|
296. Angel-Five - 9/20/1999 5:33:01 AM GlendaJean: It washed right over you?
Right. anyway, the point is that it's stupid to stick to a half measure that you know doesn't work in the end. You're wasting energy that you could spend trying to find other solutions that WILL work. 297. Ace of Spades - 9/20/1999 5:33:10 AM
Angel:
The point is that you were dead wrong, and that you made an arrogant, erroneous, and indefensible "judgement" which hurt Cal. You haven't apologized to her for your arrogance. You've admitted that, PERHAPS, you ought to have deleted the "cipher" sooner.
Ciphers are fair game, though, aren't they? 298. glendajean - 9/20/1999 5:35:37 AM Not only do I not recognize those two monikers, I think it is safe to say that they didn't paralyze the fray like Paradigm did. So banning worked in all those instances. When they returned, they quit the offensive behavior. 299. Angel-Five - 9/20/1999 5:38:58 AM When in doubt, dissemble?
IAC, I'm going to voluntarily end this conversation and save us another five hundred posts worth of your righteous, opportune outrage. I may be back later so if you've something different to add, I won't be hard to find. 300. Ace of Spades - 9/20/1999 5:39:45 AM
So even though I will no longer allow ciphers
You should no longer be allowed to host threads, at least not without a Baby-sitting co-host to monitor you. 301. Ace of Spades - 9/20/1999 5:40:24 AM
Where's the dissembling, Angel? Explain what I've said that's wrong. 302. KuligintheHooligan - 9/20/1999 5:42:21 AM Judith, not more than two weeks ago, I didn't even know 'God' existed. So I don't have any influence over him. The entire 'revelation' was quite accidental actually. 303. JudithAtHome - 9/20/1999 5:48:37 AM Kuligan:
I'm sorry, I was under the impression you knew him quite well but I see now that misunderstanding came from what he said rather than from you. (That should have been my first clue.)
304. alistairconnor - 9/20/1999 7:12:24 AM I fixed the registered users list so that it only shows IDs that are current, i.e. not to show banned IDs. 305. arkymalarky - 9/20/1999 7:18:00 AM I'm not sure why there's all the hand-wringing about this forum's fate. I think it's been very successful and the problems that have arisen are being dealt with. Not everyone is going to be happy with the outcome, but that's never the case. Everything will not be resolved to everyone's satisfaction, and the personality clashes which have existed will continue to exist. But I think most of us agree on the basics. Everyone's right to privacy should be respected. There's nothing hard about that concept. What should be done about it is a decision that I don't think will be that hard to determine for the future because of the challenges that have been faced in the beginning.
I hope no one leaves this forum based on the few incidents that have occurred without seeing all the great things going on here. We already have a number of new posters, and some great poetry and short stories and other compositions, including the diaries from Marj's thread, have been produced in a relatively short time. We have the coolest sports area on the net, if people's comments there are any indication. Don't allow one person with a vendetta, or a dispute over how to handle a given action, allow you to "throw the baby out with the bathwater" as I read someone post earlier.
I saw some very upsetting things happen in the Old Fray. They will happen in any forum where people spend very much time interacting. But what I got from it, even to the end, was of value to me. I learn more and enjoy myself more here than any other place on the net. I thoroughly appreciate the sacrifices of those who've made this place possible, and every time I see a new feature, like this private thread, I'm impressed all over again. Speaking strictly for myself, I'm not going anywhere. 308. alistairconnor - 9/20/1999 7:33:40 AM And in case anyone is wondering about the double-ups in the subscriber list, that's because me and Irv get two votes each. 309. alistairconnor - 9/20/1999 7:36:16 AM But seriously: Only the people on that list can read this thread. 310. Angel-Five - 9/20/1999 8:08:14 AM The point is that you were dead wrong, and that you made
an arrogant, erroneous, and indefensible "judgement"
which hurt Cal. You haven't apologized to her for your
arrogance. You've admitted that, PERHAPS, you ought to
have deleted the "cipher" sooner. Where's the dissembly in this? Your attribution of my motives. I did apologize to CalGal. And I did in that apology say, not perhaps, that I should have moved sooner to delete the post. That's your whole post. If you had posted more I would have gone over my bag limit on dissemblies. This is what you do, Ace, when you don't have a real point -- you change things 'round until you do. And you repeat and repeat and repeat until someone rises to your bait. For chrissakes, the initial incident took I forget exactly how long but it was not long at all -- about time for thirty posts to elapse in a thread that racked up over a thousand in less than three days. You have gone on the record first saying that I didn't act to delete for nearly an hour, then over an hour, and now in TT I see you've said it took me an hour and a half. Come on. You've gone on record saying that the post hadn't been deleted. You've gone on record saying that Seguine received nothing at all, 'not even a slap on the wrist'. You've gone on the record saying that the cipher that was posted could be easily solved, when several different names will fit into it -- something that's so obvious that the Motier with possibly the MOST reason of us all to fear misuse of her personal ID even posted her RL name in that same cypher -- to demonstrate the silliness of your point. m. 311. Angel-Five - 9/20/1999 8:08:44 AM So, please, let's not act coy about who's dissembling and who's saying things that's wrong. I'm sick of talking about it. You will no doubt seize upon this as some indication that I'm trying to hush up your brilliant Jim-Garrison-like campaign to ferret out the truth. If people buy that I'll probably be upset, but I've wasted enough time and energy down your sink and I think that if I'm going to devote those to the Mote I should at least find some positive impact I can make with the 312. Angel-Five - 9/20/1999 8:09:17 AM poor edit. That last word should be 'them'. 313. Angel-Five - 9/20/1999 8:21:01 AM Not only do I not recognize those two monikers, I think it
is safe to say that they didn't paralyze the fray like
Paradigm did. So banning worked in all those instances.
When they returned, they quit the offensive behavior.No, no, no. MCLA came back and did what he did more than once. So did BullE -- ask anyone that was about. Banning DIDN'T work in any way that deletion wouldn't have worked as well. Banning didn't even serve as a meaningful punishment -- which pretty much kills it as being a reason to ban as opposed to delete, at least in the minds of those poepl who have spoken up thus far in defense of banning. As I've said, having a new moniker was hardly a punishment to those two. I think they quit because they got tired of it all -- it had lost its savor -- and I hardly think they would have pressed the issue so long as they did if it weren't a challenge. Once again, the response seems to be 'But it's what we can do and it might have a deterrent effect. Why shouldn't we do it?' And the answer of course is that it isn't an effective deterrent -- look at the TT thread to have that made manifest, even if you don't accept the notion that BullE and MCLA and Hark quit out of boredom not out of punishment. If it were halfway effective to ban people I'd suggest we do it as a regular punishment for misdeeds-- but it doesn't seem that it's even a quarter effective. Plus, whenever we ban someone the place is in an uproar for days if not weeks. All this to me does NOT seem to be credible evidence in a case towards institutionalizing banning on a broader basis. And that's what some of you want to do. 314. Angel-Five - 9/20/1999 8:23:19 AM A point of clarification -- BullE was banned before he ever came back as Paradigm. 315. joezan - 9/20/1999 8:37:02 AM
FWIW, and keeping in mind that Ace holds me on retainer for the CalGal account:
Seguine has been a valuable contributor to this forum, both here, and in its earlier incarnation. I've never had a problem with Seguine, and I happen to like her.
But I don't care who breaks a rule - it's got to be the same for everyone, or this place is no good. None of us would put up with that shit irl - why are there some arguing for exclusion here?
What's done is done. But now, make a rule, and enforce it regardless of who the offender is.
316. CalGal - 9/20/1999 8:40:26 AM Res,
You dismiss the importance of the privacy rule, you point out that most Mote members know my name, you say that the only real reason for anonymity is to provide a shield for inappropriate behavior. You haven't been in here fighting for a good privacy rule. You've been arguing for its elimination.
This effectively eradicates the limited value of your already non-committal apology and suggests a fairly dedicated effort to justify your actions. It also suggests that why it was that you were so slow to act in the first place.
I would say most people understand what happened. You ignored the violation (which you saw before anyone else) and refused original requests to delete because you dislike me a great deal. Seguine did what she did because she feels the same way. Make no mistake--I would not do the same to you or her. Not ever. There are very few people in this forum who would.
317. Angel-Five - 9/20/1999 8:56:10 AM Whatever. I think I pointed out several positive instances of the use of anonymity in the post. I have been making a case for real names (not that THAT will ever fly) as a way out of this personal info tangle. You of course are free to say whatever you wish.
I'd just point this out to you. Go back and look at post 260.
I'd venture to say that most of you never saw it. It was by the poster using the cipher for a handle. This isn't my thread and it isn't my bailiwick and if I were to have this vendetta against you that would cause me to consciously bend the rules against you I would have let it stand where anyone could have seen it. I could have actesd as though I didn't see it or I could have (rightfully) said that it wasn't my place to delete. Hell, I didn't even think I could, as this is Wabbit's thread. I could have just emailed and let it all sit up there - and since no one has decoded your name from it in a manner which precludes guesswork (which WAS your yardstick about personal revelation) I'd have been absolutely blameless.
Instead, where I could have absolutely gotten away with letting someone flaunt your name and chuckled in mirth at my evil successes, I deleted the post. So think about that.
|
