|
490. dusty - 10/31/1999 3:00:41 AM Point 4 is too ambitous IMHO, but I'm open to proposals. 491. CalGal - 10/31/1999 3:30:56 AM 1. Pelle, as I mentioned in Suggestions, you have not established your basic premise--namely, that the "chat" is reaching problem levels. You can't discuss a policy solution until you establish that there is a problem that needs solved.
There is always going to be a small amount of off-topic discussion. To restrict it completely would be a pointless exercise. You are asserting that it has reached a significant proportion of the posts, and that is just simply not borne out by an analysis.
2. I suppose it depends on what you mean by a "series of digressions". If anyone thinks a thread is no longer addressing its topic at all, that person can suggest that it can be RIPed. The discussion can go from there. I'm not sure why you don't think this policy will work.
3. We can't control what people think. We can determine whether or not their conclusions are reasonable and whether or not we think changes are desirable to prevent them from reaching these conclusions--or even be effective in preventing them.
While we can control what people say, I've always believed that this should be kept to a minimum (personal info violations, for example). Declaring that queries about email receipts are verboten is far more restrictive than I ever imagined us becoming.
4. You seem to be suggesting that the thread hosts have done such a poor job that the Mote is disintegrating. I completely disagree, of course. Moreover, I don't think that hammering in the dire responsibilities of being a thread host is going to get us a lot of volunteers.
5. None of the above points were established to any degree of certainty and I think in many cases, you would get vehement disagreement. That being said, a thread host handbook is a good idea. But I don't see it covering the issues you raise. 492. PelleNilsson - 10/31/1999 4:41:01 AM Dusty
A note that PM should check his email for a query regarding a Taiwanese company would be less intrusive.
Agreed. Alternatively, one may assume that people do check their mail without having to be reminded in the Mote.
Point 4 is too ambitous IMHO, but I'm open to proposals.
Are you really referring to 4? 493. PelleNilsson - 10/31/1999 5:29:46 AM CalGal
You are reading too much into my posts, as shown by:
You seem to be suggesting that the thread hosts have done such a poor job that the Mote is disintegrating. I completely disagree, of course. Moreover, I don't think that hammering in the dire responsibilities of being a thread host is going to get us a lot of volunteers.
I do not suggest that, not even remotely. I have not talked about "dire responsibilities" or anything like that. But I do maintain that being a host entails something more than having your name under the thread title on the home page. Do you disagree with that?
And we are addressing this from different perspectives.
In my last posts, and in several earlier ones, I have tried to look at things from the newcomer's perspective. What would a newcomer expect to see when entering this place? What would attract newcomers? What would put them off? Please think about that when you read what I've said.
My proposal for guidelines for hosts should also be seen in this context. Suppose we get a newcomer who, it shortly transpires, knows a lot about a subject that interests the community. So, this person is invited to host a thread. Now, put yourself into his or her place. What would you like to know about being a host in the Mote? 494. CalGal - 10/31/1999 12:51:03 PM Pelle,
I do understand what you are trying to do. I don't think there is any consensus that a problem exists. 495. dusty - 11/1/1999 9:36:24 AM Pelle,
Yes, I did mean #4.
I think it is an admirable goal that all thread hosts act as conscientiously as you have done with your thread. But I think it is too much to suggest it as a minimum standard. In some threads, the host may let the discussion go where ever, and decide to get involved only to stop meltdowns. Who knows, maybe these threads might explore something interesting. Other hosts may want to keep a tighter rein, and affirmatively move things along when things are slow, and keep to the subject matter. I suspect I'd enjoy the second thread more, but others may prefer a more freewheeling discussion, and I'd like to accommodate the variety.
496. wabbit - 11/17/1999 6:53:06 AM Despite rampant misinformation and misconceptions to the contrary, god was never banned the first time around. His ID was suspended and he chose to leave in protest to the suspension.
Let me make something clear right now. Whatever personal relationships and/or encounters happen between posters, and they will happen, barring mutual and explicit consent to the contrary, I expect people to keep their personal information to themselves. Shit happens, we are all adults here, get over it. Keep private stuff private. I am personally not interested in chasing anyone around in order to delete posts which violate the RoE. I will ban anyone, and I mean ANYONE, who cannot conduct themselves in a manner in keeping with the RoE, which are there essentially to protect personal information. Do NOT reveal personal info about other posters and do NOT chase another poster around in order to harass them, and it is MY call as to what constitutes harassment. Period. No discussion. Am I insane? Maybe, but as long as I am moderator, I will enforce the RoE as best I can.
I am wabbit, hear me woar. 497. dusty - 11/17/1999 8:54:05 AM Thanks for the information. I was thinking "banned" but I missed the actual event, and saw only the echoes.
Just a technical question at the moment: the new name appears to be God. (with a period) as opposed to God (without a period). I was going to ask how he logged in under a suspended name, but I'm guessing this is a different name?
I thought we had some discussion about allowing (or not allowing) ids that are so close to an existing id that it would cause confusion. If we didn't, perhaps we should. Someone could mistake wabbit. for wabbit or vice versa.
498. wabbit - 11/17/1999 11:32:20 AM Dusty,
Yes, we did say that about ID's, but in this case since it is the same person using the virtually identical ID, I'm going to let it go. But just let someone try posting as "wabbit." and I will use the holy hand grenade of Antioch! 499. Dusty - 11/17/1999 9:35:08 PM Good point.
First counteth to three; not stopping at two, nor continuing on to four... 500. RosettaSTONE - 11/17/1999 9:54:03 PM Cat/God should have been banned for all the obscene spam he did one night in the Religious/Movies threads. If I remember, CalGal had to delete thirty or forty posts.
Something's very wrong with him if he lurks 24/7 at mote waiting for Jen to post.
501. Dusty - 11/19/1999 1:13:49 AM RosettaSTONE
I see nothing wrong with starting with a suspension. One strike banning is like the death penalty. Oh wait, you probably favor the death penalty. 502. RosettaSTONE - 11/21/1999 4:24:38 AM Wabbitt: God./catinthehat/moniker should be banned from the mote. You gave him his first serious warning on Sept. 14 in the playpen thread after he had brought up alleged personal information about Jenerator. That post was deleted so I don't know what he actually said, but you wrote: "Post #62 is out of bounds. One more like it, even in this thread, and you are gone."
Within days he came back to spam three threads with up to thirty obscene messages. They were also deleted. I thought that was the end to him until I finally figured out that he was moniker.
I think he is a stalker and is dangerous. 503. wabbit - 11/21/1999 7:48:08 AM RosettaStone,
We have reason to believe that God may not have been the poster spamming the threads that night. Steps were taken to prevent a recurrence of that kind of problem, specifically, requiring an ISP based email addrtess for registration. 504. Nostradamus - 11/23/1999 12:44:08 PM wabbit
Yes, I also post as RosettaStone and moniker. Please ban those 2 handles from the mote immediately. I won't be using them anymore. 505. Nostradamus - 11/23/1999 12:53:53 PM In fact, I save my most outrageous, disruptive and asinine posts for my RosettaStone handle, as any discriminating person can tell. Perhaps if it were obliterated, I could be known as the sane and well-adjusted motie exemplified by my Nostradamus handle. 506. RosettaSTONE - 11/24/1999 2:44:31 AM wabbit: Is it appropriate for the moderator of the Spiritual Issues thread to change its heading? He/she has done it three times today-- calling it the WHAAATEVER ISSUES, CHRISTIAN HATRED and PHILOSPHY.
Clearly he/she is starting to freak out, again. What in the world were you thinking when you named him moderator? 507. wabbit - 11/24/1999 8:21:05 AM Nostradamus, please stop.
Rosetta, what I was thinking was that Nostradamus would be a good moderator for the thread. I cannot keep track of every duplicate ID, though the requirement of an ISP based email address makes that easier now. I am unaware of any problems in the Spiritual Issues thread prior to today (other than the usual heated arguments that have always taken place there). As I said in the Suggestions thread, I prefer not to interfere in how moderators run their thread, but I will if it becomes necessary. 508. RosettaSTONE - 11/23/1999 9:25:35 PM I can not believe that you allowed a stalker, a spammer and a woman abuser to be the moderator of mote's Spirtual Issues thread. Are you mad?
Who knew of this and when? I'm disgusted with how much damage one person can do to this forum. 508. Nostradamus - 11/24/1999 1:50:54 AM I didn't know you were a spammer and a woman abuser too, Rosetta. But you're clearly a bit delusional since nobody's made you moderator of the SI thread. 508. dusty - 11/24/1999 3:03:17 AM AceofSpades
I'm a bit confused, and a bit torn.
I thought "God" was banned.
Nope
Per wabbit:
Despite rampant misinformation and misconceptions to the contrary, god was never banned the first time around. His ID was suspended and he chose to leave in protest to the suspension.
See Message # 496 in thread 39
Perhaps you are confused because you see posts with God. as a moniker? So was I until I noticed the period after the name. Also a subject of discussion in Policies. 508. Nostradamus - 11/24/1999 7:05:16 AM Don't be such a melodramatic fuck, Lucky. Nobody 'invited you to leave', you were simply reminded you were under no obligation to stay. 508. Lucky - 11/24/1999 7:06:01 AM I won't, sir. 508. Mr.Right-O - 11/24/1999 6:17:17 AM Let me get this straight.
The person, who caused all the problems for The Mote the first two weeks of its existance because of his arrogant choice of a name and the fact that he decided to share his side of a failed romance with a former member, never left?
Instead of being expelled or suspended, he came back under another name to insult your religious thread teacher--and then became the host of the spirtual thread?
Am I missing something? 508. Lucky - 11/24/1999 7:04:00 AM God just invited me to leave the "Spiritual Issues" thread because I questioned his ejection of RosettaStone. I don't know who any of these posters are and am not sticking up for anyone out of friendship; I just did not see a good enough reason for ejection in any of Stone's recent posts in that thread. That is the key phrase -- IN THAT THREAD. Criticism and dislike expressed? Yes. Over the top material worthy of ejection? No. I don't think that a thread moderator should eject someone due to conflicts that have happened in other threads or (especially) other fora, as this seems to be the case. That is an abuse of power IMO. 508. Lucky - 11/24/1999 7:17:28 AM BTW, I don't appreciate being called a "fuck", God. 508. Nostradamus - 11/24/1999 7:18:20 AM Then stop acting like one, shooter. 508. Lucky - 11/24/1999 7:22:14 AM Heehee. The Mote has Harry Rutland/Pym in charge of moderating a thread. 508. dusty - 11/24/1999 7:23:42 AM Good grief, I just finish telling Lucky how few incidents we have had, and I'm seeing one occur.
Nostradamus, did you really ban RS from the thread, or was that just bluster?
I read back a few posts and saw no justification for it, but I don't follow the thread closely, so I'm keeping an open mind.
508. Mr.Right-O - 11/24/1999 8:02:42 AM Will someone in authority please answer my question? 508. pseudoerasmus - 11/24/1999 8:04:22 AM A host can ban people from the thread? How??? 508. Nostradamus - 11/24/1999 8:05:51 AM You say 'You're banned.' and PRESTO! 508. wabbit - 11/24/1999 8:13:43 AM Mr. Right-O,
Your questions:
1) Evidently so.
2) Incorrect. God was suspended, as has already been explained. The ID Nostradamus was already registered at that point. As to the changing of hosts for the Spiritual thread, I do not recall the acrimony that some here have implied existed. 508. wabbit - 11/24/1999 8:16:16 AM Nostradamus,
Not quite. While I would rather not interfere in how individual moderators run their threads, I will if I think the moderator position is being abused. 508. Mr.Right-O - 11/24/1999 8:18:21 AM This person will all the different names and the foul mouth was your choice to be the moderator of your Spiritual Issues thread?
Goodbye, Mote.
508. wabbit - 11/24/1999 8:25:50 AM Mr. Right-O,
It was decided early on that anyone who expressed an interest in moderating a thread should be given the opportunity to do so. Further, prior to our requirement of an ISP based email address for registration, it would not have been possible for me to know whether Nostradamus was a duplicate ID. It seems to me that until the revelation of his identity the thread was running pretty much as it usually does. 508. RosettaSTONE - 11/24/1999 9:31:00 AM I'm not banned from the religious thread and no post has been deleted.
509. Nostradamus - 11/24/1999 1:56:02 PM As far as what the thread I host is called, I believe that's up to me (perhaps, 'within reason') and none of my alternate titles included profanity or vulgarity. But if somebody's decided that wabbit decides all thread titles, let me know and I won't play with it again.
|
