|
1272. Michael Mele - 9/27/2000 5:25:44 PM Nostradamus --
The difference is, they don't promote regular Joe TTers to Marybeth status, do you get the distinction? Here, this guy was (and as far as I know, still is) the gatekeeper. Do you not see why this makes concerns about prior privacy violations valid?
Frankly, no. I understand what you're trying to sell, but I'm not buying. I never had the patience for usenet, but that has to do with the software and the technical flakiness of Usenet. When I go out to play I don't feel unsafe. I post in my own name, and I'm easily located.
Because of the vast number of teenagers and fools on line, I prefer a moderated forum with a lock on the door -- but I am more inclined toward anarchy (which presupposes a civilized polity) than not.
I have an abiding prejudice against people who feel a compulsion to yammer endlessly about the faults of other posters -- although I will admit that I will gossip as readily as the next person. You are welcome to your crusade, Jones seems very equipped to defend himself.
1273. Michael Mele - 9/27/2000 5:27:26 PM Nostradamus –
BTW, now that I know more than I needed to know about this, I want to say that the warmth of your welcome to me is considerably diminished by the fact that one of the first things you did was to ask if I know "Stinky." Attempting to drag a newbie into your fight was not an act of kindness. It tends to undercut your claims of acting for good, as opposed to pursuing a vendetta.
1274. quivver - 9/27/2000 9:13:37 PM I've seen all these lovely personality types in other arenas online, from Nos/God/happyfuzzball to Calgal to Irv to arky and so on. It's kind of fascinating how the internet draws certain sorts of people into online community situations where they play out certain roles. Sometimes those roles are related to real-life, other times not.
I won't speculate on what this particular group of people will do in the next sixmonth or so (the mote will limp along at least that much longer, i can already tell), but it will be interesting to see how these personalities play out long-term, to see if certain patterns occur in this environs.
It is always a new adventure entering a community and watching humans interact positively and negatively in beautifully delineated patterns. I wish vr was viable currently. Anyway, enough quasi-sociology. Consider it all the comment this new kid chooses to make on the debating and whatnot and derive what meaning one may from it. :D Bom dia.
aem. 1275. PsychProf - 9/28/2000 12:55:23 AM Well Quiv, I've been here since 1996...how long term do ya want? 1276. quivver - 9/28/2000 1:03:35 AM I've only been bouncing round online since 95. By long-term I meant within the comfycouch zone of the mote, not necessarily other online fora i may or mayn't have observed mote peeps in action. ;D I'm old skool in a few places online, but a wee newborn kitten here. And I digress...
aem. 1277. PsychProf - 9/28/2000 1:12:12 AM Quiv...I meant here in the Mote/Fray...many of us have known eachother since 1996-1997. 1278. quivver - 9/28/2000 1:22:34 AM I know a lot of you have been together since whenever. I used to bumble around the Fray back when slate was almost cool to read, but not in anything other than a random infrequent way. In fact, it's that past history that is the fascinating aspect of the mote, seeing how this group will function with its old core from the larger forum, the new-old that have been around most of the past year, and the new-new, who have been around less than a sixmonth. It's uncommon to have several groups like that all interact in such a cosy environs. So I'd like to hang around and see how things go. Largish groups of smart people always yield surprises. :D 1279. PsychProf - 9/28/2000 4:28:28 AM Good to have ya. 1280. AceofSpades - 9/28/2000 5:39:58 AM
Kuligin,
Please. We all know who's ready to rumble and who's more or less here for nice chit-chat.
In real life, you'd distinguish between someone picking on a polite soul and someone insulting an insult-artist.
In the former case, you'd call the baiter a cad and jerkoff. In the latter case, you'd call the insults fair play. 1281. AceofSpades - 9/28/2000 5:42:46 AM
And this isn't a case of who's "Connected" or what not. Granted, Diva *is* connected. But, to an extent, so am I. I doubt Nos would have been banned for baiting me.
So it's not a matter of who's in better favor. It's just a simple matter of real-life social rules -- you don't go after someone who avoids fights. You only pick fights with people who like fighting. 1282. KuligintheHooligan - 9/28/2000 5:44:15 AM Diva,
Again, I didn't see the posts. I only saw that he had said something to you. But there were so many posts that I missed, that I didn't have the time or desire to wade through them all.
But that isn't really my point. So you say my kids have three heads and hump turtles. Do you think I really care what you say? I don't. Sometimes people just take themselves waaaaaay too seriously here. And I don't mean you. You were just the example I saw noted in the Suggestions thread. I just think it is silly to get so worked up over these things. That you ignored him was your best option I suppose. But others did not. No, they throw barbs right back at him, then go whining and crying to the management about how awful he is. That is just pathetic.
There is clearly a "linch mob" mentality in this place. With some people, you can treat them entirely like shit and we don't care. But oh, man, don't mess with this or that person, or we'll ban your sorry ass.
Pathetic really. In my humble opinion. 1283. theDiva - 9/28/2000 5:48:54 AM Hoolio
man, all I can say is, I hate being involved in such things in any way. 1284. KuligintheHooligan - 9/28/2000 5:49:29 AM Ace,
So if I understand this correctly, Nostradamus was banned for attacking Diva. And Diva never said anything to him back, she just ignored him. So what we basically had was Nostradamus posting things to or about Diva, and she saying nothing, and he got banned. Is that correct?
Somehow I don't think it is. The posts I at least saw had many people attacking him and he fighting right back. I didn't see the posts in question concerning Diva, so I somehow doubt that this was all about Diva.
Again, it is just a mob mentality. Nothing else.
As for your basic point, I see it but don't agree. Some people attack in very overt ways, others in very covert ones. Who determines how to act for which ones? Obviously, at least in this case, Diva didn't respond or ask for banning, and it happened anyway. So someone else made the decision. I suppose that in the future, should I choose to whine about being attacked, I can expect similar banning of the offensive party?
Somehow, I doubt it very much. But in one sense, that isn't even my point. I don't care what you say. Get a life people! Someone on the Internet is saying untrue nasty things about you. Who cares??!!! 1285. AceofSpades - 9/28/2000 5:49:48 AM
Kuligin,
It's "Lynch" mob, by the way, named after a chap named Lynch. 1286. AceofSpades - 9/28/2000 5:52:09 AM
Kuligin,
I dispute your implication that Nos was *only* banned because he attacked Diva.
As I understand it (mind you, I don't understand it *much*), he was banned for stirring the shit for an entire week. He admitted he was deliberately provoking "meltdowns" (in his words).
I am simply saying that you can't be that shocked that Wabbit would have an itchier trigger finger when it comes to baiting Diva than when it comes to baiting me.
That's life. That's how the game works. Not just here, but everywhere. 1287. KuligintheHooligan - 9/28/2000 5:53:31 AM Diva, I suppose it really isn't worth discussing further. I don't blame you for not liking these sorts of things, and I know you didn't egg things on. But again, that isn't the point. What I saw of the posts I did read was several people taking their nasty shots at Nostradamus, and him doing it right back. Who started it is really immaterial. Then these same people come around after his banning and talk about how nasty he was! They were nasty too, but I guess someone has a nastiness meter I don't know about and determined that the combined nastiness of half a dozen people or more toward one person was not as offensive (or as easily dealt with) as the nasty of the one, who we don't really like anyway, so let's ban him.
Interesting. 1288. CalGal - 9/28/2000 5:55:52 AM Something else to remember, though--without getting too airy-fairy about it, I don't know of any Mote folks who actively seek to harm the forum. Why should we tolerate someone who is openly trying to do so?
He insulted Christin, Irv, Wabbit, Pelle, and me--not just once in anger, but constantly. Check out his very first post as God, back in the Anniversary thread. He then came back as Nostradamus, played nice for a few days in all the threads but the Policies thread, where he ran a disgusting "investigation" of Indy, in which he posted all sorts of private emails from rabid TT folks.
Indy, who is already busy, leaves. (I'm not suggesting any connection, but I don't think any volunteer needs that type of shit, either.) Nos volunteers for hosting his thread and Gatekeeper. One can wonder if that was his intent all along?
In any event, he is turned down based on his prior privacy violations and the fact that he is already acting like a jerk. He gets pissed and starts shitting all over the forum--including escalating his "investigation" of Indy, making confusing and unpleasant posts to any newbie, and goes beserk in the Inferno. He didn't only attack Diva in that series, hers was just the most personal.
I can see having a legitimate policy issue and raising it. I've certainly done that myself. But that's not what went on here. He just wanted to create trouble and wreak havoc.
Now. Was this a person who wanted to be a part of this forum, or a malicious little screw who enjoys fucking it over? And if the latter, explain to me why this forum should have to tolerate it? Doesn't the above behavior count as abusive?
So don't go around comparing ugly posts. Everyone makes unpleasant posts on occasion (although this was particularly cruel). What is the motive of the person making the post? Anger, temper, meanness--or a desire to destroy the forum itself?
1289. KuligintheHooligan - 9/28/2000 5:56:43 AM Ace,
You know, I typed "lynch" and then looked at it and thought, "That's a guy's name and probably isn't right."
Anyway, actually I don't think you or I have read all the posts and know all the facts. I just note that it is far easier to ban an unlikable person who is only one person than to deal with several who are for all intents and purposes doing basically the same thing.
I also don't think the rules should apply more or less depending on the person in question. That is just plainly stupid. Because in the end we then apply them in the best way for the people we like the best. And shut out the ones deemed unlikeable or unacceptable.
But again, I speak from ignorance. Have a nice evening. 1290. KuligintheHooligan - 9/28/2000 5:58:52 AM CalGal, and interesting post that has many facts of which I was entirely unaware. Like I said, I am speaking basically from ignorance on this matter. 1291. Dusty - 9/28/2000 6:21:48 AM KuligintheHooligan
If Nos had "merely" said something unpleasant to Diva, there shouldn't be a banning.
But CG summarized some of the relevant crap that lead up to the decision.
and there was a lot of it.
wabbit decision was well-justified.
|
