|
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. 987. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/22/2000 10:42:00 PM I don't know about others (well, I do know about some others, and I suppose my perception is different), but I've found this discussion very worthwhile.
My own opinion has gone all over the place as various people have convinced me of various points of view... for a little while.
I was especially impressed by Seguine's detailed proposal. Apart from a difference in viewpoint regarding personal vs. private information, I saw a lot of good in the way she spelled things out and presented the rules clearly and readably, in some detail.
But I'm now back to my original opinion (one which I never actually expressed, in the interest of making sure my "weighted voice" didn't influence anyone), and unless I misread some recent comments, the general feeling is heading in the same direction I am. And that opinion is:
What we need is a simple set of rules, with the notation that interpretation and enforcement is up to the thread hosts and the moderator.
I think our original RoE expressed this well, and the people who put it together quickly did a good job. But I think it is a bit redundant. All we need is a short, simple statement which covers all cases.
So I have prepared the following as a proposal for a revision of the RoE, in the hopes that proposing this can lead to a kind of closure, for now, of this topic (though of course, even if my proposal is accepted, the subject can be revisited any time).
Nothing below (in the next post, actually) is my own. I thank Christin and CalGal for the original text, and AngelFive and Seguine for new wording. I have merely attempted to consolidate and simplify. 988. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/22/2000 10:42:37 PM
Rules of Engagement:
The Mote is a not-for-profit discussion forum hosted and run by member volunteers. Membership is free.
Strenuous argument is acceptable in this forum. However, certain important rules govern the exchange of information:
1. Don't reveal someone else's private information online*.
2. Don't make threats.
For violations of Rules 1 and 2, the offending posts will be deleted, and violators will be subject to suspension or banning by the Moderator, if the violation is deemed serious and intentional. The decision of the Moderator is final.
3. Don't make posts that are needlessly abusive.
4. Do not use The Mote for advertising, solicitations or spam.
Posts violating Rules 3 and 4 are subject to possible deletion by the Thread Host (or possible relocation of posts to the Inferno, in the case of Rule 3). In serious cases, the Moderator may suspend or ban the ID of the violator. The decisions of the Thread Hosts and Moderator are final.
The final judge of the behavior of any participant, or of a thread host's decisions and behavior, is the Moderator.
The Mote does not endorse or stand behind the truthfulness or reliability of any information posted by users and is not responsible in any manner for content, which remains the sole responsibility of the user.
By participating in The Mote, you agree to abide by the Rules of Engagement. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved.
*Private Information is defined as any information linked to an individual’s real-life identity which has never been posted in the Mote by an individual (or by another participant with the individual’s knowledge and express consent). 989. Indiana Jones - 2/23/2000 12:17:14 AM I have no problem with the ROE as Irving as worded them. That's pretty much my understanding of how they function now. 990. PsychProf - 2/23/2000 2:53:19 AM Seguine...Message # 970 ...if you meant to insult, you have been successful here.
991. PsychProf - 2/23/2000 4:11:59 AM LETS GO TECH...KEEP UP THE PRESSURE AND THE GOOD WORK
992. Seguine - 2/23/2000 4:17:15 AM Irv: thanks. Your version of the RoE (Message # 988) is satisfactory as far as I'm concerned.
It does not go so far as to include the specific prohibition I proposed on personal info used to attack, insult, etc., but it does make clear that "needless abuse" is determined not only by thread hosts but, ultimately, by the moderator. And it spells out unambiguously that hosts' and participants' behavior is ultimately the moderator's to assess. I especially appreciate the removal of the weasel words, "It goes without saying that this [needless abuse] has holes you can drive trucks through. This is intentional. The inventiveness of a small minority forces us to be vague."
I have only a small criticism of your draft. In: "Posts violating Rules 3 and 4 are subject to possible deletion by the Thread Host (or possible relocation of posts to the Inferno, in the case of Rule 3)," I believe the "possible"s are redundant. The fact that a violation is subject to a sanction means that the sanction is "possible", no? A person who gets caught littering on the highway is subject to a fine; however, the judge may waive the fine if he sees fit.
Finally, I have a question. What, exactly, does "Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved" mean, in this context?
993. PsychProf - 2/23/2000 4:18:44 AM Darn...wrong page....sorry guys...I am losing it. 994. Seguine - 2/23/2000 4:44:44 AM PsychProf, I'm unable to determine how you managed to put yourself into the line of fire my 970 (wearily) ejaculated. However, Ace's posts misrepresented my views and your remarks promulgate one of his distortions. I have never remotely suggested that any and all insults be prohibited in this forum. My initial proposal concerned the use of personal information to insult (harass, abuse, attack). 995. PsychProf - 2/23/2000 5:06:48 AM Seguine...my post was in response to this gem...
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.
996. Seguine - 2/23/2000 6:59:31 AM Huh. 997. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/23/2000 8:18:26 AM Seguine:
I considered eliminating the "possible," but I was being intentionally redundant to make things clear for those who don't understand "subject to." It's fine with me if we drop "possibly."
The disclaimer at the end was from the original version. I think we need an all purpose disclaimer, and perhaps one of the legally-minded participants can give some input.
I think the footnote at the end needs rewording, too.
I understand what PP is saying. I too felt a bit hurt when I read that sentence in your earlier post. Many of us feel a part of this place, and it sounded like you were discounting us (though you may well have other reasons... that's just how it came off). I'd hate to see you give up on this place. 998. PsychProf - 2/23/2000 8:42:56 AM Seguine...Irv has it right, but it is no big deal. I have great respect for you, and I also hope you continue to contribute.
|
