|
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.
1342. jayackroyd - 4/3/2001 5:00:44 AM I'd add something like:
You will probably find more success in hosting your thread if you do not discourage points of view from any angle. You also will probably find more success if you maintain a level of civility with the participants in your thread that is higher than what you are shooting for within the thread. 1343. MsIvoryTower - 4/3/2001 6:13:34 AM Not only would I second Jay's addition, I really think the language is too loose, Wabbit.
Why can't we just state a default rule? Why must this be at the discretion of the host? Why can't the rules state a standard that hosts as well as posters are expected to live within?
1344. Ms. No - 4/3/2001 7:13:52 AM MsIt,
I'd say it's because some people like to hang out in the Cafe and others prefer the Ace's Lounge. What flies in some threads is totally unacceptable in others. I think it's a bad idea to require all hosts to be as lax as JayAckroyd or as diligent as Autodaffy or any standard in between.
If people have problems with hosts they should let the Moderators know it. If a host is not doing a good job then let's remove that host rather than curbing the powers of more responsive hosts for the infractions of a minority.
1345. Ms. No - 4/3/2001 7:15:17 AM Wabbit,
I think the Hosting suggestions look good. I like Jay's addition too, but I wouldn't want to get any tighter or more specific that we already have. 1346. Jon Ferguson - 4/3/2001 8:53:24 AM Jay
If you'd like me to respond, let me know. Otherwise, I'm happy with letting our discussion end here. I really don't like to beat a dead horse.
All
re the proposed thread hosting guidelines
They sound great. I also favor Jay's addition.
Unfortunately, the Devil (as always) is in the details. Specifically, in this case, selective enforcement of said guidelines. Which has always been the problem around here.
If they are used to curb some of Cal and Stinky's excesses, great! However if they are only used to pick on folks like Auto, XTC (if he gets another thread) and Greer, they are less than useless and just exacerbate the current problem. 1347. CalGal - 4/3/2001 1:57:51 PM Do not be needlessly abusive of other posters.
I still worry about this one. No, not because everyone will be able to complain more about me. But because it will create a means for everyone to complain more about stuff that is basically normal, every day life in the Mote and that seems like it would create more hassle.
I think the text in the original "Don't make posts that are needlessly abusive" covers the same thing but it doesn't specify "other posters" in a way that makes people expect more protection than we generally provide around here.
Other than that, I think it spells out a few more things that we all take for granted but is just as well having detailed. 1348. Autodaffy - 4/3/2001 2:25:09 PM I object to the changes relating to owing an offending poster an explanation for deletions or moves. I know of no notion of "common decency" that establishes such a thing, and it would seem uncalled for in the case of name-calling, etc. Nor do I think it inevitable that "things can become ugly." If SOMEONE becomes ugly, they should be stopped.
This revision smells like an about face (the advice I asked for and received before taking on education was that no explanation was required) to mollify a favorite who has objected after calling the host an idiot and after having it pointed out to her that she was being intemperate beyond what had appeared in the thread previously.
Moreover, I believe that her objection to my hosting is based entirely on her differing from my opinions about the state of education, the effect of teacher's unions on education, etc. I urge you to read all her posts in education and in the suggestions thread this morning--both for accuracy and tenor. Her efforts on the issue of my hosting are entirely a product of her desire to see my opinions stiffled, and to a limited degree you are aiding her purpose in making a change that is clearly intended to send me a repressive message.
1349. vonKreedon - 4/3/2001 3:39:55 PM
I like the guidelines. I think that a host does owe it to the thread's constituents to be clear about the thread's parameters AND when/why a post has been moved/deleted. 1350. Slackjaw - 4/3/2001 3:49:34 PM I like the new hosting guidelines. Offering an explanation for deleted posts (at least the first couple times a member of a class of deletable posts by one person appears) is useful and may stick.
The other stuff, the informal "do your best" and "be consistent and transparent" parts, are also useful, and in the short run may cause hosts to give more thought to their actions. In the long run...I foresee having this conversation again (and not because the majority of hosts don't do a fine job, because they do). But no guidelines could stop that. 1351. Ms. No - 4/4/2001 5:31:27 AM Autodaffy,
Please don't jump to conclusions regarding the hosting parameters. They are not aimed at you specifically nor were they brought on by the protests of any specific poster. It's been one of those weird coincidental things that has nothing to do with causality.
To support your claim about your authority I'm copying in the specific text of one of my emails to you:
"you have full authority to delete and move posts. It's usually best to tell people why you've done so but the bottom line is that you don't really owe them an explanation. This will only cause problems with the moderators if you were to target certain posters unfairly."
You are correct that I clearly stated that it's usually best to explain your actions but not required. I can only mitigate my stance by saying that at the time I was thinking about those who most frequently get their posts moved or deleted and then spend hours and days trying to argue about whether or not their posts were really objectionable.
Unfortunately in trying to be rigid enough to keep delinquents in line I set up a situation in which it is all too easy to step on the toes of non-delinquents.
With all of that said and having looked over the Education thread I feel that you were not abusing your priveleges as host but that it would've caused less furor if you had warned first and then moved posts. 1352. wabbit - 4/4/2001 6:37:13 AM Sorry for not getting back sooner, I got home very late from work last night and have now just gotten home from work again (and I'm sure you're all so happy to know that).
I will add Jay's suggestion and repost in a bit.
MsIT, I don't know that it's possible to create hard and fast rules for behavior. It seems like the old argument about legislating morality. But if you can come up with a reworded version that you prefer, please post it so and everyone can make comments/contributions.
Cal,
I think the text in the original "Don't make posts that are needlessly abusive" covers the same thing but it doesn't specify "other posters" in a way that makes people expect more protection than we generally provide around here.
Frankly, I don't care how abusive people get of George W or Al Gore, hence the change, but I'm not married to it if people agree that it implies too much protection.
1353. arkymalarky - 4/4/2001 8:53:49 AM "...I'm not married to it if people agree that it implies too much protection."
I don't think it does. There's no reason people should feel like they can just unprovokedly slam someone repeatedly or dog them from thread to thread. It doesn't happen that much, but for people who don't tend to slap back they ought to at least feel they can reasonably avoid being intimidated and can enjoy being here.
In the Fray the constant hostilities that resulted from an initial set of conflicts and personality clashes and went on for months (years?) drained the entire forum at times. People who hated other posters, for whatever reason, would not let them post anything, no matter how innocuous, without diving in.
The statement gives a basis for dealing with such situations, though it may be redundant; I haven't read everything that closely. 1354. CalGal - 4/4/2001 8:58:27 AM Wabbit,
First, let me say that I think the work you've done on all this is great, and you know that I'm a nitpicky wonk, so take this for what it's worth.
The reason I like "needlessly abusive" alone:
1) it covers a situation when someone is doing something that I can't even possibly foresee, but is "abusive"--to the thread, the forum, the community, the world, whatever. For example, the reason I called for Ferguson's banning is because I think he is being needlessly abusive--even if it isn't directly to any one person.
2) To add "to other posters" could give the impression that it is there purely to protect everyone from meanness. And then you get into the whole hassle of defining mean. Leave out the specifics and it still covers posters, but they're only one protected class--the forum, the community, the world at large, the children, whatever, is included.
So the more generic statement covers posters still, if necessary, but doesn't specifically exist to protect posters.
I realize in advance this probably sounds stupid, but I always prefer rules to be broad, rather than narrow. Gives more room for maneuvering in all directions. 1355. arkymalarky - 4/4/2001 9:10:37 AM "So the more generic statement covers posters still, if necessary, but doesn't specifically exist to protect posters."
That makes sense. 1356. MsIvoryTower - 4/4/2001 9:25:25 AM For the record MsNo I didn't argue that Autodaffy had "abused" his privileges. I argued that the present lack of accountability on the part of hosts for their actions in deleting or moving posts encourages arbitrary and petty behavior.
These are not the same things in my book. The current rules encourage an atmosphere of arbitrariness. I disagree that hosts should be arbitrary. I disagree that they should have absolute control over the way discussions occur in their threads, and I disagree with this whole notion that they have to be bribed with the lure of personal power to step up to the task of hosting.
But then, I've been outweighed in this matter, so as far as I'm concerned, the issue is over. 1357. Jon Ferguson - 4/4/2001 1:31:30 PM Outweighed? Is that how things get decided around here? Well no wonder ... (g) 1358. MsIvoryTower - 4/4/2001 10:42:52 PM As I said in the regions above....
I would have said outvoted rather than outweighed, but it's been clearly stated that this place is not a democracy and thus voting doesn't matter.
I admit the term is merely an adequate substitute at best.
|
