|
1037. Angel-Five - 2/24/2000 7:28:33 AM And as to why the 'exalted' (do you have any idea how telling it is for you to use that word in a conversation about why they left and who does and does not want more people like them?) have left -- yes, we have had that conversation. And as I recall we both managed to come up with the same, exact reason. It's just that it bothered me and you were fine with it. I don't expect to convince you of anything, and actually don't much want to at this point. I miss having certain people around; you don't as much. That's that. 1038. arkymalarky - 2/24/2000 7:30:32 AM People came and went in the Fray all the time I was there, but many, if not most of the ones I most enjoyed reading are still here. FWIW, I never could persuade any of my friends, or even my husband, who I think would really enjoy it, to post in the Fray or here. Bro said he would, but I haven't seen him yet. I don't know anyone else irl who participates in any online forum, and there never seemed to be a whole lot of really regular contributers from the time I started in the Fray. 1039. Angel-Five - 2/24/2000 7:37:21 AM My brother lurked occasionally for a while, but dismissed the Fray as a bunch of mental masturbation (well, 'mostly mental, occasionally much more physical and overt' is how he put it). 1040. Angel-Five - 2/24/2000 7:39:35 AM I think a lot of it was when he started asking me about movie recommendations and I'd tell him what the Movies thread recommended and he'd follow up on it and call me back pissed off. We talk about Mote insularity but as far as movie recommendations and analyses it's a reality. 1041. JayAckroyd - 2/24/2000 10:20:16 PM It is interesting that amidst all this ruckus, only four people have made a direct comment on Irv's draft.
I prefer the new wording.
1042. Seguine - 2/25/2000 12:12:05 AM Jay, my guess is that most people don't care (no one reads the RoE); or else, when this thread got moved back off the front page, most people quit reading and so are unaware of Irv's proposal. In case it's the latter, I have posted a notice in Thread Suggestions. 1043. PsychProf - 2/25/2000 12:12:25 AM Jay...that is because the issues surounding policy are control related, personality dominated, or motivated by hostility, for a least some posters. EG, Seguine uses the topic as a chance to partronize and let us know she is smarter/better than others(wanna compare resumes Seg? you can accept the challenge at ozzienelson@hotmail.com )...why else would she substantially contribute to a "future policy" discussion on a forum that she doesn't like and intends to leave? BTW... The original ROE or Irv's are fine with me. 1044. Indiana Jones - 2/25/2000 12:23:46 AM IMO this has been a big discussion about something that doesn't appear to be a large problem. The discussion is much bigger than anything causing it. I concur with PP that either version is fine because I really don't see a substantive difference.
Whatever is "wrong" with the Mote currently--and it appears to me to be very healthy for an online forum of its size--it's not with the ROE. 1045. soupisgoodfood - 2/25/2000 12:40:59 AM I vote for Irv's wording. 1046. Dantheman - 2/25/2000 12:47:03 AM I agree with IJ's post 1044. Both versions are fine, and we're making way too mcuh of the Rules of Engagement. 1047. Dantheman - 2/25/2000 12:47:21 AM whoops mcuh=much 1048. JayAckroyd - 2/25/2000 1:19:43 AM PP-
I prefer Irv's version because it's simpler, but the rules don't really matter. The moderator does. If the moderator is not judicious, temperate and thick-skinned, the best of all possible rules will still fail.
I agree that there's been way too much discussion of this.
Seguine may or may not vanish. We've all sometimes regretted the amount of time we spend here, I suspect. I certainly should not be writing this post right now.
1049. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/25/2000 1:30:50 AM It's true that my version does not differ substantively from the earlier version, which stated the same information. All I did was take out some of the redundancy, and removed the invitations to try and break the rules ("don't push the envelope").
Contrary to what someone said earlier, I didn't make any penalties more specific. In fact, just the opposite. I tried to more clearly state that the moderator is the final judge on any rule violations.
The first draft of the rules were fine. I just tried to tighten them up. 1050. PincherMartin - 2/25/2000 1:35:19 AM Is it possible to show Irv's (and other's as well) version again?
I have finally read the RoE -- I think they are brief and clear, but I'm willing to compare them with any other drafts to see if it can still be bettered. 1051. Indiana Jones - 2/25/2000 1:52:56 AM PM: Here's Irv's version. 1052. PincherMartin - 2/25/2000 2:21:12 AM Thanks, Indiana.
I can accept Irv's version. 1053. Seguine - 2/25/2000 3:40:24 AM PsychProf. For the second time: you've not been the target of any insult of mine. I'm sure you're a very accomplished guy. 1054. PsychProf - 2/25/2000 4:39:26 AM I give up. 1055. arkymalarky - 2/25/2000 7:09:27 AM FWIW, PP, I agree with you. 1056. AceofSpades - 2/25/2000 7:30:08 AM
I'm against the changes to the RoE.
I could support them, IF Irv & co. explained precisely what policy changes the changes in wording are supposed to effect.
If there is NO change, that's fine, then I guess I could support them. I wouldn't really see the point, but if everyone wants a change, that's fine.
|
