|
175. God - 9/18/1999 5:43:45 PM Wabbit, what's going on? You seemed like a reasonably courteous person when you emailed me and now you delete my posts without comment or explanation either here or by email. If you wish be to reasonable, you must act in good faith. And I fail to see how you can possibly ban me from asking a fellow Motie to email me. I do not wish this to get ugly, but I assure you, I will not allow this ridiculous abuse of power to stand. 176. God - 9/18/1999 5:44:28 PM Sorry. 'wish me to be reasonable ...' getting late here. 177. pellenilsson - 9/18/1999 6:44:53 PM In #169 G uses the terms 'conservative, inflexible, rigid, orthodox, intolerant' to describe bloodnfire. That is a long, long way off the mark. But he does not like profanity and does not want to see it in his thread which I find quite reasonable. We have agreed not long ago that hosts must have the freedom to set the tone of the thread.
It is also unfair to allege that bloodnfire should oppose participation of atheists in the thread. He has repeatedly made it clear that everyone is welcome. And several atheists, including myself, do post there.
You have to realise, G, that the universal purpose of the threads here is not to create room for your specific attitudes or your peculiar means of expressing yourself. If you cannot comment on a post in Spiritual without using language that is objectionable there, then don't comment. Or copy the post in question (you are good at that) and comment on it elsewhere.
I'm now going to copy this post into Spiritual and then take a walk in the sun. 178. alistairconnor - 9/18/1999 10:44:00 PM As you will have noticed if you are reading this (I hope), I have implemented this "private thread" business. I see it as good for policy discussions, hosting seminars, etc, and also a good damage control mechanism for meltdowns. I would personally "privatize" a thread fairly early in the meltdown process, if I were a thread host.
The possibilities for a thread host are enhanced, without the slightest hint of censorship. 180. JayAckroyd - 9/19/1999 12:13:52 AM msg 178
I like the solution a lot, so much I'm not gonna bitch about the fairly unilateral process that led to it.
Would like to know what ExGod did to get banned. 181. JayAckroyd - 9/19/1999 12:31:28 AM On host tenures and thread terms, let people vote with their feet. When a thread has been inactive for 48 hours, it's on tenterhooks. 96, gone.
Or something like that.
182. KuligintheHooligan - 9/19/1999 1:08:58 AM Um, just peeking my head in here, and don't I ALREADY see a violation of the rule to get into this room with #177, ie, no mention of the goings on of this thread in the general threads?! 183. arkymalarky - 9/19/1999 1:34:46 AM No, not since the issue was from the Spiritual Issues thread to begin with. There's no new information that Pelle has brought from this thread outside it. 184. Eccletier - 9/19/1999 1:48:17 AM If I may ask, it is not very clear who is in charge of this community you have. Say if somebody in a conversation I was with told something about me to the others could I complain to Wabbit (host?) or would it Ace of Spades, who i think of a policy person here? How do you tell an authorty person you are concerned about soemthing?
Thank you.
Fanton 185. Ace of Spades - 9/19/1999 1:53:02 AM
Ecc:
You would complain to Wabbit or the Host of whatever thread you're in.
You would not complain to me. I am not a policy person. If I were a policy person I wouldn't have bothered writing thousands of words on policy. I would have just done what I wanted. 186. Eccletier - 9/19/1999 1:54:48 AM Also. I do not understand if God was banned what did he do?
I am sorry I cannot read all the many messages to understand fully your issues properly but i want to understand before I say anything important in the tpoics. 187. Ace of Spades - 9/19/1999 1:58:41 AM
Ecc:
No one really seems to know why God was banned. Sorry, I can't help you. 188. Eccletier - 9/19/1999 1:59:20 AM Thank you, ace of spades. I am not sure of your answer in, the message 185 because your many words made me say to myself he must know the policy best but I think I understand you are saying you are like me, just a person here in this community. 189. Ace of Spades - 9/19/1999 2:01:43 AM
Ecc:
In 185, I was making a pointed comment, but that pointed comment wasn't directed at you.
But I am not a policy person. I am trying to persuade people on matters of policy with middling success. 190. CalGal - 9/19/1999 2:02:11 AM Fanton,
In the case of private information being revealed, you would ask the thread host to delete the information immediately. I would also copy Wabbit on the request.
This really doesn't happen very often, although I'm sure you find that hard to believe. We're a new forum and we're setting these policies out. We have people doing their best to break the boundaries, forcing us to hammer them out in even clearer detail. It is frustrating, especially since the acts of just a few people are forcing this. 191. Eccletier - 9/19/1999 2:06:47 AM To the Ace of Spades or the one who can explain to me:
it seems like thev thread host would not allow vulgarity, but I see many have been in your other topics. I would like to know before I start in a conversattion I will not be called names for no reason. if the thread host will allow that I would like to know that before I mak comments and others say I am wrong by disrespecting me. 192. KuligintheHooligan - 9/19/1999 2:10:25 AM if you are worried about being called names, I don't think you came to the right place! :-) 193. CalGal - 9/19/1999 2:12:22 AM In the case of the banning, Ec, I think there are several problems. In the first place, he had already revealed personal information on several earlier occasions. Second, his attempt in this case was a deliberate attempt to circumvent policies.
At a certain point, you just ask yourself--why should such a person be in this forum? If he's just trying to get around existing policies instead of staying well within them, what is the point of exerting ourselves to determine whether or not he broke Section 7, Paragraph 4 or Section 16, Paragraph 12 sub-clause C(iii)?
Also, I'm glad that some of our new members are taking an interest. I appreciate you taking the time to check this out. BTW, these issues come up in most forums in one way or another. 194. Eccletier - 9/19/1999 2:13:37 AM To CalGal:
I thank you for helping me too. I will maybe wait to say what I have in my mind until you have decided what is alright around here. If I say something wrong I do'nt want the policy judgers just to tell me to get lost!!
I will look here again to learn your all decisions,
Fanton
195. Ace of Spades - 9/19/1999 2:13:50 AM
Arky & Cal:
Re: Hosting
Personally, I think Irv instituted a policy of benign neglect in Politics, which basically worked (or at least I liked it).
There were many things I said in anger that probably should have been deleted. I would not object to seeing a bit more useless "douchebags" and "idiots" deleted, even if they're likely to be my "douchebags" and "idiots." But I think Irv's general laissez faire attitude to the thread was more or less successful, and a good model for our new Politics thread.
"Douchebag," "idiot," "nitwit," etc., are pretty unnecessary. It's not even funny.
On the other hand, "balloons up my ass" was pretty funny, and it was a good way to make a point. I only began on that riff because Elliot was relentless in trying to bait conservatives into an abortion debate, but no one was interested. I could have posted a dozen posts stating "No one is interested in having that particular discussion at this particular time." Instead, I began telling him about the balloons in my ass.
Ridicule is a valid form of argumentation. Or rather, it can be. Calling someone a "fucking douchebag" is not especially eloquent. But I don't want to see effective ridicule deleted just because someone might argue it's not "on topic."
Once again, I understand people may disagree.
|
