|
1322. Jon Ferguson - 4/2/2001 7:37:46 AM The problem is not with the RoE. The problem is the lack of consistency with which they are enforced.
I have been banned twice, both times without cause. The 'needlessly abusive' excuse has been used when everybody knows that Cal is by far and away the most 'needlessly abusive' regular Motie, bar none. She's gone apeshit on me, Judith and MsGreer in the last 24 hours alone, without provocation.
I expect that I will soon be banned a third time, this time citing the 'We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone' clause.
It's time for a triumvirate who are willing to behave like grown-ups. I strongly recommend Maria, Jay and PP for the jobs.
And put this thread on the front page where it belongs, already. 1323. wabbit - 4/2/2001 8:00:41 AM I've sent emails to all three citing your hearty recommendation. 1324. AceofSpades - 4/2/2001 8:41:20 AM
I guess I approve of the new RoE. To be honest, I'm not sure I really understand the difference between the new RoE and the old one.
If there's any subtle new wrinkle, I don't see it.
Then again, I'm a moron. 1325. vonKreedon - 4/2/2001 9:45:47 PM I was about to join Ace as a self-described obtuse moron, but first I looked at the current RoE and saw that the proposed RoE are much longer. New rules include:
- You may post using your real name or a pseudonym.
Under no circumstances can you deliberately use someone else's name for your username.
- You must have an ISP-issued email. Freemail accounts may be deleted without notice.
- Posts that are judged to violate these rules will be deleted by the thread host(s) or moderators and may constitute grounds for suspension of posting privileges.
- Suspended members who re-register with new accounts may have those accounts deactivated without notice. Repeated attempts will result in our contacting your ISP with a complaint.
- We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.
I'm a little uncomfortable by the level of threat in the proposed RoE. I think I prefer the kindler, gentler current version.
1326. RickNelson - 4/2/2001 10:07:31 PM I'm happy with the RoE. I think it defines important behavioral and technical expectations clearly. 1327. RickNelson - 4/2/2001 10:08:45 PM I'm happy with the revised RoE. 1328. vonKreedon - 4/2/2001 10:08:59 PM
Rick - Which RoE are you happy with? The current or the proposed, or both?
1329. JayAckroyd - 4/2/2001 10:14:06 PM The real issue is that the problem JonF is causing is not really a question of 'abuse.' He's just being really annoying and repetitive (at least from what I've read). We've had that before, with all threads spammed with identical messages, with the current situation with posting outside content in Politics (which may be a copyright violation, btw).
I don't see how you can phrase "Don't be an annoying twit or we'll ask you to leave." I especially don't see how you can do so when annoyance is personal, and when we have more than one annoying twit (IMO).
I think wabbit's the best of all possible moderators, patient but ultimately firm. The rude people who constantly complain about other people's rudeness would find me a disappointing moderator, because I think these rules are impossible to state clearly and enforce consistently, so I just wouldn't enforce them.
I don't think the rewording of the RoE changes anything. 1330. wabbit - 4/2/2001 10:17:52 PM vonKreedon,
The kinder and gentler version, or even better the non-existant version, would be preferable, but there are people who would like things spelled out in detail, so the group strives for some compromise.
Is this what you don't like?
Repeated attempts will result in our contacting your ISP with a complaint. 1331. vonKreedon - 4/2/2001 11:00:38 PM
Wabbit - No, it's not a specific item, it's that there are ~five explicit threats of account deletion/suspension in five bullet items. 1332. Jon Ferguson - 4/3/2001 12:30:10 AM Jay
Could you please provide a few examples of this spam (i.e., repetitiveness) or are you just spouting the party line and/or pissed off because I recently took you to task in the slow thread?
Thanks. 1333. Jon Ferguson - 4/3/2001 12:35:07 AM re 1325
I couldn't agree more. Well stated, VK.
Gee, the problem seems to be that we're driving posters away because there's too much arbitrary and capricious abuse of power by PTB and certain thread hosts.
I know the solution! Let's make up even more vague and threatening rules in the privacy of the Policy sub-thread (that very few bother to visit and many don't even notice) so that the PTB and certain thread hosts can power trip even more and drive even more posters away!
Curiouser and curiouser.
1334. JayAckroyd - 4/3/2001 1:04:27 AM Actually, the correction was appreciated. I don't understand why helping someone out after he or she makes an error needs to take the form of taking someone to task, but whatever floats your boat.
WRT your request to document the evidence for my comment, that request itself is evidence. It's how these repetitive things start. You say "Prove your point." The respondent offers his or her evidence. You reply "That's no answer. Prove your point." If they reply again, you reply "That's no answer. Prove your point."
That kind of thing gets really old, really fast, especially when it's about something self-referential. 1335. Jon Ferguson - 4/3/2001 1:43:49 AM Jay
Fine, I helped you out after you made an error (sounds kind of patronizing, but as you say, 'whatever floats your boat'.)
What would you like me to do when people repeatedly make false statements about me and attempt to have me banned without cause for the third time? Defend myself once and then walk away?
I didn't repeatedly tell wabbit to prove her point. I pointed at the proof she provided and said it was laughable. Because it is. See post 11263 for this so-called 'evidence' that I make 'post after post' in an attempt to 'hurt the Mote.' The response I've just characterized is 11274.
Why don't you just be honest, Jay. You know wabbit personally and you don't know me from Adam. That's why you're taking her side. That's fair enough. You're not alone in that respect.
That's no way to run a forum, though.
1336. wabbit - 4/3/2001 3:56:23 AM Proposed
Thread Hosting guidelines:
The primary duty is to set the tone of the thread and keep the discussion as focused as you can (or want). You are free to promote any level of civility you desire. As long as participants do not violate the Rules of Engagement, how far they are allowed to go is entirely up to you, but please try to be as even-handed as possible. You have the ability to move posts to a more appropriate thread, or delete posts if necessary. Please be very thoughtful and careful about exercising these options.
Clarify your ambitions for the thread. If you don't like personal abuse or sexual references or off-topic posts, say so at the start, and repeat it as necessary. Posters should not have to discover the hosts likes and dislikes though his or her deletion/move policy.
As a rule, a first-time violation should not result in the post being moved but in a reasonably polite explanation as to why it is objectionable.
To move or delete a post without comment violates common decency. If you must move or delete a post, please post a notice.
cont. 1337. wabbit - 4/3/2001 3:57:57 AM Possible reasons for deleting/moving posts:
- personal information revealed about someone other than the poster him/herself
- threats or harrassment of another poster
- pornography
- excessive off-topic posts
The first two are in the Rules of Engagement. The others are things to consider. You should be discreet and lenient in hosting. Most participants are pretty well-behaved and we don't want to be heavy-handed. Recognize that in the heat of a discussion, things can get ugly. Try not to take it personally.
Links to information at other websites may be posted in the butter sidebar. If you need help doing this, contact us with the link information. A particularly interesting discussion may also be posted in the News section of the homepage.
When the thread is ready to end, please put up an RIP tag. After three days, the thread can be placed into read-only mode and moved into the archives.
Most threads will run pretty well on their own if you are busy and can't spend much time there for a short period, though some threads require a good deal of attention. If you must be absent for any length of time, a new host can sometimes be found, or the thread can be retired. We realize that this is a volunteer operation and real life sometimes imposes constraints on cyber-life.
Enjoy your thread and thank you for hosting.1338. Indiana Jones - 4/3/2001 3:59:24 AM Sounds good to me. 1339. PelleNilsson - 4/3/2001 4:16:25 AM Same here. 1340. seadate - 4/3/2001 4:19:36 AM And here. 1341. jayackroyd - 4/3/2001 4:56:18 AM JF
re: Personal relations
I've never met or spoken to wabbit and, while I used to know her rl name, I've forgotten it. I've spoken on the telephone once to ChristinO, several times to CalGal, both related to a service outage.
The only motie I've met in person is Alistair.
Re: boats floating
You're the one who characterized your posts as taking me to task. IMO the tone of your response was out of keeping with the general tone of the slow thread. But you did provide useful clarification of a point I'd misstated and I always appreciate that.
Re: Hurting the Mote
I think discussions like all the ones now going on in the thread thread share the characteristic that your exchanges with wabbit had. Repetitive messages of people talking past each other are annoying, boring and make the people involved look bad.
Do I think you do that with malice aforethought? I don't. But I try to stay pretty naive regarding malicious motives.
The interesting part of this experiment was to see if a self-governing community would arise. The apparent result is that such a community is easily undermined by a small subset of participants. You see this all the time in commercial discussion areas--strong disagreements between strong personalities destroying the ambiance. In the past, these meltdowns here have been contained by wabbit's good sense and restraint.
|
