|
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. 221. Angel-Five - 9/19/1999 1:51:08 PM Alistair: AS I said before, to some folk, the important thing about their argument is that it be extremely visible. Nevertheless, I like this.
I also really, really like the idea of having names on the side. Can we do that all the time in all threads -- except like a Yahoo list of people who are logged in? 222. Angel-Five - 9/19/1999 1:54:03 PM Of course, I like it primarily because we can see who the 24 hour losers are -- :> -- but it's also nice to be able to see who is on, in terms of asking someone for clarification of their post, etc., and having some expectation of lag time for an answer. IT would make for a more developed community. 223. joezan - 9/19/1999 2:00:24 PM
Jeez.
...you'd figure a guy with a name like "ritalin" would be posting his fingers off.
But, hey...maybe he's just real focused and intent on the discussion...
224. alistairconnor - 9/19/1999 2:06:49 PM There is another issue that I need to address. I am not a moderator. I am constitutionally unsuited to being one, for a start: I'm not a moderate.
By construction, I have the technical means to do moderation stuff, and I had previously made clear that I would only do so in an emergency. The other day, a situation arose that I considered to be an emergency. During this shakedown period, I consider that what I did (which was to take that thread off display, not to delete it) was more of a technical intervention than a moderation exercise (as moderation, it was a failure: I don't know of anyone who was happy with what I did).
In fact, Resonance could have done what I did, and was the appropriate person to do it, and was aware and concerned about the damage that the thread was doing to the site, but didn't feel empowered to do it. He felt that as judge and participant, he might have been criticized for doing so.
So all things considered, and bearing in mind that Wabbit may or may not have had electricity at that time, I don't regret pulling the thread. That was my only intervention.
I actually think that I won't ever do it again. Mostly because we have this marvellous new private thread thing. If that had existed at the time, I am quite certain that either Resonance or Wabbit would have made the thread private long before I pulled it.
(ends) 225. pellenilsson - 9/19/1999 2:47:05 PM Just to set the record straight regarding my #177 and Kuligin's #182. My post was made before alistair implemented the private thread feature. 226. Angel-Five - 9/19/1999 2:49:57 PM Too late. You have to spend the night in the Box, now.
Be thankful the would-be New Regime didn't catch you. They'd have you rowing a galley up the Nile. 227. ChristinO - 9/19/1999 3:16:11 PM AC,
Great idea, very good feature. 228. Angel-Five - 9/19/1999 4:45:20 PM I don't know. I honestly don't see what the point is about personal info, to be honest (and I've had my personal info misused in a fairly creepy way). I know that it will never be implemented here, and it's no good unless everyone does it, but I like the notion of going real names. The Well has done it for years and in my time there I do not remember hearing about a single abuse -- AND I can remember a lot less nastiness. The major cause is the lack of anonymity. Anonymity in this place, and in the Fray as well (where I argued against it as well) allows for one really damaging kind of behavior. It allows people to act in a manner that would get them tarred and feathered in real life, and allows them to post things that would earn them a life-threatening beating in any forum where they were in close physical proximity to the people who had to listen to them. Yet, in an anonymous forum, there is little to tie someone to their IRL identity and thus they can go about engaging in all sorts of OL behavior without any fear of repercussion. (No, I'm not advocating the threat of violence as a possible socializing agent -- just illustrating a point.) The fact of the matter is that there are many people in the Mote who would act entirely different were they to run any risk of damaging their reputation, and they do and say many things that they wouldn't dream of saying if someone could look at them and say -- 'You! Joe Blow! I can't believe you're saying that!' This is often innocent or at least harmless -- think of a given day in the old Social thread, complete with flirtation and steam-letting. And there are indeed some number of things allowed by anonymity that if not beneficial are at least neutral. 229. Angel-Five - 9/19/1999 4:45:42 PM Multiples (which can be really damaging) can also be fun and useful. Personae are a good actor's tool. Some shy types find that the anonymous nature of the Fray/Mote allowed them to say things they'd have otherwise felt too constrained to say. And, of course, some people use anonymity to construct a fantasy-based identity, and while these people can be very creepy to interact with, I don't see any problem with them in a community as long as they are a positive asset otherwise. But if you look at the very real problems with the Mote and with the Fray before it, the problems we all think of and most of us bitched about when the Fray was in its long decline, they almost all come down to flagrant misuse of anonymity. The anonymity also encourages people to take other Motiers as, well, less than human. Even more so than normal when the other 'humans' you see on your monitor are, to you, no more than 0s and 1s as far as you can physically tell. You will not only be much more likely to misuse other people in an anonymous situation but be more likely to be misused. It's common psychology. And while I'd miss a lot of the loose banter that goes on (some people would probably be too self-conscious to flirt and gambol about if it were their real name on everyone else's screen) I certainly wouldn't miss a lot of the abusive and manipulative crap that people serve up knowing that they'll never be affected by it. I personally don't think that you ought to say something if you don't have the guts to put your name next to it, and if you're terribly worried about people learning your ID I'd have to ask what it is that you do which would cause so many people to want to screw with you. And if you will insist that this would kill the forum -- remember, the Well's been around for a LONG time.
|
