balloons up my ass" thing WAS funny, and it wasn't graphic. If you're going to kick out that kind of post, Politics is going to suck.

My opinion, you understand. Technically, Cal, we should never have gone on and on with that riff on Elliot and television shows providing moral lessons. But that was funny stuff, and YOU enjoyed it.

So it's in the eye of the beholder. I'm sure that my "witticisms" are thought of like that by many people-- with quotes around it, indicating annoying and not funny. On the other hand, some people do think it's funny. If you wouldn't have censored your television riff on Elliot, it's really not consistent to censor my balloon riff. Then you're just judging on the basis of "Do *I* get a kick out of it?"

The standard must be more objective than that. Extreme, graphic shit, sure, delete that. But a censor can't start deleting non-graphic "prison bitch" stuff only on the basis that he or she doesn't think it's funny.

Besides, when you're joking like that, you don't keep it up if it's not funny. Even on-line, you can tell if it's playing or not. When VonKreedon makes a point of saying, "This is not funny. Move on," I generally stop.

157. Ace of Spades - 9/18/1999 7:12:21 AM

Unless, of course, I know in my HEART it's SUPERFUNNY, and VonKreedon just isn't capable of getting it. But that's a rare case.

And you know, folks, when it all comes down to it, that's who I do this for. That's what makes me the hardest working man in show business: VonKreedon.

It's all for VonKreedon.

158. CalGal - 9/18/1999 7:18:14 AM

Technically, Cal, we should never have gone on and on with that riff on Elliot and television shows providing moral lessons. But that was funny stuff, and YOU enjoyed it.

Oh, agreed. But that exchange and ones like it were the reason that Irv created the Playpen, if you recall. Because the stuff was funny and it was still off-topic.

If it wasn't clear, "riffs" is when all pretense of political discussion stops and it moves into sheer fun and games. Which, I agree, is very funny.

I wasn't judging anyone at all. I was just wondering if the compromise was all that huge.

159. Ace of Spades - 9/18/1999 7:21:48 AM

And, of course, stuff should be deleted/moved if it goes on an on and consumes the thread.

But brief posts like "I have a plethora of pretty balloons up my ass" which don't consume more than a line of text? Is that going to be censored on the theory that it's off topic, whereas scads of other off-topic posts are allowed? Is it going to be deleted simply because it mentions "balloons" and "ass" in uncomfortable proximity?

If it isn't any more off-topic than dozens of other posts, if it doesn't slow down the thread any more than dozens of other posts, if it doesn't consume the thread, if it's not graphic and extreme-- there's no reason to delete it, just because you don't like it.

160. Ace of Spades - 9/18/1999 7:23:27 AM

Cal:

Extended gags that go on and on and overtake the thread should be deleted and moved, no question. But that's ALWAYS been the standard. We've never had a standard that you'd be forced to go to the PlayPen just because you engage in three or four quick "prison bitch" jokes with Cartman.

161. CalGal - 9/18/1999 7:24:46 AM

. If you wouldn't have censored your television riff on Elliot, it's really not consistent to censor my balloon riff.

Missed this. This was before the Playpen, too. I would now take it to the Playpen.

So there are two different issues:

1. off-topic playing of any sort, whether graphic or not
   
2. graphic and unpleasant posts.
   

162. CalGal - 9/18/1999 7:25:59 AM

Ace,

I think we're in agreement, based on your last posts. I don't know if Arky was objecting to the occasional comment or the extended sequences, which is why I brought it up.

163. Ace of Spades - 9/18/1999 7:28:32 AM

And, you know, gags like that can't really consume the thread unless a majority of posters are actively participitating.

The Fray Elections was like that. Yes, it did block out real political discussion. On the other hand, three quarters of the posters were doing it.

So generally these things only consume threads when there are a majority of people in on it to some extent. And in that situation-- majority sort of rules.

If a MINORITY of posters are consuming the thread with off topic bullshit, delete us, sure. But quick little shit that doesn't slow anything down? Let it slide.

164. Ace of Spades - 9/18/1999 7:34:10 AM

I dunno. I resent heavy-handed, relentless on-topicality. "Taking things elsewhere" generally kills them. A lot of silly fun was had in Irv's old suggestion thread, and when we "took it someplace else," it ended.

I agree that Hosts should try to keep threads from getting consumed by a minority of posters who are ruining the threads for everybody else. But "Scabby Ho's" posts the other day were NOT ruining anything for anybody. Her posts were brief; they didn't slow anything down; they weren't graphic. They WERE off-topic, but being off-topic shouldn't be a reason for deleting or going to the PlayPen--unless it gets out of control and actually hurts the thread.

Scabby Ho's posts didn't do either of those things. The decision to delete them was heavy-handed. People need to breathe. Relentless on-topicality can get stifiling.

165. CalGal - 9/18/1999 7:36:04 AM

Ace,

As I said, we're in agreement. So the issue is what Arky thinks about it. I'd hate to see her not host, but it might be tough to figure out a way to limit vocabulary.

166. arkymalarky - 9/18/1999 7:57:19 AM

Cal has it about right wrt the way I see it. Ace, you make me laugh more than about anybody here, though we have some hilarious folks. Uzzmak can come in a close second, for some reason. His post in Webfeet's thread (yesterday, I think) absolutely cracked me up. For me, if it was extremely graphic, I wouldn't want my name attached as hosting the thread. The balloons and stuff like that is silly, but to me what Wabbit put in the Playpen from the Politics thread crossed the line to what I would call too graphic. The abusive nature of some of the other posts there was, too. Nothing Scabby Ho said was anything much to me, though if very much of it was in certain threads it would be, imo. Some of the ugly, hostile language in the Playpen provides a good example of what I wouldn't feel comfortable hosting (not considering the deleted posts), but I don't think anyone expects that to be tolerated in any thread. Otherwise it would completely derail any chance of an on-topic discussion. You know how stuff went on and on in the Fray, getting more and more vulgar, even if it was funny, to the point it prevented anyone who wanted to discuss a political topic seriously from being able to do so. That kind of extended stuff should go to the PlayPen, imo.

167. God - 9/18/1999 3:41:56 PM

Eventually the Mote must decide on the issue of term limits for thread hosts. I suggest a 3 month term. But with or without term limits, if this forum is to thrive, there must be some accountability of hosts to Moties, particularly of those hosts who are prone to overreact and power-trip, offending newbies and alienating current Moties in the process.

I will give 2 examples. Other people may have other examples. I do not pretend that these are the only 2 examples of host abuse, but I believe they are clearcut. Nor do I expect hosts to be 'perfect', but these 2 instances are so far from perfect that they truly left me scratching my head.

In Religion, Lucky posted that he had killed an intruder who held him at gunpoint while he (the intruder) raped Lucky's wife.

I made a post describing what I would do if that horrible situation ever happened to me an in it I used profanity. This is the only time (to the best of my recollection) that I've used profanity in that thread and certainly the only one of more than a dozen posts I made that day in which I used profanity. Subsequently, bloodnfire deleted my post and made the following post:

'Lucky. Of course I did not include you. We have all been moved by your sad experience, and I respect your attitude.
I was referring to the gratuitous profanity which is unnecessary in any thread, most certainly in the Spiritual Issues thread.
My experience is that those who use foul language for shock value do so because they lack the ability to express themselves in plain English. Also because dirty hearts send up from the well that which we all are forced to see in the bucket. (Until the bucket is emptied, of course. Fortunately, that is a privelege I enjoy as host).

Whoever is using the name 'god' in this thread should refrain from the profanity if he or she wishes to continue posting.'

168. God - 9/18/1999 3:48:03 PM

I find this attitude reprehensible and unacceptable in a forum of ideas such as this. For me not to be able to use profanity to describe how I'd feel if the most horrifying imaginable event happened to me and my family is, of course, ridiculous.

I feel that although bloodnfire is probably a decent enough guy, he is far too straight a shooter to deal with the atheists on the Mote and should step down. It is not fair to the atheists that we don't have a thread where we can openly discuss our feelings on such matters.

169. God - 9/18/1999 3:50:24 PM

Sorry, when I say 'too straight a shooter' I misused the term. I meant something like 'conservative, inflexible, rigid, orthodox, intolerant'.

I like straight shooters.

170. God - 9/18/1999 3:51:24 PM

The other moderator who clearly needs to take a remedial class on hosting is CalGal. Witness the following exchange between her and Phoenix:

PR

Great story, Cell.

I haven't seen the film, but I have been in love in the middle of the Pont Neuf. So I relate.

Is the hostess ignoring us or is it her oft stated distaste for films with subtitles?

CG

Actually, you couldn't find even one post where I say I don't like subtitles. You could find several posts where I express my disdain for dubbing.

I don't think it's required that I join every conversation. I've been reading it with interest. To say nothing of the fact that I've got a GUI to build.

And stop being nasty. You are violating the tone of the thread. When speaking to or of other Mote member, "snide" is completely disallowed. As are "bitchy", "catty", and "obnoxious".

All such emotions should be directed at movie stars and very bad TV shows. The occasional critic.

Heat, sarcasm, impatience, and arrogance are the allowable negative emotions when in the midst of passionate movie debates.

I trust this is clear. I believe that the Mote Cafe and the Playpen allow the emotions you wish to express.

PR

'"snide" is completely disallowed. As are "bitchy", "catty", and "obnoxious".

Heat, sarcasm, impatience, and arrogance are the allowable negative emotions when in the midst of passionate movie debates. '

Gee, I wonder what the difference is.

No, wait. I am smart enough to figure this out: If Phoenix says it, it is snide and obnoxious. If GalGal says it, it is just impatience.

I can see I am not long for this world.

CG

You are still being nasty, Phoenix. Please take it to the appropriate thread.

171. God - 9/18/1999 3:51:34 PM

PR

Actually a legitimate question. What is the difference?

CG

Phoenix,

I am worn out with policy discussions, so I'm going to leave it as it is and not get drawn into this.

I will leave it with this:

Example of the first: See the last sentence of #203. Not related to movies, unpleasant, and gratuitous. And then there's the small point that it was inaccurate.

Example of the second: "What are you, insane? Who the hell thinks those kids died of natural causes!! Were you actually watching the damn movie, or were you distracted in a search for a cherry-flavored Starburst?"

That is the last post I will make on the subject. No response necessary; take it elsewhere.

PR

As I suspected.

Truly sorry that you don't recognize how offensive you are to "newbies".

Good luck with your forum. And I mean that in all sincerity.

Policies