|
17. God - 9/17/1999 7:23:53 PM pelle's thoughts weren't that insightful the first time, do we need to see them all over again? 18. wabbit - 9/17/1999 7:23:57 PM God,
You will notice that post #6 is gone. Leave the flaming in the Playpen and let's stick to discussing the topic at hand.
19. CalGal - 9/17/1999 7:24:43 PM 1037. Angel-Five - 9/18/99 1:29:07 AM
"Do you really think that the beginning of a forum is an
appropriate time for anyone to get into a free speech debate
about whether or not KillNiggers is a valid id? Yet that's what
the people who opposed JJ's decision felt was appropriate."
Let's not whitewash. The people who supported his decision apparently felt it was an appropriate time, too, because they dove in. One of them, I believe, out-posted anyone else by at least a 2:1 margin. And you most certainly participated in that whole debate, from end to end and then afterward. As a matter of fact, afterward, you got incredulous that we were content to let the matter rest with JJ's eminently fair decision.
" Let
such a person come in and deal with it from there.
Don't get me wrong. That might be a valid policy. The point is,
once JJ said "no"--which he said on the first day, about the
more extreme monikers (excluding the G issue)--was that a
time when everyone should get up in arms about free speech?"
Well, if policies affecting the entire future of the forum were to be made then, I would have to say yes. When else were we supposed to discuss them? Next year?
"If it
was because they disagreed with him and felt that he should
be persuaded to change his mind, then they can look in the
mirror if they need someone to blame. "
Once again, it very definitely takes two to dance this particular tango and I remember a lot of people being willing to oblige -- and even ask for an encore. I think it's pretty vulgar of you to disassociate yourself from it now.
20. God - 9/17/1999 7:25:10 PM Or is she actually cutting and pasting the whole damn discussion? I wonder whose posts she'll skip.
==);-) 21. CalGal - 9/17/1999 7:25:17 PM 1038. Ace of Spades - 9/18/99 1:31:49 AM
Reading Comprehension Boy:
Cal's point is that those who agitated AGAINST JJ's decision were agitating for a change of Fray policy. We all presumed that those policies would be carried over to the Mote.
And her point, Censor Boy, is that such deviations from tried-and-tested Fray policies could have waited.
1039. Angel-Five - 9/18/99 1:35:45 AM
To echo what Coral has added:
I think that for most of the free speech liberals here the ideal forum would be entirely free and entirely self-regulated. I also expect that this will never happen. Ideals never do. The notion, then, is to keep as close to the ideals as possible. It isn't an absolute position because only a fool can afford to truly take that position. Pragmatism has to intrude.
If there has to be some kind of central authority -- and there does, I believe, as we've seen already -- then the best way for that central authority to proceed is in the vein of laissez-faire. I can't speak for anyone else, but to me that's a good direction to take, especially when the starting ground appears to be a lot more hands-on and controlled. (Keep in mind that I'm only talking about the overall authority). I think that a lot of people feel the same way, and I would hope that -- at least for now -- that can be our agreement to disagree between ourselves and the people who want a central authority figure. That we can at least for now have a central figure who tries to be as minimally involved as practicable. Fortunately for us, in the spirit of compromise, we seem to have this sort of a situation available. All we have to do is agree to embrace it for the moment, and move onward.
22. Ace of Spades - 9/17/1999 7:25:34 PM
God, can you just, like, chill? 23. God - 9/17/1999 7:25:45 PM wabbit
Yes Commandante
==):-) 24. CalGal - 9/17/1999 7:25:48 PM 1041. Angel-Five - 9/18/99 1:37:01 AM
Oh, I recognize her points, Ace. I also happen to disagree with them. I also think that, given what happened, 'we all presumed' is a horrible overstatement.
1043. Angel-Five - 9/18/99 1:43:15 AM
I'm really sort of worried about this latest trend I've seen to paint the Fray in arcadian hues. The only reason the Fray worked is that it was supported by the magazine. The Fray, itself, was a net energy sink. If it weren't for the influx of new people it would have collapsed like a black hole.
This is the lesson we need to learn from Slate: We believe that we were self sustaining, when we were really just living off the fat of the land. It is the difference between flying and being thrown. We need to learn how to fly, because we no longer have the safety net/source of new posters that Slate provided.
25. CalGal - 9/17/1999 7:26:29 PM 1044. CalGal - 9/18/99 1:45:27 AM
One last thing--as I said, I'm not feeling very good about things right now. But I don't want my posts to be taken as some sort of blast at everyone here.
It's more that people don't think about policy and administration. It bores them, and it's not "substantive". Well, without the two this place would fall apart. In a forum that has a going concern backing it, that's not a problem. At the Mote, it could rapidly become one.
So next time there's a shouting match about policy, don't turn up your nose at it. Don't make posts about how disgusting or trivial it all is. Don't shake your head in dismay for the future of the Mote. Find out what it's about. Determine how you feel about it.
You think the argument is becoming a problem? Contact JJ or Wabbit and ask what you can do to help. Sometimes a strong statement of support by a lot of people can change the tone of a debate. Maybe you find a thread host to put WARNING! STAY AWAY FROM THIS THREAD! in the News list.
Or maybe there is nothing to do. But at least you'll be involved.
You don't want that? You just want to have fun? Then don't bitch about the debates.
26. God - 9/17/1999 7:26:38 PM She's skipping all my posts, I'm not going to like chill. 27. Ace of Spades - 9/17/1999 7:27:39 PM
God:
They didn't contribute anything, dude. There's no point re-posting them.
No offense: Why do you behave this way? 28. CalGal - 9/17/1999 7:28:59 PM 1046. pellenilsson - 9/18/99 1:46:00 AM
CalGal
I already stated that I support JJ. If your statement about going in and making strong statements is directed at me I ask you to remember that I am in a different time zone and have limited access to the net.
In addition, it is very difficult for voices of reason and moderation to make themselves heard when posts are pouring in by the minute.
Ace
I'm logged into TT and backtracking.
1047. CalGal - 9/18/99 1:50:30 AM
One more issue, going back to Pelle's comment about the esprit de corps that we had.
It is still there. The chumminess between Ace and Bubba is astounding. He just spoke well of the Ms.
We had other ex-Fraygrants show up. Full stop. To pretend otherwise is to deny reality.
1048. CalGal - 9/18/99 1:51:24 AM
Pelle,
No, I thought I changed everything to "they". I am speaking generally, not to you. Sorry. I'm cranky as all get out right now.
*********
I'm not copying all the posts; I just wanted the exchange between Pelle and me in here, since it pretty much says all I want to on the subject.
29. Ace of Spades - 9/17/1999 7:29:45 PM
Cal:
Oh! You're not copying my wonderful, wonderful rules?
I was waiting for them. Okay, let me go get them. 31. God - 9/17/1999 7:30:05 PM Ace
That's not for her to decide. They contributed levity, insight, genius, you name it. 32. CalGal - 9/17/1999 7:30:26 PM As well as Angel's rebuttal, I should have added. No, I didn't copy anyone's post if they were off topic. Nor did I go beyond that point--it was mainly RoE suggestions after that, and I'm kind of tired. 33. God - 9/17/1999 7:31:02 PM Wabbit
You said that already, Sweetheart.
==):-) 34. CalGal - 9/17/1999 7:31:13 PM Ace,
Sorry. I should have. I'm just tired and I hate copying posts anyway. 35. wabbit - 9/17/1999 7:32:04 PM sheesh, duplicate post #30 (mine) is also deleted. 36. God - 9/17/1999 7:34:41 PM 1022. God - 9/18/99 3:49:26 AM
pelle
wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong, but thanks for coming out.
The decision was correct, letting Cal dictate 'handle policy' would have been a horrible precedent and even Ace eventually conceded that my handle was borderline and not worth all the fuss.
The vote idea was also a good idea. JJ made it clear he considered it a close decision and put the matter up for discussion. As a result, the best decision was reached (not based on a vote, but presumably based on JJ's further analysis, aided no doubt in part by the posts on the issue).
This 'special' thread was by far the most popular thread here, and the first to break the Millennial. Of course we needed our own thread.
If the losers had been as gracious as the winners (I did not gloat one iota and extended an olive branch to my adversaries, which was slapped away) there would have been no meltdown.
I understand that Europeans don't have the same love of free speech as we do on this side of the atlantic, get used to it.
37. Ace of Spades - 9/17/1999 7:35:09 PM
Proposed RoE statement:
Revealing an anonymous poster's real-name, or the address or other confidential information about any poster, constitutes the most serious violation of the Rules of Engagement. Revealing such information is grounds for immediate, lengthy suspensions or permanent bannings; in the case of deliberate and malicious revelations, or repeated inadvertant, non-malicious infractions, you WILL be permanently banned from the site.
Note: Ciphers and "hints" about such information is considered to be a revelation, and subject to the same penalties. Revealing such information on another Forum is alsogrounds for permanent banning.
|
