|
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. 196. Ace of Spades - 9/19/1999 2:17:31 AM
In other words:
Don't take the politics out of Politics.
Scoring points on the opponent is half the game. 197. KuligintheHooligan - 9/19/1999 2:18:52 AM I just don't understand how you can ban ANY vulgarity. Again, I don't like it but I just accept it as part and parcel of such a forum. "Fucking idiot" is no better or worse than "douchebag" no matter how they are used. In fact, something as simple as "you are a moron" can offend someone quite nicely.
That's why I didn't agree with bloodnfire saying NO vulgarity in his thread. It's his right as host I guess, but I think it is limiting, as some people use those words everyday and they are a vital part of their vocabulary. 198. KuligintheHooligan - 9/19/1999 2:20:22 AM I actually lean more towards NO rules in this regard, anything goes, just because it seems far too unwieldy and in the end very subjective to do anything else.
But what do I know. 199. CalGal - 9/19/1999 2:21:30 AM Fanton,
If you're still around--please understand that these sorts of issues don't affect the vast majority of members. Please feel free to post in any thread. I can't swear that someone won't disagree with you vehemently or get a little rude, but it's unlikely, and it's not the sort of thing we're talking about here.
Most of the threads are very non-confrontational. Glendajean's Home and Garden, the Poetry thread, International thread, the Movies thread, the Language thread--all are generally very amiable. All discussions get heated on occasion, of course. And there are those who are more cranky in expressing their opinion than others. In those cases, though, you are welcome to be cranky right back.
What we are discussing here are extreme cases. Very rare, happily. 200. KuligintheHooligan - 9/19/1999 2:21:56 AM I saw some thread title in TT like "OK women, tell us how you like your labia licked" or something like that. I'm curious how many Moties would be automatically offended by such a thread? 201. Ace of Spades - 9/19/1999 2:23:03 AM
Kuligan:
We have, so far, agreed that Thread Hosts can set the tone of their thread. Some threads will allow profanity; some will allow incivility and sarcasm; some will allow both; some will allow neither.
Different threads SHOULD have different standards. The Mote Cafe is designed to be a friendly place; no nastiness allowed. The Spiritual Issues thread bans profanity.
Imporantly, the SI thread doesn't disallow atheists. It is open to all ideas. You can say whatever you like, just do it without profanity. It is fairly easy to cut profanity out of your posts.
Or so I'm told; I've never really tried. 202. KuligintheHooligan - 9/19/1999 2:27:39 AM "It is fairly easy to cut profanity out of your posts.
Or so I'm told; I've never really tried."
LOL 203. Greystoke - 9/19/1999 6:47:26 AM 21 active participants? Must all be lurkers. 204. alistairConnor - 9/19/1999 9:24:39 AM Damb. Looks like the registration process was case sensitive. Overly sensitive, in my view. You need a thick skin around here.
I think I fixed it. 205. alistairConnor - 9/19/1999 9:31:47 AM 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.
Well, gee, I wonder how the site got where it is today, from zero, in a month? Let me think.
Oh yeah, concensus decision making. That's it. I needed reminding.
Before anyone gets huffy about the text on the registration page, I wrote it at about 3am the other night when I would rather have been sleeping, and it probably shows. In any case, someone else can expand it to ten volumes then condense it back to ten paragraphs, it's all the same to me. It's the tech stuff that turns me on, frankly. 206. alistairConnor - 9/19/1999 9:33:22 AM And who's that Jonathan guy? Looks like a multiple? Can someone remind me whether we allow multiples?
Can anyone explain to me the thinking behind listing the registered users in the sidebar? 207. alistairConnor - 9/19/1999 9:54:44 AM Cal, personally I think you have crossed a line by posting 1280 in the features thread rather than this thread. However, it's my fault for posting 1279 there.
But the whole point of my 1279 is that a discussion such as that which you and Ace are asking for, i.e. meltdown, is entirely inappropriate in this policy sub-thread which is a place which seems to be functioning as a forum for reasoned debate. Now, in my opinion, your 1280 and my 1279 need to be moved here. But it's hard for a thread host to be that proactive. 208. CalGal - 9/19/1999 10:00:04 AM Alistair,
Ha, ha. You're joking. There is nothing I said there that crossed the line. You don't even seem to be clear on what the line is. We are not to reference anything said in this thread. I did not.
209. alistairConnor - 9/19/1999 10:14:58 AM Well, as I said, it's not my call. I actually said, "a line", not "the line", I was simply expressing an opinion that personal invective has no place in the feature thread.
Having said that, have a nice discussion. 210. CalGal - 9/19/1999 10:21:44 AM What's the point of having a discussion, Alistair, if all you're going to do is dismiss the results and delete any thread you like when you've decided it's gone too far?
I particularly found it amusing that you deleted the thread and threatened to ban anyone who broke the 48 hour rule. Yes, The Mote doesn't ban Seguine and the poster now monitoring as Ferguson for breaking the RoE--but by golly, they'll ban anyone who refuses to follow Alistair's topic blackout rules.
And you surely can't be saying that I crossed a line in saying that Seguine's purpose for posting my name was to be a total fuck? Or is that why you deleted the thread? To pretend that it didn't happen? 211. joezan - 9/19/1999 12:26:25 PM
I have to hand it to whoever it was that came up with the sub-thread idea. This seems the perfect way to avoid airing our dirty laundry where it may be seen by anyone who happens to be around (and possibly thinking of joining). As was said earlier, though, the thread moderators should be on top of things, and move the melt-downs into sub-threads ASAP.
One problem I can foresee, though, would be where the participants in a heated exchange simply move a meltdown from a thread where the moderator is actively involved, to one which way be less vigilantly watched-over. Don't know how that can be remedied, but I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard.
212. joezan - 9/19/1999 12:34:33 PM "...one which may less vigilantly..."
213. Greystoke - 9/19/1999 12:38:32 PM "... one which may be less vigilantly..."
|
