|
1484. arkymalarky - 8/14/2001 8:56:11 AM My comment that there is no significant source from which to draw in new people is completely accurate. Please try to understand the basic concept that we need to bring in new people from the outside--that would be people who are not already reading us and wouldn't know jack squat what we were discussing and whether or not it was of interest. In addition, a mailout to try to prick the interest of those who have quit looking in, for whatever reason, might be helpful.
I have never been a bitcher about conditions in here. In fact, I've been an enthusiastic supporter of the forum from the beginning. I have posted my perception of what I have observed in recent weeks. You are free to disagree with my assessment, but your disagreement isn't good enough to make it invalid.
And yes my dear, you were, as usual, flattering yourself. The fact that 3/4 of your post was about you and what you think others think about you is proof enough of that without my bothering to point it out.
You made more than one reference to things you've said before in regards to me.
Where?
WRT JJ and MsGreer, I made a short list of regular posters who are no longer regular. Unlike you, apparently, I do not hang onto their every post and file away their reasons for being absent, or concern myself excessively about whether they were telling the truth. Yes, JJ and MsGreer said they were busy, but the fact remains that they were very regular and they're not any longer, and every loss of a regular poster, for whatever reason, hurts a forum this small.
1485. rubberducky - 8/15/2001 1:51:33 AM what we need to do is open up registration, people.
period.
this bit about people not getting (somewhat immediate) log-ins will be the death of this place. i like theMote and all, but would i wait days at a time for a log-in for a site with no content other than a poster forum? um, no.
i've said it before, give any and everyone provisional access until the gatekeeper can do whatever review needs to be done and give a pass/fail evaluation. it's that simple. that is the only thing that will facilitate new blood.
this has nothing to do with GJ or Diva wrt their gatekeeping abilities, but we are kidding ourselves if we think theMote is soooo important that we have to hamstring ourselves just to keep pests like Jon & caz out. frankly, given my druthers, i'd rather see both here causing a stink, because at least then there is something interesting to read and participate in.
enough already. imho, they've won a battle already in that we have a net loss in membership due to our over ... vigilance in this area.
i'd appreciate a moderator response as well as what other people think. 1486. mgleason - 8/15/2001 1:59:55 AM I agree with you, RD. Let 'em in, and throw 'em out after, if need be. 1487. janjon - 8/15/2001 2:08:04 AM that makes a great deal of sense. The how-good-is-your-pedigree-in-terms-of-becoming-the-WRONG-TYPE-of-irritant mentality is one of the major flaws of this place. 1488. seadate - 8/15/2001 3:04:09 AM I miss Fielding. 1489. JudithAtHome - 8/15/2001 3:16:46 AM Me, too. 1490. CalGal - 8/15/2001 3:49:17 AM I agree that we should open it back up; I thought the recent problem was due to a technical problem affecting email. If that has been resolved, then we should open it up asap. 1491. arkymalarky - 8/15/2001 5:51:56 AM I totally agree, RD. 1492. rubberducky - 8/22/2001 4:40:02 AM wabbit or Mrs Nuh-Uh:
any feedback re: my Message # 1485 1493. wabbit - 8/29/2001 11:55:08 PM Ducky,
I also thought this problem had been resolved. I'll check again. 1494. msgreer - 9/4/2001 2:17:55 AM It has been brought to my attention some folks believe I left the Mote because of Law School. That is not true. I did not leave theMote because of Law School and anyone who entertains that thought should know that is sheer fantasy. 1496. Ms. No - 4/12/2002 5:52:41 AM Ah, the Policies thread sees the light of day once again. Some important issues have been brought up and this is really the best place to address them. I'm going to be copying some posts here from other threads that address the current issue. If I miss a post that you feel was important, please let me know. I'm trying to get the salient points addressed rather than make a comprehensive list of every post that mentions anything about this subject, but if you feel I've neglected a distinct point please say so.
Now, on to business. 1497. Ms. No - 4/12/2002 6:00:26 AM Fair Warning:
I'm not feeling tolerant of any petty sniping. Keep the personal insults and cat-fighting outside of this discussion or find your posts moved.
1498. Ms. No - 4/12/2002 6:01:33 AM Reposted from The Inferno
12070. Absensia - 4/12/02 10:10:52 AM
Posts that Jex made to CG's thread re terrorism, appear to me to be on topic, and not "Jexster spam." I believe CG has a personal vendetta against Jexter and it seems evident now when Cal announced: "After two days of patiently moving out all of his garbage, he rarely posts there. I consider that a win."
If spamming's a problem, then I think Ms. No, Pelle or Wabbit should deal with it.
I don't thinking "winning" is what is supposed to be going on here.
In addition, I think sending on posts to the inferno when they are not personal attacks, or spamming, but are on point, sets a dangerous precedent. If it's up to the thread host to decide what they don't "like," then the Inferno will be about the only place people post.
Now apparently RP is allowing JC to act as a host in I&P to dump Jexster's posts or spam. And, a determination of spam is objective around here. Which host will be next, and whose posts will he or she send to the inferno.
12077. PelleNilsson - 4/12/02 12:19:40 PM
Absensia
the governors have punted to the thread hosts. IMO, the "governors" have not deal with this in any appropriate way
Two questions:
Do you want a more centralized governance of this forum?
In what way did "the governors" not deal with this in an "appropriate way" and what, in your opinion, would have been the "appropriate way"?
1499. Ms. No - 4/12/2002 6:04:01 AM 12084. Absensia - 4/12/02 1:20:49 PM
Yes, a real surprise, Wabbit...lol (Note from ms.no:This addresses the Motie, labwabbit, not the Moderator, Wabbit)
Pelle, your quote first came from JC and I quoted it and said I agreed that it has been punted.
As to your query,
1. Yes I would like to see a more centralized form of governance. Once that sets out clearly what are the b asic rules for moving posts, deleting them, and why. I for one think vicious personal attacks that occur over and over should be a basis for banning or suspension.
2. I think there are several instances: you deciding to delete certain threads and Ms. No putting them back; telling certain posters, in email, to just grow up and ignore a poster who makes repeatedly nasty personal attacks; setting up a thread when some one asks for it and claims it will take care of jexster. It looks as if anarchy is near. Leaving some decision to thread hosts is fine, especially with more concrete rules of engagement.
More......
1500. Ms. No - 4/12/2002 6:04:36 AM
12085. Absensia - 4/12/02 1:23:10 PM
I recommend that the governors talk to one another, perhaps by email, icq, or whatever, to decide such things as creating new threads, deleting old ones, who will be suspended or banned, if a poster feels another is personally attacking him/her in a mean and vicious manner, what role the governors should have, and how to deal with spammers as well as thread hosts who delete on topic posts. And, as I said above, be clear as to what is not tolerated in the Mote, as sent out in the r o e. For instance, if someone is spamming, and there have been a few who have done it, why not have the governors speak up and deal with it, rather appointing (by giving her a thread when Cal stated before she was given the thread, that her reason was to stop Jexster. And either today or yesterday she said she had "won" against Jexster. Cal's thread has some excellent posts and I am not attacking her. I think the "getting Jexster" if he is so bad, should be done by the governors.
As I said above, if this filling the Inferno with on topic posts continues, then we, as hosts, may decide that we should be "enforcers" as well, and delete or move posts of people we decide violate the rules of our threads?
As you asked a few days or so ago, why have a parallel thread?
I don't like censorship either, but if it's going to come, and sometimes it must, then I think it's something the governors should decide and then enforce.
I do understand you and the other governors donate your time, and it can be a real hassle, and I appreciate your efforts. I do think that you have "punted" in giving hosts almost unbridled authority to move or delete posts. It seems like it could end up as vigilante justice.
1501. wonkers2 - 4/12/2002 6:34:49 AM Here's a vote for laizzez faire--no bannings or suspensions and few deletions. I can't think of a single participant who doesn't add something to the forum. Tolerance for occasional off-topic posts or discussions. Personal insults discouraged and relegated to the Inferno. 1502. Ms. No - 4/12/2002 6:37:32 AM Re-posted from Suggestions
17382. Property of Jesus - 4/12/02 8:49:41 AM
For the record: I don't like this ganging up on Jexster that's happening in the political threads.
We are all born mad. Some remain so.
17385. bubbaette - 4/12/02 11:43:07 AM
As much as I hate to find myself agreeing with Rosetta Stone, I find myself agreeing with Rosetta Stone. What is being suggested to shut Jexter up cannot be expressed in any kind of standard that does not apply to other people's posts. He posts too many links? Many people post links here -- nobody's talking about moving or deleting their posts. His posts are inane? Puhleez -- if not being inane were a requirement, a large portion of forum would be deleted every day. He posts too many in a row? So do many other people. He's annoying and tedious? I give you Cal Gal. Show me one set of standards that you can use to shut Jexter up that you can apply even-handedly throughout the Mote.
17388. rubberducky - 4/12/02 12:28:49 PM
i agree with bubba wrt jex. i generally don't care for much moderation in threads. CG is doing a pretty good job in making a readable thread. it sucks that it takes one to ruin the batch, but that's the way these things go.
1503. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 4/12/2002 6:45:36 AM " . . . He's annoying and tedious? I give you Cal Gal."
LMAF! I loves ya bubbs! 1504. Ms. No - 4/12/2002 6:45:45 AM 17389. Absensia - 4/12/02 12:40:15 PM
I think a US foreign policy thread is a good idea...the topic is an important one, and doesn't really fit into International or the Global Terrorism thread, or American Politics. It's not just about what we are doing to other countries, but such things as who decides foreign policy, does foreign policy change much based on whether the president is a democrat or republian. What glaring problems have been made by the president or foreign policy officials, et al.
Ducks, it's not just one person who has "ruin[ed] the batch." imo.
17390. rubberducky - 4/12/02 12:52:39 PM
Abs:
i think it is, in this single, particular instance. i was this close to giving up hosting my own thread because even i didn't want to read it. endless links, goofy slams on Bush/GOP, constant CNN news updates and multicolored posts are fine for some people, i suppose, but not something i want to read very much of.
CG's doing a decent job with the hand she's been dealt. i may step down as co-host because it has mostly been a name only thing since the thread got rebooted anyway.
as with Politics, the thread is getting to be more trouble to read and participate in than it is worth.
|
 |
Go To Mote #
|
|
