|
484. Nostradamus - 10/14/1999 2:22:26 PM What was the decision about whether people could guess at others' previous monikers/handles? I think it's stupid to prohibit it, but I understood the rule to be that it is prohibited and I have been governing my thread accordingly. Somebody clarify it for me, please. 485. Nostradamus - 10/17/1999 6:36:32 AM Don't everybody answer at once. What happened to the banning bloodlust that was so in evidence not so long ago? :) LOL 486. wabbit - 10/27/1999 8:46:19 PM Sorry for not getting back to you sooner, Nost. This is what I posted in Suggestions:
2024. wabbit - 10/27/99 4:57:29 PM
I was hoping that this wouldn't become an issue requiring a rule. Soup asked that his former name not be used and as a matter of courtesy I think that is a legitimate request. However, we came here with a history. People have and will no doubt continue to change their monikers. Perhaps we will outgrow the guessing game, but since it seems to be rampant in every discussion forum I've ever seen (except The Well, where they use real names), if someone comes in with a new moniker, it is unrealistic to think someone will not ferret them out, imo. I would prefer not to have to create and enforce a rule about this, but would rather rely on people's willingness to honor a request regarding use of former handles.
487. dusty - 10/31/1999 12:53:01 AM So, should we have more clearly defined roles for hosts? I like some of what Pelle says, and disagree with other aspects, but this is the palce for the discussion. 488. dusty - 10/31/1999 2:52:53 AM PelleNilsson - 10/31/99 4:21:06 AM
I have examined my own position.
- I have nothing against chat, but I don't think all threads should open for it. I mentioned one specific example in Spiritual, but anyone who follows the Mote knows there have been many others.
- I have nothing against digressions and I have instigated a few myself, but I think that a topical thread should not become a series of digressions.
- The references to e-mails without mentioning of subject do enforce the notion of clannishness and foster conspiracy theories such as AlDavis's "cabal".
- I disagree with wabbit's statement that The threads will be whatever their individual hosts allow them to be. I think hosts have a responsibility to the Motie community and in particular to newcomers. I don't think that a host for a thread on "Is Hegelianism Back?" should allow a lengthy discussion about pet food even if he or she is deeply interested in the subject.
- The above leads me to believe that we need some sort of guidelines for hosts. Given the lenghty discussions on hosts' duties we had in the beta phase I was truly surprised to find that there aren't any. Among the more important duties is to either move the thread along or put it RIP if interest has waned.
489. dusty - 10/31/1999 2:59:45 AM PelleNilsson
Your point 3 is intriguing. I have seen your prior comments on emails and don't recall this refinement. I've tried to limit my references to emails, even though the subject matter was quite innocuous. E.g., I sent an email to Pinchermartin asking about a company in Taiwan because I knew he had been there. (I think) I see now that you would have been unhappy had I simply urged PM to check his email, because it leaves the implication that I might be plotting the overthrow of the Mote. A note that PM should check his email for a query regarding a Taiwanese company would be less intrusive.
Such a note in the café would be a better solution, but not helpful for those not frequenting the place. Yet another possibility is to implement a delete function, so you could post the message to attract the attention, but then remove it so it doesn't interrupt the flow. I'm sure there are other possibilities.
490. dusty - 10/31/1999 3:00:41 AM Point 4 is too ambitous IMHO, but I'm open to proposals. 491. CalGal - 10/31/1999 3:30:56 AM 1. Pelle, as I mentioned in Suggestions, you have not established your basic premise--namely, that the "chat" is reaching problem levels. You can't discuss a policy solution until you establish that there is a problem that needs solved.
There is always going to be a small amount of off-topic discussion. To restrict it completely would be a pointless exercise. You are asserting that it has reached a significant proportion of the posts, and that is just simply not borne out by an analysis.
2. I suppose it depends on what you mean by a "series of digressions". If anyone thinks a thread is no longer addressing its topic at all, that person can suggest that it can be RIPed. The discussion can go from there. I'm not sure why you don't think this policy will work.
3. We can't control what people think. We can determine whether or not their conclusions are reasonable and whether or not we think changes are desirable to prevent them from reaching these conclusions--or even be effective in preventing them.
While we can control what people say, I've always believed that this should be kept to a minimum (personal info violations, for example). Declaring that queries about email receipts are verboten is far more restrictive than I ever imagined us becoming.
4. You seem to be suggesting that the thread hosts have done such a poor job that the Mote is disintegrating. I completely disagree, of course. Moreover, I don't think that hammering in the dire responsibilities of being a thread host is going to get us a lot of volunteers.
5. None of the above points were established to any degree of certainty and I think in many cases, you would get vehement disagreement. That being said, a thread host handbook is a good idea. But I don't see it covering the issues you raise. 492. PelleNilsson - 10/31/1999 4:41:01 AM Dusty
A note that PM should check his email for a query regarding a Taiwanese company would be less intrusive.
Agreed. Alternatively, one may assume that people do check their mail without having to be reminded in the Mote.
Point 4 is too ambitous IMHO, but I'm open to proposals.
Are you really referring to 4? 493. PelleNilsson - 10/31/1999 5:29:46 AM CalGal
You are reading too much into my posts, as shown by:
You seem to be suggesting that the thread hosts have done such a poor job that the Mote is disintegrating. I completely disagree, of course. Moreover, I don't think that hammering in the dire responsibilities of being a thread host is going to get us a lot of volunteers.
I do not suggest that, not even remotely. I have not talked about "dire responsibilities" or anything like that. But I do maintain that being a host entails something more than having your name under the thread title on the home page. Do you disagree with that?
And we are addressing this from different perspectives.
In my last posts, and in several earlier ones, I have tried to look at things from the newcomer's perspective. What would a newcomer expect to see when entering this place? What would attract newcomers? What would put them off? Please think about that when you read what I've said.
My proposal for guidelines for hosts should also be seen in this context. Suppose we get a newcomer who, it shortly transpires, knows a lot about a subject that interests the community. So, this person is invited to host a thread. Now, put yourself into his or her place. What would you like to know about being a host in the Mote? 494. CalGal - 10/31/1999 12:51:03 PM Pelle,
I do understand what you are trying to do. I don't think there is any consensus that a problem exists. 495. dusty - 11/1/1999 9:36:24 AM Pelle,
Yes, I did mean #4.
I think it is an admirable goal that all thread hosts act as conscientiously as you have done with your thread. But I think it is too much to suggest it as a minimum standard. In some threads, the host may let the discussion go where ever, and decide to get involved only to stop meltdowns. Who knows, maybe these threads might explore something interesting. Other hosts may want to keep a tighter rein, and affirmatively move things along when things are slow, and keep to the subject matter. I suspect I'd enjoy the second thread more, but others may prefer a more freewheeling discussion, and I'd like to accommodate the variety.
496. wabbit - 11/17/1999 6:53:06 AM Despite rampant misinformation and misconceptions to the contrary, god was never banned the first time around. His ID was suspended and he chose to leave in protest to the suspension.
Let me make something clear right now. Whatever personal relationships and/or encounters happen between posters, and they will happen, barring mutual and explicit consent to the contrary, I expect people to keep their personal information to themselves. Shit happens, we are all adults here, get over it. Keep private stuff private. I am personally not interested in chasing anyone around in order to delete posts which violate the RoE. I will ban anyone, and I mean ANYONE, who cannot conduct themselves in a manner in keeping with the RoE, which are there essentially to protect personal information. Do NOT reveal personal info about other posters and do NOT chase another poster around in order to harass them, and it is MY call as to what constitutes harassment. Period. No discussion. Am I insane? Maybe, but as long as I am moderator, I will enforce the RoE as best I can.
I am wabbit, hear me woar. 497. dusty - 11/17/1999 8:54:05 AM Thanks for the information. I was thinking "banned" but I missed the actual event, and saw only the echoes.
Just a technical question at the moment: the new name appears to be God. (with a period) as opposed to God (without a period). I was going to ask how he logged in under a suspended name, but I'm guessing this is a different name?
I thought we had some discussion about allowing (or not allowing) ids that are so close to an existing id that it would cause confusion. If we didn't, perhaps we should. Someone could mistake wabbit. for wabbit or vice versa.
498. wabbit - 11/17/1999 11:32:20 AM Dusty,
Yes, we did say that about ID's, but in this case since it is the same person using the virtually identical ID, I'm going to let it go. But just let someone try posting as "wabbit." and I will use the holy hand grenade of Antioch! 499. Dusty - 11/17/1999 9:35:08 PM Good point.
First counteth to three; not stopping at two, nor continuing on to four... 500. RosettaSTONE - 11/17/1999 9:54:03 PM Cat/God should have been banned for all the obscene spam he did one night in the Religious/Movies threads. If I remember, CalGal had to delete thirty or forty posts.
Something's very wrong with him if he lurks 24/7 at mote waiting for Jen to post.
501. Dusty - 11/19/1999 1:13:49 AM RosettaSTONE
I see nothing wrong with starting with a suspension. One strike banning is like the death penalty. Oh wait, you probably favor the death penalty. 502. RosettaSTONE - 11/21/1999 4:24:38 AM Wabbitt: God./catinthehat/moniker should be banned from the mote. You gave him his first serious warning on Sept. 14 in the playpen thread after he had brought up alleged personal information about Jenerator. That post was deleted so I don't know what he actually said, but you wrote: "Post #62 is out of bounds. One more like it, even in this thread, and you are gone."
Within days he came back to spam three threads with up to thirty obscene messages. They were also deleted. I thought that was the end to him until I finally figured out that he was moniker.
I think he is a stalker and is dangerous. 503. wabbit - 11/21/1999 7:48:08 AM RosettaStone,
We have reason to believe that God may not have been the poster spamming the threads that night. Steps were taken to prevent a recurrence of that kind of problem, specifically, requiring an ISP based email addrtess for registration.
|
