|
1514. Ms. No - 4/12/2002 7:58:43 AM Wiz,
I don't know if you saw my Message # 1497 but I'm quite serious about it. Your comments on the issue at hand are welcome but random cheerleading and sniper shots are off topic. 1515. CalGal - 4/12/2002 7:58:53 AM Bubba,
No one else spams. There are only two people who have ever spammed the Mote more than once. One is Cellar, who does it only occasionally. The other is Jexster, who does it continuously.
Concerned doesn't spam. You just don't like his comments. So what? I don't move posts I disagree with. In fact, I don't even read Jex's posts enough to agree or disagree with the swill; I just read enough to determine whether they are spam and then I move them.
I don't much care whether you agree with me that Jex spams, provided that you stop misrepresenting the thread's purpose. It was not set up to exclude Jex. Indeed, he has 35 posts in the thread, which is more than anyone except me. Over seventy additional posts of his were moved to the Inferno. Seventy seven posts, I believe, to be a bit more exact. Had they been left there, Jexster's spam would be consuming over 30% of the posts in the thread.
And that is why the thread was set up. So that his garbage wouldn't consume 30% of the posts. 1516. Ms. No - 4/12/2002 8:00:49 AM I'd like to widen this up to discuss actual policy rather than focusing on a specfic poster but I feel that I do need to address this at least once.
Jex was warned about his behavior in Politics as well and took Jay's admonishment to heart refraining from the kind of posting that caused so many people to complain.
People keep talking about a personal vendetta, but what I see is that Jex is aware of what kind of posts were annoying people and he is capable of restraining that impulse if he so desires. He apparently does not so desire in Cal and Ducky's thread.
Neither Cal nor Ducky has asked that Jexter be suspended for failing to obey thread host instructions even though this is well within their rights.
We have very few rules here at theMote and we're really pretty permissive about even most of those, but blatant disregard for host authority and repeated antagonistic behavior isn't a protected right.
1517. bubbaette - 4/12/2002 8:34:01 AM No one else spams.
Cal, YOU spam. How many threads did you post that "wilding" photo in? Or maybe I'm just not up on the current Cal definition of spamming.
What makes it spam? Is it the posting of links? Or non-substantive posts? Most everything you moved was on-topic. Is spamming having too many posts by the same person in a thread? No, wait, that can't be it, because JC has a thread in which only he can post.
I have no issue whatsoever with Concern posting about whatever "concerns" him. It's just that when Concerned does what Jex does, it's not spam. I don't find Jex's posts particularly entertaining or enlightening, but that could apply to several other people as well. I don't often agree with what Jex says or how he says it, so that's not the reason for my speaking up about this. My issue is simple -- there has been no definition of what Jex does that makes his posts spam that doesn't apply to others. There have been no standards explicated that can be applied even-handedly across the board.
Ms. No
As for people keeping talking about a "personal vendetta", I haven't used that term, so don't let Cal put words in my mouth. I did say that it was based on a personal animus. Not that Cal doesn't bear a personal animus for many people on the mote -- hell, all you have to do to trigger it is to disagree with her.
So in my opinion (and you are certainly entitled to your own opinion) the discussion leading up to the creation of the Global Terrorism (and everything that JC has said with respect to Jex recently in the Israel and Palestine thread)has been motivated with the desire to shut Jex up. I would prefer that Jex control himself, but I deeply disagree with the way in which you are going about this mission. 1518. bubbaette - 4/12/2002 8:39:57 AM Anyhow, that's all I have to say about the subject. I said the essentially the same thing when the GT thread was created in the first place, so there's no need to keep repeating myself. Might be spamming. 1519. CalGal - 4/12/2002 8:49:04 AM How many threads did you post that "wilding" photo in?
Two. One, to announce it. The second time because it was relevant in regards to media bias. It was posted a week later when further stories came out.
And the very fact that you would call two posts "spam" in that instance is evidence that you're really stretching, toots.
What makes it spam?..My issue is simple -- there has been no definition of what Jex does that makes his posts spam that doesn't apply to others. There have been no standards explicated that can be applied even-handedly across the board.
Continual posts, over and over again, links not of opinion piece but minor reportage with a misleading title, play by play of trivial press conferences and CNN reports, random rants, no reference to others' posts, no hint that he reads others posts--he doesn't respond or reference them, as a general rule. He posted 25 posts in a row in less than an hour.
That's spam, Bubba. It is clearly definable, and no one else does it. You can insist otherwise, but that just puts your objectivity in question. I don't care whether you agree or not. People have been bitching about Jex's behavior for a long time--at least 18 months, probably longer.
As for your very nearly asinine distinction between animus and vendetta--my moving of Jex's posts is not based on personal animus. I don't dislike Jexster at all. I don't care about him one way or the other. My moving of his posts is based on a single goal: to provide a place to talk about a subject without his endless spasms. I doubt it will work, but it's worth a try. 1520. bubbaette - 4/12/2002 9:07:24 AM Continual posts, over and over again, links not of opinion piece but minor reportage with a misleading title, play by play of trivial press conferences and CNN reports, random rants, no reference to others' posts, no hint that he reads others posts--he doesn't respond or reference them, as a general rule.
Each of these sins is committed by others in the mote. I'll grant you, not as consistantly and not in the same volume. But each part of the above litany of sins requires a subjective reading that lends itself to censorship. That is my issue -- it is not a list of things that can be or is applied consistantly. 1521. Ms. No - 4/12/2002 9:48:55 AM Bubba,
You recognize that Jexter posts in a manner significantly different from all other posters with regard to consistancy and volume. If it is a recognizable difference then I'm not sure why you consider it inconsistent to enforce a policy which everyone else seems able to follow-----which Jexter himself has proven able to follow when he wishes to do so.
This is not a case of multiple posters engaging in a particular behavior for which only one of them is being criticized for. That would be inconsistent. This is a case of a single poster not following the guidelines of a thread.
Disagreeing with the guidelines of a thread is a completely different issue than accusing a host of inconsistent or unfair behavior. If people dislike the guidelines of a thread then they should vote with their feet. I've made that as easy for people to do as I possibly can. People who don't want to read Jexter's spam in I&P can participate in the Global Terrorism thread. People who dislike the absence of Jexter spam can participate in I&P. Those who have no preference may happily post in both.
1522. judithathome - 4/12/2002 12:48:10 PM I seriously doubt some of us can post happily in both or at least in Cal's thread because of stuff like this:
Concerned, please don't use such long anchor text, and provide the link without too much editorializing. You can editorialize right below (in the same post). And if all you're going to provide is links, I'd rather you put them all in one post.
She feels compelled to lecture people on How to post and What to post and what they SHOULD have said, etc. It is getting old.
You state: blatant disregard for host authority and repeated antagonistic behavior isn't a protected right. It certainly seems like antgonistic behavior by a host when one is constantly berated for the manner in which they post. It is the main reason I'm not posting in that thread. I look on it as saving Cal the extra work of having to either lecture me or send me to the Inferno. 1523. betty - 4/12/2002 1:18:30 PM Ms. No,
I think bubba is making a point that's being overlooked. We need to draw up clear guidelines of what Spam is. Twenty posts in a row, all of which are relevant and add perspective to a topic, doesn't seem like spam to me, it just seems like somebody's got a lot to say. And unless you want to hear endless bitching about the arbitrary way in which this seems to be enforced, there are going to have to be clear guidelines or free speech.
From Cal's definition of Spam there is a lot of gray and room for interpretation, we need to have a real definition adopted in our RoE or else hosts become cranky little dictators who are difficult to predict and can act on personal agendas. I'm not saying that it has happened yet but it sure feels that way from the hostility around here lately.
1524. concerned - 4/12/2002 1:35:37 PM I'm curious wrt registration. Are the issues which were discussed upthread still applicable? Or has the process been streamlined since then? 1525. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 4/12/2002 2:32:50 PM 1514. Ms. No - 4/12/02 11:58:43 PM
Wiz,
I don't know if you saw my Message # 1497 but I'm quite serious about it. Your comments on the issue at hand are welcome but random cheerleading and sniper shots are off topic.
Sorry, No -- I didn't see it [. . . and I'm glad!]. 1526. Julius Caesar - 4/12/2002 10:47:04 PM Let there be no mistake. I'm stunned it is even being debated. My services were offered to tame jexster. By any means necessary. When this town is burning, you give a holler. I'll ride in.
And I'm bringing Hell with me. 1527. wonkers2 - 4/12/2002 11:04:04 PM But who will play Cassius? 1528. rubberducky - 4/16/2002 2:48:36 AM i see no reason to leave this thread de-anchored.
CG has acted within the ROE. those that don't like don't participate - that's the way it works here.
reattach this thread to Suggestions and let it go. 1529. rubberducky - 4/16/2002 2:54:34 AM er...
don't like it, don't participate 1531. jexster - 4/18/2002 12:53:16 AM I am serving notice on everyone, that each and every time that Caligula moves an on topic post of mine from her so-called discussion thread, I will be heard from.
And she will not like what she hears.
Either a thread is open to all on a fair and equal basis or it should be open to none.
She removed the following from her "Bitch Fighting Thread" yesterday
What is Behind Bush's War Drive?
Will be the topic of a discussion at SFSU today
Unfortunately I will be in Housing Class doing battle with a representative of The Mother of the Axis of Evil.
However, thanks to Wiz's timely and excellent link of the Immanuel Wallerstein article from the LAT, I will be doing my part in the War Against Global Geopolitical Incompetence.
Thanks Wiz!
She started this.
I will end it.
1532. wabbit - 4/18/2002 12:56:40 AM No, you won't. You'll either learn to differentiate between an on-topic post and spam, or you will be getting longer and longer suspensions. The last ten posts of yours in the Fighting Global Terrorism thread are nothing but spam. You have the next few days off. See you Monday. 1533. Ms. No - 4/18/2002 2:47:59 AM RD,
Sounds good to me. Wabbit mentioned in Suggestions that she'd like to leave Policies up for another day and then re-anchor tomorrow. 1534. concerned - 4/18/2002 4:45:43 AM Looks like the Strangler missed, but Wabbit didn't.
Oooooooooh!:)
|
