|
164. Ace of Spades - 9/18/1999 7:34:10 AM
I dunno. I resent heavy-handed, relentless on-topicality. "Taking things elsewhere" generally kills them. A lot of silly fun was had in Irv's old suggestion thread, and when we "took it someplace else," it ended.
I agree that Hosts should try to keep threads from getting consumed by a minority of posters who are ruining the threads for everybody else. But "Scabby Ho's" posts the other day were NOT ruining anything for anybody. Her posts were brief; they didn't slow anything down; they weren't graphic. They WERE off-topic, but being off-topic shouldn't be a reason for deleting or going to the PlayPen--unless it gets out of control and actually hurts the thread.
Scabby Ho's posts didn't do either of those things. The decision to delete them was heavy-handed. People need to breathe. Relentless on-topicality can get stifiling. 165. CalGal - 9/18/1999 7:36:04 AM Ace,
As I said, we're in agreement. So the issue is what Arky thinks about it. I'd hate to see her not host, but it might be tough to figure out a way to limit vocabulary. 166. arkymalarky - 9/18/1999 7:57:19 AM Cal has it about right wrt the way I see it. Ace, you make me laugh more than about anybody here, though we have some hilarious folks. Uzzmak can come in a close second, for some reason. His post in Webfeet's thread (yesterday, I think) absolutely cracked me up. For me, if it was extremely graphic, I wouldn't want my name attached as hosting the thread. The balloons and stuff like that is silly, but to me what Wabbit put in the Playpen from the Politics thread crossed the line to what I would call too graphic. The abusive nature of some of the other posts there was, too. Nothing Scabby Ho said was anything much to me, though if very much of it was in certain threads it would be, imo. Some of the ugly, hostile language in the Playpen provides a good example of what I wouldn't feel comfortable hosting (not considering the deleted posts), but I don't think anyone expects that to be tolerated in any thread. Otherwise it would completely derail any chance of an on-topic discussion. You know how stuff went on and on in the Fray, getting more and more vulgar, even if it was funny, to the point it prevented anyone who wanted to discuss a political topic seriously from being able to do so. That kind of extended stuff should go to the PlayPen, imo. 167. God - 9/18/1999 3:41:56 PM Eventually the Mote must decide on the issue of term limits for thread hosts. I suggest a 3 month term. But with or without term limits, if this forum is to thrive, there must be some accountability of hosts to Moties, particularly of those hosts who are prone to overreact and power-trip, offending newbies and alienating current Moties in the process.
I will give 2 examples. Other people may have other examples. I do not pretend that these are the only 2 examples of host abuse, but I believe they are clearcut. Nor do I expect hosts to be 'perfect', but these 2 instances are so far from perfect that they truly left me scratching my head.
In Religion, Lucky posted that he had killed an intruder who held him at gunpoint while he (the intruder) raped Lucky's wife.
I made a post describing what I would do if that horrible situation ever happened to me an in it I used profanity. This is the only time (to the best of my recollection) that I've used profanity in that thread and certainly the only one of more than a dozen posts I made that day in which I used profanity. Subsequently, bloodnfire deleted my post and made the following post:
'Lucky. Of course I did not include you. We have all been moved by your sad experience, and I respect your attitude.
I was referring to the gratuitous profanity which is unnecessary in any thread, most certainly in the Spiritual Issues thread.
My experience is that those who use foul language for shock value do so because they lack the ability to express themselves in plain English. Also because dirty hearts send up from the well that which we all are forced to see in the bucket. (Until the bucket is emptied, of course. Fortunately, that is a privelege I enjoy as host).
Whoever is using the name 'god' in this thread should refrain from the profanity if he or she wishes to continue posting.'
168. God - 9/18/1999 3:48:03 PM I find this attitude reprehensible and unacceptable in a forum of ideas such as this. For me not to be able to use profanity to describe how I'd feel if the most horrifying imaginable event happened to me and my family is, of course, ridiculous.
I feel that although bloodnfire is probably a decent enough guy, he is far too straight a shooter to deal with the atheists on the Mote and should step down. It is not fair to the atheists that we don't have a thread where we can openly discuss our feelings on such matters.
169. God - 9/18/1999 3:50:24 PM Sorry, when I say 'too straight a shooter' I misused the term. I meant something like 'conservative, inflexible, rigid, orthodox, intolerant'.
I like straight shooters.
170. God - 9/18/1999 3:51:24 PM The other moderator who clearly needs to take a remedial class on hosting is CalGal. Witness the following exchange between her and Phoenix:
PR
Great story, Cell.
I haven't seen the film, but I have been in love in the middle of the Pont Neuf. So I relate.
Is the hostess ignoring us or is it her oft stated distaste for films with subtitles?
CG
Actually, you couldn't find even one post where I say I don't like subtitles. You could find several posts where I express my disdain for dubbing.
I don't think it's required that I join every conversation. I've been reading it with interest. To say nothing of the fact that I've got a GUI to build.
And stop being nasty. You are violating the tone of the thread. When speaking to or of other Mote member, "snide" is completely disallowed. As are "bitchy", "catty", and "obnoxious".
All such emotions should be directed at movie stars and very bad TV shows. The occasional critic.
Heat, sarcasm, impatience, and arrogance are the allowable negative emotions when in the midst of passionate movie debates.
I trust this is clear. I believe that the Mote Cafe and the Playpen allow the emotions you wish to express.
PR
'"snide" is completely disallowed. As are "bitchy", "catty", and "obnoxious".
Heat, sarcasm, impatience, and arrogance are the allowable negative emotions when in the midst of passionate movie debates. '
Gee, I wonder what the difference is.
No, wait. I am smart enough to figure this out: If Phoenix says it, it is snide and obnoxious. If GalGal says it, it is just impatience.
I can see I am not long for this world.
CG
You are still being nasty, Phoenix. Please take it to the appropriate thread.
171. God - 9/18/1999 3:51:34 PM PR
Actually a legitimate question. What is the difference?
CG
Phoenix,
I am worn out with policy discussions, so I'm going to leave it as it is and not get drawn into this.
I will leave it with this:
Example of the first: See the last sentence of #203. Not related to movies, unpleasant, and gratuitous. And then there's the small point that it was inaccurate.
Example of the second: "What are you, insane? Who the hell thinks those kids died of natural causes!! Were you actually watching the damn movie, or were you distracted in a search for a cherry-flavored Starburst?"
That is the last post I will make on the subject. No response necessary; take it elsewhere.
PR
As I suspected.
Truly sorry that you don't recognize how offensive you are to "newbies".
Good luck with your forum. And I mean that in all sincerity. 172. God - 9/18/1999 3:55:07 PM As, I believe, any fair minded reading of this suggests, Phoenix made a completely innocuous post and Cal chose to read something into it for whatever reason. Then she proceeded to power-trip on his head.
This left him feeling disempowered, frustrated, and unwilling to continue here (not saying he won't be back, but he won't forget this incident anytime soon, I'd bet.)
I'd appreciate any feedback on this issue. 174. ChristinO - 9/18/1999 4:50:56 PM For those interested I did not delete the post in the Mote Cafe. I did not even see it. I received word that the post had been deleted by Wabbit and I trust her judgement on such matters so as far as I am concerned the matter is closed. 175. God - 9/18/1999 5:43:45 PM Wabbit, what's going on? You seemed like a reasonably courteous person when you emailed me and now you delete my posts without comment or explanation either here or by email. If you wish be to reasonable, you must act in good faith. And I fail to see how you can possibly ban me from asking a fellow Motie to email me. I do not wish this to get ugly, but I assure you, I will not allow this ridiculous abuse of power to stand. 176. God - 9/18/1999 5:44:28 PM Sorry. 'wish me to be reasonable ...' getting late here. 177. pellenilsson - 9/18/1999 6:44:53 PM In #169 G uses the terms 'conservative, inflexible, rigid, orthodox, intolerant' to describe bloodnfire. That is a long, long way off the mark. But he does not like profanity and does not want to see it in his thread which I find quite reasonable. We have agreed not long ago that hosts must have the freedom to set the tone of the thread.
It is also unfair to allege that bloodnfire should oppose participation of atheists in the thread. He has repeatedly made it clear that everyone is welcome. And several atheists, including myself, do post there.
You have to realise, G, that the universal purpose of the threads here is not to create room for your specific attitudes or your peculiar means of expressing yourself. If you cannot comment on a post in Spiritual without using language that is objectionable there, then don't comment. Or copy the post in question (you are good at that) and comment on it elsewhere.
I'm now going to copy this post into Spiritual and then take a walk in the sun. 178. alistairconnor - 9/18/1999 10:44:00 PM As you will have noticed if you are reading this (I hope), I have implemented this "private thread" business. I see it as good for policy discussions, hosting seminars, etc, and also a good damage control mechanism for meltdowns. I would personally "privatize" a thread fairly early in the meltdown process, if I were a thread host.
The possibilities for a thread host are enhanced, without the slightest hint of censorship. 180. JayAckroyd - 9/19/1999 12:13:52 AM msg 178
I like the solution a lot, so much I'm not gonna bitch about the fairly unilateral process that led to it.
Would like to know what ExGod did to get banned. 181. JayAckroyd - 9/19/1999 12:31:28 AM On host tenures and thread terms, let people vote with their feet. When a thread has been inactive for 48 hours, it's on tenterhooks. 96, gone.
Or something like that.
182. KuligintheHooligan - 9/19/1999 1:08:58 AM Um, just peeking my head in here, and don't I ALREADY see a violation of the rule to get into this room with #177, ie, no mention of the goings on of this thread in the general threads?! 183. arkymalarky - 9/19/1999 1:34:46 AM No, not since the issue was from the Spiritual Issues thread to begin with. There's no new information that Pelle has brought from this thread outside it. 184. Eccletier - 9/19/1999 1:48:17 AM If I may ask, it is not very clear who is in charge of this community you have. Say if somebody in a conversation I was with told something about me to the others could I complain to Wabbit (host?) or would it Ace of Spades, who i think of a policy person here? How do you tell an authorty person you are concerned about soemthing?
Thank you.
Fanton 185. Ace of Spades - 9/19/1999 1:53:02 AM
Ecc:
You would complain to Wabbit or the Host of whatever thread you're in.
You would not complain to me. I am not a policy person. If I were a policy person I wouldn't have bothered writing thousands of words on policy. I would have just done what I wanted.
|
