|
784. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 7:02:32 AM Who is saying that CalGal currently claims real power? Cazart? A few people were involved with writing the preliminary RoE. Harper couldn't, Pelle couldn't, ChristinO did. The RoE were then rewritten, by CalGal. Some people might think that they were drafted in a corrupt manner. I do not. I just think that all the talk of them now -- and, remember, at first it was 'everyone agreed on the RoE' and then it became 'almost everyone agreed on the RoE' and now it's 'well, anyone who wanted to talk about the RoE could have registered for the Mote Policies thread and discussed them' -- can suffer a little correction. Obviously, as has been proven the last few days. Cut and dried. That is it. I personally do not like the RoE, as I've made perfectly clear several times. This discussion has little to do with that, however. 785. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 7:09:57 AM CalGal: Once again, YOU are the one who made the complaint about YOU. Not I. Go back and read the posts made today. I have. I will once again bet you twelve days of my silence in this forum against twelve days of yours that you can't go back and show anyone where I made this a complaint about you. I invite anyone to do the same. You would transfer my criticism of your statements into a criticism of you personally, and then a criticism of the Mote staff personally. That is pure unadulterated fantasy on your part. Go back and read, instead of acting wounded and abused. At least one of us is trying to keep this about the issue and not about you. 786. CalGal - 2/21/2000 7:16:27 AM I'm not wounded and abused, I'm fed up with this bullshit. Yes, Seguine is most certainly accusing me, yes, she is certainly saying that I have pretended to power. You have tacitly agreed with some of her comments and in other cases you have criticized a response that I've made as if it were my decision.
If I have misunderstood your posts, terrific. I'm glad you're not making it about me. I still think the questions you raise are best answered by someone who has authority, since you and Seguine both feel that the membership wasn't sufficiently consulted.
787. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 7:30:20 AM I'm not wounded and abused, I'm fed up with this
bullshit. Yes, Seguine is most certainly accusing me, yes,
she is certainly saying that I have pretended to power.
You have tacitly agreed with some of her comments and
in other cases you have criticized a response that I've
made as if it were my decision. Which of her comments concerning you have I tacitly agreed with? Which of your responses have I criticized as though I were criticizing your judgment at the time and not your immediate logic? I'm waiting. After all, everything you've just said hinges on some kind of connection between the above and a criticism of you as a perceived instrument of Mote policy. If I have misunderstood your posts, terrific. I'm glad
you're not making it about me. I still think the questions
you raise are best answered by someone who has
authority, since you and Seguine both feel that the
membership wasn't sufficiently consulted. CalGal: My questions were to you, and they centered on your own statements. Please try to understand that, because I think it's key. They weren't about you personally, they weren't about decisions you made, they weren't about Alistair or Wabbit or Irv or JJ or Jay or Indiana or anyone else at the helm. They were about your arguments concerning the RoE discussion. You jumped in and tried fielding statements, your answers were questioned, and then suddenly this discussion between us is all about CalGal yet again. Please understand that I am not the one who did that. 788. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 7:33:07 AM Oh, yes, and feel free to 'splain to the recipients of that little open letter you just drafted that it was your mistake. I don't doubt that they'll understand that after wading through this but some formal acknowledgement that you may have been in error would be very pleasing to me. 789. ChristinO - 2/21/2000 7:41:48 AM Angel,
So you didn't agree with Seguine's statements you just wanted to let me know you believed I had misunderstoood her? 790. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 7:53:42 AM I believed that you had misinterpreted Seguine's statement rather nastily. I'm sorry if you took that as wholehearted endorsement of what she said. Remember, I was around for this the first time; I know how things happened. I do think that some people's concerns were very prominent in the RoE and others' weren't, though I don't attribute that to a conspiracy or a cabal so much as a response to lengthy advocacy by a few people. I also think that CalGal worded things to best please herself first and others second. That isn't really any agreement with Seguine.
I do agree with something else Seguine stated about CalGal's manner at the time, but this isn't the place to get into that and if you want to discuss it further tell me to meet you at the Inferno. And in any case that has nothing to do with the implementation of the RoE or her subsequent complaints that I was persecuting her unfairly. 791. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 8:06:27 AM Oh, yes, and after further musing I now support Seguine's call to further restrict abuse. It seems workable to me. I'd like, though, for us to get a real consensus on what is tolerable and what is actually beneficial and what is just useless abuse. We could then establish a benchmark. After that I'd leave it up to the thread hosts and the moderator, with the understanding that their judgment is to be the final court in their own thread unless the moderator decides it is so lopsided that the host is not promoting a good environment for debate. I of course favor a different means of chopping out abuse, but as it stands there isn't enough support in the Mote now for it, so this seems the second-best option. Note that this would entail more work for the staff, and none for us, so they should get heavy say in it. 792. alistairConnor - 2/21/2000 8:27:27 AM personal info should not be used to harass or abuse.
I think this would be an excellent addition to the rules of the road. Information that is freely consented in friendly exchanges is completely out of place when brought up in a hostile exchange, and can be very wounding. Just imagine doing that in real life! Although the analogy with real life is obviously faulty, most people would find it pretty offensive to be the object of this, both on line and in real life. 793. ChristinO - 2/21/2000 8:38:46 AM Angel,
I did not understand that you disagreed with any part of her claims. Thank you for clarifying. 794. ChristinO - 2/21/2000 8:43:16 AM Alistair,
Sounds good to me although I think it may be a bit tricky. Does this mean we can no longer tease Niner about his llama obsession? 795. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 9:04:22 AM The one thing I don't want to see come of the rule change is a massive increase in the amount of whining that people are abusing them with references to their personal information. (Of course, I'd rather everything just be out in the open, but like I said if that won't fly then I'd prefer this).
That might be like wishing for Christmas to come three times a year but anything we could do to minimize the frivolous complaint factor would be good -- like a strong statement from staff supporting the decision to let hosts judge within their own threads until it becomes apparent that someone is playing heavy partisan politics in who they delete and who they do not. If it ever does -- after all, the decision to give thread hosts a free hand has by and large turned out very well for the forum. 796. CalGal - 2/21/2000 9:19:40 AM Alistair,
Information that is freely consented in friendly exchanges is completely out of place when brought up in a hostile exchange, and can be very wounding. Just imagine doing that in real life!
Actually, I think it's entirely analogous to real life, and it happens there all the time. That's pretty much how it works.
Angel says:
The one thing I don't want to see come of the rule change is a massive increase in the amount of whining that people are abusing them with references to their personal information.
Which is precisely what I mean when I say it is unenforceable.
797. CalGal - 2/21/2000 9:25:36 AM Abuse is off-limits, and we leave ourselves the ability to define the terms. Any egregious use of personal information is covered there anyway.
For example, if someone mentioned that they were ill or had disease, someone who mentioned that in a discussion--or for no reason at all--could be considered abusive if Wabbit determined it was hurtful or cruel.
But I'm not sure that anyone who both says they have a disease and that they are in favor of single payer health care should be able to complain if someone points out they may be biased. It might not be fun to experience, but I'm not sure that it's off-limits in and of itself. 798. CalGal - 2/21/2000 9:31:04 AM Angel,
I do agree with something else Seguine stated about CalGal's manner at the time, but this isn't the place to get into that
This is the sort of comment that makes all your disavowals pointless.
My questions were to you, and they centered on your own statements. Please try to understand that, because I think it's key. They weren't about you personally, they weren't about decisions you made, they weren't about Alistair or Wabbit or Irv or JJ or Jay or Indiana or anyone else at the helm.
My statements were answers based on what had been decided at the time. You were saying loudly and clearly that you didn't like the decisions made, Angel.
I'm not taking back the "open letter". You made it clear you didn't approve, as did Seguine. At that point, I cease to become the person to answer your concerns.
799. wabbit - 2/21/2000 9:39:31 AM I'm putting this thread on the front page so those who may not know of its existence will be able to participate in the discussion.
fwiw, I didn't email everyone regarding the writing of the RoE because I thought anyone who was interested in helping already knew, and because I just didn't have the time. I have no better excuses than those.
800. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/21/2000 9:48:33 AM I'm not in favor of putting this thread on the main page, since it is a thread for wonks and doesn't present our best face to newcomers and lurkers... people we are hoping to attract to this forum. I can't see the advantage of this move, and I hope it doesn't hurt the forum. I didn't see a groundswell of support for putting it on the main page.
Anyone interested in policy issues has already found their way here. Most participants, imo, are interested only in participating in an interesting forum, and don't want to know how the sausage is made.
As for the RoE, the answer is quite simple. Anyone who doesn't like the way things are worded can draft a new version and present it here for discussion. The original version was drafted quickly, to fill a need, and we could only gain by revisiting the rules. Endlessly revisiting the original process doesn't move us forward. 801. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 9:51:21 AM Message # 798 Whatever, CalGal. You can't admit when you're wrong, can you?
You announced at first that 'everyone' agreed on the Mote RoE, and had to be taken to task on that. And then you said that it was too much trouble to email everyone, and you were taken to task on that. If you can't differentiate between your own defenses of what others did and their reasons for what they did, you'd best stop addressing the topic.
Fini. 802. PincherMartin - 2/21/2000 9:52:46 AM Endlessly revisiting the original process doesn't move us forward.
Here, here!
803. CalGal - 2/21/2000 9:53:34 AM The reason we created the policies thread was because of the problems it caused by putting these discussions on the front page. I realize that Wabbit put it on the front page to answer the accusation that things are done by sneaky back-room manuevering--and at that point, the whole thing becomes very tiring.
I had developed a two page format that will put Policy and Suggestions on a second page, which should help.
|
