|
1172. Seguine - 2/27/2000 2:25:16 PM "That was why I changed it--because Irv's wording gave the impression that only the Moderator could delete posts, and that only the thread host could move things."
Well, that's obviously not why you changed it, because Irv's wording gives no such impression.
It's only in the second explanatory section, for 3 and 4 (abuse and spam) that there may be an excuse for a revision that specifies that the Moderator may delete and move. As I said in the last paragraph of Message # 1161, the clarification would serve accuracy but isn't really necessary, as no one would presume that the God-like Moderator who can delete threats and private info references, who can suspend and ban, who is the ultimate arbiter of all host and participant behavior, for some reason cannot delete and move to the Inferno abuse and spam. 1173. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/27/2000 6:50:42 PM My connection is so slow right now I can't page back to make comments, so I'll do it from memory.
A5:
You questioned the book deal earlier. This has been discussed a number of times, mostly in the Suggestions thread. It's a good deal... it's voluntary, costs the buyer nothing, and provides a small kickback to the Mote, which we can use for a backup server or other purposes.
It will be in the FAQ. Your comment underlines the need for an FAQ, since there are other things we've decided and implemented which aren't explained in a single place.
Cal, Seguine:
Both of you have made good comments on my RoE proposal. How about if I attempt a rewrite, based on Cal's comments? Then I'll know what I'm saying and can explain further where necessary.
I'd rather not go through and respond comment by comment, especially since my connection isn't allowing me to move around the thread easily. 1174. JayAckroyd - 2/27/2000 9:11:20 PM Message # 1143
Seguine
I think having two sets of rules, depending on whether the poster is using a handle, is unworkable. This is especially so because it isn't always obvious when a handle is in use. And what if you post in the clear for a while, and then switch?
Generally speaking, I find the privacy rules fraught with problems, and am really glad we have wabbit around. The rules invite testing, hypothetical exploration, and people charging into the suggestions thread demanding bans.
But, again, to my mind the consensus is clear. I think Irv's rewording does a better job of expressing that consensus than any of the mods. 1175. Dusty - 2/27/2000 9:43:03 PM IrvingSnodgrass
I'm not used to being called a smart ass. Do you really think it fits?
No.
For that reason, I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, and it still didn't come across as an attempt at humor. But I was probably in a bad mood, so I'll assume it was my bad reading. My apologies. 1176. Seguine - 2/27/2000 11:41:54 PM Irv: "How about if I attempt a rewrite...?"
I was hoping you would.
Jay: "I think having two sets of rules, depending on whether the poster is using a handle, is unworkable. This is especially so because it isn't always obvious when a handle is in use. And what if you post in the clear for a while, and then switch?"
You lose your protection. (But never mind.)
"Generally speaking, I find the privacy rules fraught with problems..."
Yeah, but I have a feeling ID openness would also be fraught, and for the same reason it's unworkable to have two sets of rules: too much management required. For open-ID to work it would have to be absolute, and ensuring someone wasn't hiding behind a pseud could perhaps get complicated. Also, annoying. (Presumably, there's a Moderator Irritation Quotient that must be figured into the 'cost' of one forum model as compared with another.)
"But, again, to my mind the consensus is clear. I think Irv's rewording does a better job of expressing that consensus than any of the mods."
We agree.
1177. JayAckroyd - 2/27/2000 11:57:23 PM It's true that pseudonym policing becomes a problem in an environment where openness is enforced. In the open sites I've been involved in in the past, it was enforced by billing name on the credit card used for the subscription. As a free site, we don't have that option.
That's why I believe all you can do is use moral suasion, and wait for enough people to see the light. 1178. Seguine - 2/28/2000 1:04:09 AM "...all you can do is use moral suasion, and wait for enough people to see the light."
You're one of them Baha'is, aren't you? 1179. JayAckroyd - 2/28/2000 1:14:07 AM Summer Breeze, makes me feel fine, blowing through the of my mind......
Although I prefer the Type O Negative cover.1180. JayAckroyd - 2/28/2000 1:25:22 AM Actually, it's more like a guy who worked for once. He always wondered why the free market types were always shouting so loudly and so often. I mean, if they were right, then it is really just a matter of time, isn't it? So why talk about it?
If transparency is a good idea, it will come about. The forums filled with ranting, anonymous lunatics will drive out the reasonable people. They'll be happy to come to a place where there is accountability for what members post, the simple accountability of knowing who is doing the posting. You can fear stalkers, but they're a lot less scary when you know who they are. And they are less likely to stalk, for that reason.
The medium is still new. People still think they have privacy, while DoubleClick merrily collects their activity, and then matches it up to databases compiled by merchants. They think they still have privacy, when they show up on a couple of dozen video cameras a day. They think they still have privacy as the SSNo becomes a requirement for more and more transactions. It's over. For better or for worse, the era of urban anonymity is over.
You can try to pretend otherwise, and hide behind handles. But it's an illusion. 1181. CalGal - 2/28/2000 1:38:30 AM Irv,
Works for me--in fact, I just did the rewrite as a way of demonstrating what I meant. 1182. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/28/2000 2:36:30 AM Jay:
Summer Breeze, makes me feel fine, blowing through the of my mind......
Jasmine... it's "jasmine of my mind" (whatever that means).
Cal:
Cool. I was waiting for your post. I'll do it in my morning. 1183. 109109 - 2/28/2000 3:10:10 AM Angel
"But if he really does want a toothless central leadership, I can't agree with that -- though it's irrelevant, because his argument is rooted in the concept that we have one now, and we don't. The central leadership in this forum is really the only body with any significant power at all. I don't mind thread hosts being more empowered under the aegis of the Moderator, but that's not a pressing concern. Niner, can you explain your statement a bit more, in case I misunderstood you?"
You may have misunderstood, but the fault lies with me. "Toothless" is a bad word. From my perspective, the central leadership is far too Neville Chamberlain with jack-booted troublemakers, whereas I prefer summary executions for folks that any damn fool can see are interested in masturbatory exercises (excepting me). Otherwise, I have no quarrel with the administrators, I find them judicious and conscientuous, and I am, in fact, hot for wabbit. Which, my luck the way it is, means wabbit is a man. 1184. Angel-Five - 2/28/2000 11:12:16 AM Type O Negative. Most excellent. 1185. Angel-Five - 2/28/2000 11:17:34 AM hahaha, Niner. To think that I could have ever once believed you were thomasD.
I'm finding that all the heads on a pike argument are beginning to sway me a little bit, especially having seen some more of Cazart in the meantime. It's always been a near thing for me, whether I should support swift executive action to remove people for the good of the forum, or whether I should support an idealistic point of view where we let miscreants and sociopaths roam the Mote at will. It's becoming much nearer of a thing.
I agree a lot with what Jay's said about how the success of the forum is dependent more upon the leadership than the rules themselves, which is why I find myself favoring a rules statement which emphasises the empowerment of leadership. 1186. wabbit - 2/28/2000 8:18:06 PM Benevolent dictator checking in...
As Irv is working on a rewrite, I will refrain from comment for now, except to say that I agree with Seguine when she says "less is more".
1187. JayAckroyd - 2/28/2000 10:30:27 PM Defusing sociopaths is usually as simple as ignoring them. It's just hard to do, sometimes. 1188. Seguine - 2/29/2000 1:27:20 AM If you're an Iraqui, I expect it's hard to ignore Saddam. 1189. Angel-Five - 3/1/2000 3:35:52 AM Defusing sociopaths isn't unfortunately as simple as ignoring them. They will always, in practice, find someone to exploit within the forum, and the problem will grow from there once it has taken root. The same goes for people who aren't overtly sociopathic but are nonetheless divisive and destructive to the health of the forum as a whole. To ignore the game they're playing is to court disaster. However, there's no better alternative to ignoring that I can find. There are really only three ways of effectively dealing with one of these folks -- a) everyone agrees to ignore them (which as mentioned doesn't happen in reality) b) everyone rises up against them and bans them from the forum (which doesn't happen for similar reasons) and c) provide them with as few targets as possible and wait for them to get bored. They always get bored after enough time passes. One thing for sure is that appeasement usually doesn't work at all. It just makes the idiots stronger. And totally ignoring them doesn't help either, because they're usually really good at getting someone's attention that should know better. I think the best means is to point out, loud and clear, what they're up to -- and THEN do your best to let them bore themselves and leave. 1190. Indiana Jones - 3/6/2000 12:35:23 AM Re Niner's idea about a Gulag, earlier: I'd like to propose a new topic that would be a subthread of the Inferno: "Kick the shit out of cazart, the fecalphagous jackanapes."
Its purpose would be for hosts to remove any and all cazart droppings from their threads. Also, other posters who feel the need to say anything to this human offal would know where to go (figuratively, of course) to ream his/her/its asshole.
I'm sure many will volunteer to host. 1191. Angel-Five - 3/6/2000 2:08:38 PM I think it's 'coprophagous'. I'm still not for banning Cazart outright (though I think he's getting pretty close to justifiable grounds with his incessant spamming) but I predict you'll probably have a few takers on that one, Indiana.
|
 |
Go To Mote #
|
|
