|
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. 811. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/21/2000 10:02:24 AM wabbit:
I can live with that (barely). 812. CalGal - 2/21/2000 10:09:58 AM Irv,
I wouldn't have installed the changes without feedback. It may be that two pages won't work. However, I think there is a difference between a big "Page 2" and a subthread.
Christi,
I agree with your post, and thanks for taking the time out from your laundry (g). #6 is a tough one--on a case by case basis, it makes a lot of sense. But what if someone makes a whole series over time and then wants to take it all back?
I do think that anyone should be able to email a host and say, "Could you please delete Post X? I shouldn't have revealed that information." But what if the host isn't around right then? What if it's around for a couple hours and a lot of people read it in the meantime?
That's where things get dicey, and I'm not sure how to write up such a policy. I'm not disagreeing, I'm just not sure how it'd be done. I still think that this sort of thing is best covered by abuse. If someone references it, you ask them not to mention it--explain that you shouldn't have said it and ask it as a courtesy. Further refusals would be considered an abuse violation, not a privacy violation. (Obviously, it goes without saying that you would not have regularly referred to the information again.)
But I certainly would support anyone having the right to make a post and thinking, "Shit!" and asking the thread host (privately) to delete it. If someone abused this courtesy, we could just make that a separate issue. 813. Seguine - 2/21/2000 10:10:21 AM "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."
Do you worry that Motiers are too uncreative to figure out how to insult one another without resorting to use of personal info?
Consider:
Cigarlaw, in a health care thread: 'I'm in favor of single-payer health care because it spreads out financial risk among the whole population.'
Asshole response: 'Well, I'd expect as much from someone who's dying of Lou Gherig's disease, but why should I pick up your tab?'
Alternative response: 'Well, maybe your own circumstances lead you to such opinions, but you're full of shit. Why should I be expected to pick up the tab for people less healthy than I am?'
Note that the latter response is not unaggressive. It does not lack for high-handedness, snideness, snottiness, or other qualities beloved of the asembled. It certainly suggests that Cigarlaw may hold views that are based on the state of his health. But it does not trade on wounding a man by announcing his infirmity to others, especially others just joining the discussion. It does not signal to newcomers that the person answering Cigarlaw knows his greatest weakness and will attempt to exploit it just because exploiting personal info other than identity can be gotten away with. 814. Candide - 2/21/2000 10:17:35 AM Seguine
But it's still yucky. (wrong thread) 815. Indiana Jones - 2/21/2000 10:18:23 AM The biggest downer I see to the continuous rancoring about policy is that it saps energy that could be going into more productive things. We have limited resources (time, brainpower), and while we keep rearranging the furniture, the Titanic can sink. Whether or not this argument turns people off, nothing is being constructed to turn people on.
It appears to me from the little experience I have working with community leaders that there is too much of what Niner would call "rank democracy." Everyone sees wabbit as ruling by decree, whereas wabbit sees herself as needing a consensus before acting. It's very hard for anyone to make a decision about anything. There's also too much sensitivity to complaints.
Early on in my thread-hosting tenure, Kuligin complained that I had let a harsh attack by CalGal go by the way. He asked "what kind of host" I was, and I made no attempt to defend myself, saying something like "a lousy one that rules by caprice and whim." He's never complained again and has in fact complimented me a couple of times.
In actuality, there's very little to complain about here. The volunteers have set up a pretty good framework conducive to lots of freedom: it's up to the community to stop bitching and make things better. 816. CalGal - 2/21/2000 10:23:54 AM Seguine,
I don't see how it can be considered exploitation if the information was provided online and directly associated with the individual in question.
I see no way for Wabbit to enforce this other than to determine if the post itself is abusive. But calling it a violation of privacy just doesn't seem right. The person made the information public. By definition it is no longer private. 817. cigarlaw - 2/21/2000 10:27:38 AM did i say that?" if so, i should be taken out andm shot like rabid dog.
i benefit from health insurabe, but think all health insurance should be outlawed. hell,if we had legicare instwed of medicare, i wouldn't need insurance. i would just pay cash. 818. CalGal - 2/21/2000 10:29:34 AM Cig,
I'm laughing at the notion of you favoring single payer. Let's just consider it a hypothetical. 819. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/21/2000 10:35:27 AM Indy:
It appears to me from the little experience I have working with community leaders that there is too much of what Niner would call "rank democracy." Everyone sees wabbit as ruling by decree, whereas wabbit sees herself as needing a consensus before acting.
The actual situation is similar to a judge, who hears arguments on all sides, and then makes a ruling. In wabbit's case, she often assesses the general feeling as well, and if there is consensus on an issue.
It would be nice, however, if we could limit those arguments at times to a post or two. Nothing is more depressing than a debate which goes on endlessly and pointlessly over obscure fine points.
I like the way we have arranged threads with individual hosts and policies. And I like your reply to Kuligin. It is very much in the spirit of things around here.
|
