|
142. God - 9/18/1999 3:36:37 AM I don't think you have any business hosting a thread if you expect different behavior (be it vulgarity-level or whatever) than what was experienced in the Fray in the same thread.
143. God - 9/18/1999 3:41:09 AM Well, that's not exactly right, you can expect whatever the hell you want, but if you don't think you've be willing to TOLERATE the same type of behavior, you shouldn't host. 144. Ace of Spades - 9/18/1999 3:43:46 AM
Ark:
We can debate this, but before we go changing the character of Politics, I WOULD like to debate it, rather than simply change it because you're not comfortable with it. We COULD always get a different host. I don't mean that disrespectfully; I just mean that if you and Politics are a bad fit, Politics shouldn't be the thing we change with debating that first.
I'm not saying politics should be a profanity-fest. But I am suggesting that we never discussed toning it down from the Fray, and I think we ought to discuss that first if that's what you want to do. 145. arkymalarky - 9/18/1999 3:59:26 AM I know, Ace. I'm not at all offended. I didn't offer to cohost, though I'm glad to do it. And I'm not referring to the typical political mudslinging or dirty words, but stuff that goes way beyond that. I feel like I should talk with 109 about it and he's not available right now, I don't think. One possibility is that I could just help him out where he needs it and he could be sole host with all the decision-making wrt guidelines that goes along with it. 146. Ace of Spades - 9/18/1999 4:17:18 AM
Incidentally, we now have "Son of God" here in addition to "God." What's next?
The "scads of offensive handles" which would NEVER show up here seem to be beginning to show up. 147. God - 9/18/1999 4:52:43 AM Ace
Wasn't it you who was making fun of Res' unnecessary wordiness yesterday? Talk about blatant hypocrisy. Diarrhea mouth. 148. Ace of Spades - 9/18/1999 6:23:48 AM
Incidentally, Arky, we can have a debate about whether Politics should be toned down, if you like. Just because I assumed it wouldn't be much toned down certainly doesn't mean we can't change it. I'd just prefer an actual debate and majority agreement before that happened.
I'd argue for keeping it at about the level it was over in the Fray, but I'm sure people may disagree. 149. CalGal - 9/18/1999 6:28:42 AM Some comments on the policy debate:
The decision should not be left up the "victim". Very bad idea. I can't tell you how angry and upset I was over the information being posted--especially when I realized how much more explicit it had been than I originally thought. Should she have been banned? I don't know. What I do know, is that if she'd been banned at my request, it would have made everything much worse. That pressure overrode any personal considerations I might have.
Was I "cowed"? (a dreadful word) I don't know. I can say safely that I felt the results of my requesting a ban would have been far worse than doing what I did. I do not need the kind of shit that would have been dealt.
I don't think that any "victim" should have to deal with that. There are always people who will sneer and say that someone "deserved" it or did something to upset the offender, or somehow participated in the act.
Also, leaving it up to the "victim" creates a potential for considerable inequity.
No. Let it be up to the "judge".
I also think the standard should be as objective as possible. I like Ace's suggested change from "malicious" to "intentional".
150. arkymalarky - 9/18/1999 6:35:08 AM How I'd feel about it as a participant and how I'd feel as someone who shares some responsibility of hosting is different. As a participant I just scroll past, or whatever, and would always accept the decision of the moderator. My view on censorship is that anything that is maliciously directed at or meant to inflame a particular poster or type of poster (as in racial slurs, etc) should be verboten. I think people who set out to cause trouble with those methods should not be tolerated. The rest I don't have much opinion on, though if extreme vulgarity permeated the forum as a whole I would find somewhere else to be. That's a non-issue, though, imo. 151. arkymalarky - 9/18/1999 6:36:36 AM Sorry, 150 was to Ace's 148. I agree with Cal, though. 152. Ace of Spades - 9/18/1999 6:47:29 AM
Cal:
Well, I only suggested the "victim" thing because the victim can always ask for clemency, so the victim's willingness to do so will be a factor.
And, you know, I want to get away from what will inevitably happen: The supporters of the violater will claim that it wasn't "intentional," and the supporters of the aggrieved party will claim it was. To cut through that inevitable shitstorm, I thought maybe we should give the victim's thoughts on the offense some weight.
But it was just a thought. Didn't really think it through.
I would be personally disgusted, however, if someone who makes these decisions ended up "believing" some implausible story the violator tells and thereby letting the violator off the hook. We know how it works: One need only claim "It wasn't clear, yadda yadda yadda" and suddenly we're talking about warnings again.
I don't know how to avoid that. I think that's why all along I've favored a group making these most-important decisions, rather than a single person. 153. Ace of Spades - 9/18/1999 6:54:22 AM
I also think that people are more willing to take unpleasant, but necessary, action in groups.
If it's up to just one person, a person may tend more to feel the weight of the decision on his shoulders, and may err on the side of mercy too much. The whole "Who am I to judge?" thing, the feeling of "How can I impose this penalty on someone?"
Whereas with a group voting, the responsibility is more diffuse, and people will more likely decide what it is right, rather than simply taking the convenient, tempting "let me just let them go and let God sort out the consequences" route. They know the unpleasant thing won't come to pass UNLESS a majority of the group is also convinced. That's why we have juries. 154. CalGal - 9/18/1999 6:55:05 AM In the fray, I only know of one person who did it, and he did it maliciously to hurt someone. He got banned. He immediately came back under another name and he did it again with much gusto. He got banned again. Supposedly he came back again as someone else, but he didn't do the name placing again. I think, in this case, the system worked.
He not only didn't do the name-placing, he didn't identify himself as that Fraygrant. It was fairly clear who he was, but he never made any reference that pegged him beyond doubt. Had he done so, I think (but don't know) that he would have been banned again. I think that would be the correct response. Leaving him there until he identified himself--or did something to warrant banning--was also the correct response.
And actually, I think that's okay. At that point, the person can't act identify him or herself (without being banned), can't refer to past history that would identify him or her, can't really be that abusive (being that he wouldn't get any further chances)--in short, they won't be able to either re-engage or be "themselves", so to speak.
So if he or she is a productive poster within those limitations and the Mote has no confirmed knowledge of their identity, I think that's a situation that can be lived with.
I hope understanding and acceptance of this (which seems to be the only possible policy we could have) will enable us to avoid the accusation fests that used to occur whenever a newbie didn't meet someone's approval.
155. CalGal - 9/18/1999 6:58:25 AM Re: Politics.
Just my opinion--I think the part about turds can probably go elsewhere. Also the rape/prison stuff? Balloons up one's ass?
I might be wrong, but I think that's what Arky is referring to. Since that generally turns into a "riff" of sorts, anyway, I don't think it'd be too terrible to send that to a different thread. 156. Ace of Spades - 9/18/1999 7:10:00 AM
Cal:
Well, other people may be annoyed by stuff like that, but I enjoy it, as long as it's not extreme and as long as it's funny.
The "balloons up my ass" thing WAS funny, and it wasn't graphic. If you're going to kick out that kind of post, Politics is going to suck.
My opinion, you understand. Technically, Cal, we should never have gone on and on with that riff on Elliot and television shows providing moral lessons. But that was funny stuff, and YOU enjoyed it.
So it's in the eye of the beholder. I'm sure that my "witticisms" are thought of like that by many people-- with quotes around it, indicating annoying and not funny. On the other hand, some people do think it's funny. If you wouldn't have censored your television riff on Elliot, it's really not consistent to censor my balloon riff. Then you're just judging on the basis of "Do *I* get a kick out of it?"
The standard must be more objective than that. Extreme, graphic shit, sure, delete that. But a censor can't start deleting non-graphic "prison bitch" stuff only on the basis that he or she doesn't think it's funny.
Besides, when you're joking like that, you don't keep it up if it's not funny. Even on-line, you can tell if it's playing or not. When VonKreedon makes a point of saying, "This is not funny. Move on," I generally stop. 157. Ace of Spades - 9/18/1999 7:12:21 AM
Unless, of course, I know in my HEART it's SUPERFUNNY, and VonKreedon just isn't capable of getting it. But that's a rare case.
And you know, folks, when it all comes down to it, that's who I do this for. That's what makes me the hardest working man in show business: VonKreedon.
It's all for VonKreedon. 158. CalGal - 9/18/1999 7:18:14 AM Technically, Cal, we should never have gone on and on with that riff on Elliot and television shows providing moral lessons. But that was funny stuff, and YOU enjoyed it.
Oh, agreed. But that exchange and ones like it were the reason that Irv created the Playpen, if you recall. Because the stuff was funny and it was still off-topic.
If it wasn't clear, "riffs" is when all pretense of political discussion stops and it moves into sheer fun and games. Which, I agree, is very funny.
I wasn't judging anyone at all. I was just wondering if the compromise was all that huge. 159. Ace of Spades - 9/18/1999 7:21:48 AM
And, of course, stuff should be deleted/moved if it goes on an on and consumes the thread.
But brief posts like "I have a plethora of pretty balloons up my ass" which don't consume more than a line of text? Is that going to be censored on the theory that it's off topic, whereas scads of other off-topic posts are allowed? Is it going to be deleted simply because it mentions "balloons" and "ass" in uncomfortable proximity?
If it isn't any more off-topic than dozens of other posts, if it doesn't slow down the thread any more than dozens of other posts, if it doesn't consume the thread, if it's not graphic and extreme-- there's no reason to delete it, just because you don't like it. 160. Ace of Spades - 9/18/1999 7:23:27 AM
Cal:
Extended gags that go on and on and overtake the thread should be deleted and moved, no question. But that's ALWAYS been the standard. We've never had a standard that you'd be forced to go to the PlayPen just because you engage in three or four quick "prison bitch" jokes with Cartman. 161. CalGal - 9/18/1999 7:24:46 AM . If you wouldn't have censored your television riff on Elliot, it's really not consistent to censor my balloon riff.
Missed this. This was before the Playpen, too. I would now take it to the Playpen.
So there are two different issues:
- off-topic playing of any sort, whether graphic or not
- graphic and unpleasant posts.
I wonder if Arky minds the occasional graphic post, or if she would just say, "Okay, knock it off now", and then want a place to send it if the riff gets non-political, regardless of the nature of the posts? (which, however, usually involve the people who also get a tad graphic in their humor, so the overlap is significant.)
|
