|
791. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 8:06:27 AM Oh, yes, and after further musing I now support Seguine's call to further restrict abuse. It seems workable to me. I'd like, though, for us to get a real consensus on what is tolerable and what is actually beneficial and what is just useless abuse. We could then establish a benchmark. After that I'd leave it up to the thread hosts and the moderator, with the understanding that their judgment is to be the final court in their own thread unless the moderator decides it is so lopsided that the host is not promoting a good environment for debate. I of course favor a different means of chopping out abuse, but as it stands there isn't enough support in the Mote now for it, so this seems the second-best option. Note that this would entail more work for the staff, and none for us, so they should get heavy say in it. 792. alistairConnor - 2/21/2000 8:27:27 AM personal info should not be used to harass or abuse.
I think this would be an excellent addition to the rules of the road. Information that is freely consented in friendly exchanges is completely out of place when brought up in a hostile exchange, and can be very wounding. Just imagine doing that in real life! Although the analogy with real life is obviously faulty, most people would find it pretty offensive to be the object of this, both on line and in real life. 793. ChristinO - 2/21/2000 8:38:46 AM Angel,
I did not understand that you disagreed with any part of her claims. Thank you for clarifying. 794. ChristinO - 2/21/2000 8:43:16 AM Alistair,
Sounds good to me although I think it may be a bit tricky. Does this mean we can no longer tease Niner about his llama obsession? 795. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 9:04:22 AM The one thing I don't want to see come of the rule change is a massive increase in the amount of whining that people are abusing them with references to their personal information. (Of course, I'd rather everything just be out in the open, but like I said if that won't fly then I'd prefer this).
That might be like wishing for Christmas to come three times a year but anything we could do to minimize the frivolous complaint factor would be good -- like a strong statement from staff supporting the decision to let hosts judge within their own threads until it becomes apparent that someone is playing heavy partisan politics in who they delete and who they do not. If it ever does -- after all, the decision to give thread hosts a free hand has by and large turned out very well for the forum. 796. CalGal - 2/21/2000 9:19:40 AM Alistair,
Information that is freely consented in friendly exchanges is completely out of place when brought up in a hostile exchange, and can be very wounding. Just imagine doing that in real life!
Actually, I think it's entirely analogous to real life, and it happens there all the time. That's pretty much how it works.
Angel says:
The one thing I don't want to see come of the rule change is a massive increase in the amount of whining that people are abusing them with references to their personal information.
Which is precisely what I mean when I say it is unenforceable.
797. CalGal - 2/21/2000 9:25:36 AM Abuse is off-limits, and we leave ourselves the ability to define the terms. Any egregious use of personal information is covered there anyway.
For example, if someone mentioned that they were ill or had disease, someone who mentioned that in a discussion--or for no reason at all--could be considered abusive if Wabbit determined it was hurtful or cruel.
But I'm not sure that anyone who both says they have a disease and that they are in favor of single payer health care should be able to complain if someone points out they may be biased. It might not be fun to experience, but I'm not sure that it's off-limits in and of itself. 798. CalGal - 2/21/2000 9:31:04 AM Angel,
I do agree with something else Seguine stated about CalGal's manner at the time, but this isn't the place to get into that
This is the sort of comment that makes all your disavowals pointless.
My questions were to you, and they centered on your own statements. Please try to understand that, because I think it's key. They weren't about you personally, they weren't about decisions you made, they weren't about Alistair or Wabbit or Irv or JJ or Jay or Indiana or anyone else at the helm.
My statements were answers based on what had been decided at the time. You were saying loudly and clearly that you didn't like the decisions made, Angel.
I'm not taking back the "open letter". You made it clear you didn't approve, as did Seguine. At that point, I cease to become the person to answer your concerns.
799. wabbit - 2/21/2000 9:39:31 AM I'm putting this thread on the front page so those who may not know of its existence will be able to participate in the discussion.
fwiw, I didn't email everyone regarding the writing of the RoE because I thought anyone who was interested in helping already knew, and because I just didn't have the time. I have no better excuses than those.
800. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/21/2000 9:48:33 AM I'm not in favor of putting this thread on the main page, since it is a thread for wonks and doesn't present our best face to newcomers and lurkers... people we are hoping to attract to this forum. I can't see the advantage of this move, and I hope it doesn't hurt the forum. I didn't see a groundswell of support for putting it on the main page.
Anyone interested in policy issues has already found their way here. Most participants, imo, are interested only in participating in an interesting forum, and don't want to know how the sausage is made.
As for the RoE, the answer is quite simple. Anyone who doesn't like the way things are worded can draft a new version and present it here for discussion. The original version was drafted quickly, to fill a need, and we could only gain by revisiting the rules. Endlessly revisiting the original process doesn't move us forward. 801. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 9:51:21 AM Message # 798 Whatever, CalGal. You can't admit when you're wrong, can you?
You announced at first that 'everyone' agreed on the Mote RoE, and had to be taken to task on that. And then you said that it was too much trouble to email everyone, and you were taken to task on that. If you can't differentiate between your own defenses of what others did and their reasons for what they did, you'd best stop addressing the topic.
Fini. 802. PincherMartin - 2/21/2000 9:52:46 AM Endlessly revisiting the original process doesn't move us forward.
Here, here!
803. CalGal - 2/21/2000 9:53:34 AM The reason we created the policies thread was because of the problems it caused by putting these discussions on the front page. I realize that Wabbit put it on the front page to answer the accusation that things are done by sneaky back-room manuevering--and at that point, the whole thing becomes very tiring.
I had developed a two page format that will put Policy and Suggestions on a second page, which should help. 804. dusty - 2/21/2000 9:55:53 AM I've seen two references to an "open letter". Can someone clarify? 805. ChristiPeters - 2/21/2000 9:57:17 AM OK, I've waded through today's posts. Now I'll say my piece, then I've got to go do the laundry.
1. I, too, made my comments and opinion known regarding the ROE at the time they were first drawn up/drafted/decided on (you pick your favorite term).
2. If IRL information about me were revealed on The Mote, I would quit.
3. If it was required that I use my IRL name and make available IRL info on me in order to participate on The Mote, I would not participate. (I know I haven't been participating much, but I really do intend to come back after things settle down at my new position.)
4. It would be nice if people were not allowed to use personal info to attack someone. I don't think it is workable. If we were to add this as a ROE, I think it falls under abuse policy.
5. I don't consider anything I have myself revealed about myself here on The Mote to be anything about which I can now yelp "wait, no, don't say that, that's private!" If I was stupid enough to spill the info - well, now it's out.
6. If I, or anyone, hit the "Cast Your Mote" button on a post which revealed personal info and I then regretted it, I should be able to ask the moderator of the thread to delete the post and have that request honored as soon as possible. I don't know if that is something which is already done, but I don't think it is laid out in the ROE. I would like to see that stated explicitly in the ROE. 806. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/21/2000 9:58:43 AM To support what I said above, the following post was made by Candide in the Cafe:
Am I the only Motie who feels miserable when they read posts like the recent banning 'discussion'?
I don't think it's good for the forum to have this discussion front and center.
On the other hand, I think it's important to have the suggestions thread on the main page, as we want to encourage all comers to make suggestions. 807. cigarlaw - 2/21/2000 10:00:04 AM anyone who disagees with my opinion on anything is wrong-headed and ought to be dragged into the street and shot down like a rabid dog.
case closed. i would love to see this implimented. it would certainly elivate the level of discussion, if not spelling. 808. wabbit - 2/21/2000 10:00:08 AM Irv,
In general, I agree with you, and I don't plan to leave this thread on the front page past tomorrow. However, we have new people in the forum who weren't here the last time we had this discussion. They may well not have seen the link on the sidebar. I'll give them a day to spot the thread, then back to the sidebar it will go. 809. CalGal - 2/21/2000 10:00:17 AM You announced at first that 'everyone' agreed on the Mote RoE, and had to be taken to task on that.
No, "everyone" did agree. I'm not backing off of that. People who don't participate can pretty much figure that silence=assent.
If you wish to change that? Go right ahead and make a proposal. But don't criticize the people here for using that in the past.
. And then you said that it was too much trouble to email everyone, and you were taken to task on that.
No, I did not say it was "too much trouble" to email people. I said "we can't do everything". You interpreted that as it being too much trouble. It's not what I said. 810. Candide - 2/21/2000 10:00:36 AM Here's a snivelling sycophantic contribution from a Motie not involved with policy.
I do find some discussions a bit more robust, or offensive, or trivial or hard hearted than I might wish.
But when I think of the dedication, hard work and vision that created and sustains the Mote, I feel grateful.
So even my old/young sparring mate CalGal gets my whole-hearted endorsement as basically "a good sport" and a dedicated operator. (Watch it though!)
My view is that some posts might be offensive and if enough contributors agree they should be removed. I haven't followed the antics of the central characters so have no opinion. Banning should surely be for some intolerable crime, not just for tedious obnoxiousness which seems to be the accusation in this case.
|
