|
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..."
214. CalGal - 9/19/1999 12:43:50 PM "...one less vigilantly monitored." 215. Greystoke - 9/19/1999 12:51:37 PM "... one that is not scrutinized as closely as joezan's post #211 ..." 216. joezan - 9/19/1999 12:59:16 PM
HaHa!
Anyway...
As for the policy discussion...
This place will never get anywhere - never - until we agree to abandon our old Fray agendas and vendettas.
Inevitably, new ones will develop here, with the same old people, over the same old things. But the newbies...you know - the people we're trying to attract to this forum? - will at least have the benefit of seeing these wars develop and, perhaps, even be entertained by them. As it is, they are coming into what they know (or will soon find out) is a brand new forum, where people are already screaming at each other. IOW, they don't know our history.
So, make like you have house-guests over - save the yelling and screaming (and the nastier side-swiping) for the sub-threads, at least until we're established. God knows, I've been congratulating myself daily for holding my tongue on what's been going on wrt banning, cyphers, inappropriate names, etc.
And if I can do it, anyone can. 217. alistairconnor - 9/19/1999 1:08:58 PM Well, rather than respond to Cal's post 210, I think I'll explain why I won't be responding to it.
Not that I expect that third parties would interested in my relations with another poster, or that I actually care much myself about third parties' judgements on this, but because I think it might be illuminating with respect to the policy discussion insofar as it relates to meltdowns.
I have had an unformulated rule which stood me in good stead for nearly three years of participation in that other site, and which has kept me out of conflict with other posters ever since my original run-in with PseudoErasmus.
I've actually just laid it out clearly for myself, after posting #209 and regretting it :
When an exchange between me and another poster clearly contains elements of personal emnity, from either end, and for any reason, then I will address that poster on that issue in no more than one post. Preferably less.
Sorry I felt obliged to burden you all with that. 218. alistairconnor - 9/19/1999 1:20:10 PM Well gee, folks, any comments about the Private Thread feature? Though it's not actually a policy thing (in my opinion), just another tool. I don't see myself as fixing policy here in any way, my ambition is that we have enough tools so that we need as little policy as possible. That's my trade, enabling solutions. (TM and URL)
My idea is that this style of thread serves two purposes, that I see as being completely distinct, but others may see as overlapping, or even, heavens, the same thing : Civilised policy discussions like the current one, and meltdowns.
I'm thinking of a refinement. Currently there is a single participant list, and once your name is on it, you can't get it off. People who might register without having a clear idea of the nature of the thread might subsequently be upset about their name being associated with it.
Not so much for this current thread, more for the meltdown situation.
So how about a button to unsubscribe, and a second list, of unsubscribers? This would be a one-way process, i.e. you can't re-subscribe once you're out.
This would give the moderator a useful indicator of how long such a thread should run, if the first list started shrinking and the second started growing. 219. phillipdavid - 9/19/1999 1:26:14 PM Just read this thread; Ace has made a lot of sense and a very good case. I support his pov wrt banning of those who reveal personal information about other participants (I would also add ex participants).
Cal's point about not letting the victims determine the consequences was a good point.
I also support the idea Jay (or Adam, sorry I forget which) made about a personal profile section for posters. 220. phillipdavid - 9/19/1999 1:29:19 PM alsitair,
I support the ability to unsuscribe.
|
