|
967. Absensia - 2/22/2000 6:53:11 AM hahaha, IJ...and I was thinking habanero. 968. CalGal - 2/22/2000 6:53:31 AM But even if it is true that deeply personal revelations have been used against someone, why isn't that just a matter of abuse? If something is out of line, why can't it be handled on those terms?
Frankly, I think many people have had situations where personal information is used to smack them up and down. It's not fun. But I don't think it's something we can ban.
Also, Dusty, I don't think you count as a "meek" poster, which means that any situation involving you doesn't automatically rebut Pelle's point. Unless I misunderstood your post. 969. CalGal - 2/22/2000 6:55:51 AM That is not an insult, btw. And I don't think you're an egregious hardass who trods down a path on the bodies of beaten Mote members. But I understood Pelle's point to refer to the "meek". 970. Seguine - 2/22/2000 6:58:49 AM "And I'm not "spamming." I'm doing what people do on-line-- having fun with a fellow poster."
I certainly don't object to your exchange w/Pelle. I do find pointless any attempt to shout above the din caused by the avalanche of interpretive diarrhea you habitually exude.
When you stick to comedy, you're a gem, bucko. When you pretend to think, the room erupts like a grunting chorus of ticket holders at an Arsenio Hall concert. You spam. Any hope of post-pubescent dialogue must thereafter be abandoned by anyone with a life to lead.
Fortunately for my adversaries on the point of this discussion, I do have a life to lead and must now allow all reservations, idiotic analogies, false charges and comparisons, tendentious arguments, misrepresentations, and distortions of my argument to stand, to take root, and to overwhelm everything I've argued.
As it happens, this place has increasingly little part in my larger concerns; ultimately, as things proceed here, I expect it will have none. I've made my suggestions. Take them in part or in whole, or leave them, folks; and enjoy yourselves. 971. Toenails - 2/22/2000 7:09:01 AM
Is it just me, or does Seguine sound a little ...bitter? 972. ScottLoar - 2/22/2000 7:26:49 AM Y'all sound like people with too much time on your hands. Take a recess and cultivate a social life independent of the internet or, better, look to those alongside who tolerate your time on such burning issues as Mote Policy.
You do this on company time I'd fire y'er ass. Oh yes I would. 973. CalGal - 2/22/2000 7:30:14 AM Dusty,
I just read back. You were quoting from a different post of Pelle's.
I still think it stands as abuse, not a privacy violation. But based on Pelle's post, it doesn't matter whether you are "meek" or not. Sorry about that. 974. CalGal - 2/22/2000 7:34:23 AM Scott,
I am not peeved at your post in the slightest, but I do have a question. This conversation began because a few people felt that there was not enough consultation of all forum members over the policy decisions.
But if we have a conversation and invite everyone, some people (and you are by no means the only one) complain that these discussions are needless and destructive.
So it becomes a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.
Any suggestions on how to avoid this? 975. ScottLoar - 2/22/2000 7:54:12 AM I have no remedy for more active minds than mine will seek and find justification to continue whatever mode of conversation strikes their fancy. Appeals to common sense don't work, appeals to self-respect don't work, ergo the self-indulgence rules, which was exactly my point. 976. cigarlaw - 2/22/2000 8:14:07 AM bamming ace is not enough. first, tie him to a stake and burn him alive with hard copies of his posts.
preferably while shooting him down like a rabid dog.
sorry ace. vox populi, vox deai 977. cigarlaw - 2/22/2000 8:23:09 AM bamming ace is not enough. first, tie him to a stake and burn him alive with hard copies of his posts.
preferably while shooting him down like a rabid dog.
sorry ace. vox populi, vox deai 978. Angel-Five - 2/22/2000 8:29:00 AM Well, I guess there was some discussion after all.
Irv: As you guessed I wasn't going for 'concise'. It was a draft composed in five minutes as a talking point. Feel free to edit.
A few clarifications:
The main point of the RoE revision was threefold. The first was to canonize one notion. 'Moderator's' discretion is in everything. Rather than leave it de facto, I thought to make it de jure, for one simple reason -- to give those who need it a plain and simple statement as to how this forum runs. We can accept it very well but it's nice to spell it out for outsiders. Second point: We can go on and on about how no one reads the fucking rules, as Martin states, but clearly some people do and they go on to argue about them. If no one reads them then at best we've wasted a few man-hours composing them clearly. If some people read them then we haven't wasted time at all; and if people springboard from the RoE to full-blown arguments about who can say what, we've actually saved time by making it clear where the guidelines run. The third point was to codify the notion of undue abuse as undesirable in the round but allow for individual tastes. I think that a thread host wants to delete everything that's even remotely personal in their thread, they should have clean-cut rules on their side to do so. I also think that if a thread host wants to leave in ten-page Ace rants on people, and hundred-post arguments between two bitter opponents which inevitably turns to personal attacks, they should have clear justification for doing so. 979. Angel-Five - 2/22/2000 8:29:27 AM Why should we codify that? Simply to present the people who are going to whine about a thread host with a brick wall that the forum moderator stands behind, without Wabbit or Al having to personally jump in every time. And while most of us here prefer a little spice in our argument from time to time, I can't think of too many people who would rather see it limited to that occasional status. No one wants a vanilla forum, but unless I'm mistaken we're trying to grow as a forum, and that means we ought to keep in mind what kind of Motier we want to attract. Do we want a gated community full of ascetics or a bar-room full of drunken bigoted teenagers? No. I think we'd like what we pretty much have now, only bigger and more renewable -- educated, bright and witty people from several walks of life who come in to learn and to argue for what they believe. 980. Angel-Five - 2/22/2000 8:31:08 AM ...can't think of too many people who would rather NOT see it limited...
981. Indiana Jones - 2/22/2000 9:39:30 AM ABC just called McCain winner. Don't know how? 982. Indiana Jones - 2/22/2000 9:40:59 AM Obviously, 981 is on wrong thread. 983. Angel-Five - 2/22/2000 9:58:07 AM Look at it like this: The system of benign despotism is working for us. We're all (well, except for Cazart) very happy with the way the moderator, and those with virtual-moderator status, handle things. Most of us are also pleased to let a thread host have presumptive power to do as he/she sees fit, because they generally do very well and if they abuse their position they can be booted by the moderator. So that angle is working for us. Nonetheless, we all (including the moderator) want some kind of consensus upon what behavior is allowable and what isn't. We're a laissez-faire group for the most part, soe the things we want are few but important -- we want to restrict a poster's ability to interfere with another poster's privacy and their real life. A sizable portion of us want to eliminate flame spamming and restrict abusive posting. And we want to keep the Mote generally spam-free. That's about it. Why not just combine those primary ideas, meld them to the notion that thread hosts and moderators are empowered to act as they will within the RoE, codify it and be done with it? Why should we instead stick with rules that people are going to endlessly bicker about because the rules are so vague? Just because of Mote politics? The proposed rules changes will not unduly change any Motier's ability to post-- with the possible exception being that we're going to spell it out that you can't go on spamming binges as a means to disrupt or cheapen the discussion or thread at hand. The only other effect these rules are going to have will be simple -- it will keep a lot of people from wonking on and on about what we can and cannot do. And since one of the clearest opinions heard thus far from Motiers is that this endless wonking and arguing is a decided negative for the forum as a whole... why not? 984. Angel-Five - 2/22/2000 9:58:43 AM Indiana: You're mixing your wonkery. 985. joezan - 2/22/2000 12:20:58 PM
Cazart has manipulated many people here into making his "issue", if not himself, the main topic of discussion here over the past couple of days. I hope everyone's happy.
And now that it seems we are on the verge of reworking the ROE, solely because of Cazart's pissing and moaning (and make no mistake - his pissing and moaning have now become a loud, cackling laugh as he congratulates himself on the contortions he's put some of us through - to say nothing of the old scabs he's caused to crack and ooze fresh pus) - now that this place is about Cazart, you better bet your ass he will dance around the edges of the new and improved ROE.
No doubt, this will result in another toturous round of the pitiful hand-wringing we've all just been subjected to.
But the drama queens'll have something to do. 986. Angel-Five - 2/22/2000 2:45:22 PM Is this about Cazart for most people? Not for me -- it's just the sum of a long period of observation of a lot of Mote regulars. I didn't even really know Cazart was bitching about the RoE. Just that bit about Jay, which is ridiculous to anyone with an ass's ration of common sense. Other than the fact that I don't think we should ban people on general principle, Cazart isn't an issue to me at all, just an annoyance who is occasionally humorous but mostly tiresome and not terribly clever. I don't think we should bother tailoring the RoE to account for the presence of a Cazart, because the Internet is full of them, they have all day long every day in which to think up new ways to be an annoyance, and it's pointless trying to match effort for effort with them because they've got much more energy and time to spend than most of us do.
|
