|
986. Angel-Five - 2/22/2000 2:45:22 PM Is this about Cazart for most people? Not for me -- it's just the sum of a long period of observation of a lot of Mote regulars. I didn't even really know Cazart was bitching about the RoE. Just that bit about Jay, which is ridiculous to anyone with an ass's ration of common sense. Other than the fact that I don't think we should ban people on general principle, Cazart isn't an issue to me at all, just an annoyance who is occasionally humorous but mostly tiresome and not terribly clever. I don't think we should bother tailoring the RoE to account for the presence of a Cazart, because the Internet is full of them, they have all day long every day in which to think up new ways to be an annoyance, and it's pointless trying to match effort for effort with them because they've got much more energy and time to spend than most of us do. 987. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/22/2000 10:42:00 PM I don't know about others (well, I do know about some others, and I suppose my perception is different), but I've found this discussion very worthwhile.
My own opinion has gone all over the place as various people have convinced me of various points of view... for a little while.
I was especially impressed by Seguine's detailed proposal. Apart from a difference in viewpoint regarding personal vs. private information, I saw a lot of good in the way she spelled things out and presented the rules clearly and readably, in some detail.
But I'm now back to my original opinion (one which I never actually expressed, in the interest of making sure my "weighted voice" didn't influence anyone), and unless I misread some recent comments, the general feeling is heading in the same direction I am. And that opinion is:
What we need is a simple set of rules, with the notation that interpretation and enforcement is up to the thread hosts and the moderator.
I think our original RoE expressed this well, and the people who put it together quickly did a good job. But I think it is a bit redundant. All we need is a short, simple statement which covers all cases.
So I have prepared the following as a proposal for a revision of the RoE, in the hopes that proposing this can lead to a kind of closure, for now, of this topic (though of course, even if my proposal is accepted, the subject can be revisited any time).
Nothing below (in the next post, actually) is my own. I thank Christin and CalGal for the original text, and AngelFive and Seguine for new wording. I have merely attempted to consolidate and simplify. 988. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/22/2000 10:42:37 PM
Rules of Engagement:
The Mote is a not-for-profit discussion forum hosted and run by member volunteers. Membership is free.
Strenuous argument is acceptable in this forum. However, certain important rules govern the exchange of information:
1. Don't reveal someone else's private information online*.
2. Don't make threats.
For violations of Rules 1 and 2, the offending posts will be deleted, and violators will be subject to suspension or banning by the Moderator, if the violation is deemed serious and intentional. The decision of the Moderator is final.
3. Don't make posts that are needlessly abusive.
4. Do not use The Mote for advertising, solicitations or spam.
Posts violating Rules 3 and 4 are subject to possible deletion by the Thread Host (or possible relocation of posts to the Inferno, in the case of Rule 3). In serious cases, the Moderator may suspend or ban the ID of the violator. The decisions of the Thread Hosts and Moderator are final.
The final judge of the behavior of any participant, or of a thread host's decisions and behavior, is the Moderator.
The Mote does not endorse or stand behind the truthfulness or reliability of any information posted by users and is not responsible in any manner for content, which remains the sole responsibility of the user.
By participating in The Mote, you agree to abide by the Rules of Engagement. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved.
*Private Information is defined as any information linked to an individual’s real-life identity which has never been posted in the Mote by an individual (or by another participant with the individual’s knowledge and express consent). 989. Indiana Jones - 2/23/2000 12:17:14 AM I have no problem with the ROE as Irving as worded them. That's pretty much my understanding of how they function now. 990. PsychProf - 2/23/2000 2:53:19 AM Seguine...Message # 970 ...if you meant to insult, you have been successful here.
991. PsychProf - 2/23/2000 4:11:59 AM LETS GO TECH...KEEP UP THE PRESSURE AND THE GOOD WORK
992. Seguine - 2/23/2000 4:17:15 AM Irv: thanks. Your version of the RoE (Message # 988) is satisfactory as far as I'm concerned.
It does not go so far as to include the specific prohibition I proposed on personal info used to attack, insult, etc., but it does make clear that "needless abuse" is determined not only by thread hosts but, ultimately, by the moderator. And it spells out unambiguously that hosts' and participants' behavior is ultimately the moderator's to assess. I especially appreciate the removal of the weasel words, "It goes without saying that this [needless abuse] has holes you can drive trucks through. This is intentional. The inventiveness of a small minority forces us to be vague."
I have only a small criticism of your draft. In: "Posts violating Rules 3 and 4 are subject to possible deletion by the Thread Host (or possible relocation of posts to the Inferno, in the case of Rule 3)," I believe the "possible"s are redundant. The fact that a violation is subject to a sanction means that the sanction is "possible", no? A person who gets caught littering on the highway is subject to a fine; however, the judge may waive the fine if he sees fit.
Finally, I have a question. What, exactly, does "Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved" mean, in this context?
993. PsychProf - 2/23/2000 4:18:44 AM Darn...wrong page....sorry guys...I am losing it. 994. Seguine - 2/23/2000 4:44:44 AM PsychProf, I'm unable to determine how you managed to put yourself into the line of fire my 970 (wearily) ejaculated. However, Ace's posts misrepresented my views and your remarks promulgate one of his distortions. I have never remotely suggested that any and all insults be prohibited in this forum. My initial proposal concerned the use of personal information to insult (harass, abuse, attack). 995. PsychProf - 2/23/2000 5:06:48 AM Seguine...my post was in response to this gem...
As it happens, this place has increasingly little part in my
larger concerns; ultimately, as things proceed here, I
expect it will have none. I've made my suggestions. Take
them in part or in whole, or leave them, folks; and enjoy
yourselves.
996. Seguine - 2/23/2000 6:59:31 AM Huh. 997. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/23/2000 8:18:26 AM Seguine:
I considered eliminating the "possible," but I was being intentionally redundant to make things clear for those who don't understand "subject to." It's fine with me if we drop "possibly."
The disclaimer at the end was from the original version. I think we need an all purpose disclaimer, and perhaps one of the legally-minded participants can give some input.
I think the footnote at the end needs rewording, too.
I understand what PP is saying. I too felt a bit hurt when I read that sentence in your earlier post. Many of us feel a part of this place, and it sounded like you were discounting us (though you may well have other reasons... that's just how it came off). I'd hate to see you give up on this place. 998. PsychProf - 2/23/2000 8:42:56 AM Seguine...Irv has it right, but it is no big deal. I have great respect for you, and I also hope you continue to contribute. 999. Seguine - 2/23/2000 8:53:03 AM Come on Irv. Everybody has things to do and concerns larger in life than the Mote. But if a clarification of my remarks is needed: in my humble opinion the place has grown stagnant, there are too few new voices, too many departed characters whose interaction I once enjoyed, and nowhere near the range of participants in the topics that interest me. I've put my two cents in lately because I had a little time and it seemed right and proper at this point to say what I believe required saying.
If I were to leave this forum, nothing would be lost. (I trust there are folks who would be thrilled to see me outta here!) Anyone I've ever been in touch with would still have my email address or access to someone who remembers it, and anyone who wanted to reach me could still do so via seguine@hotmail.
If I "give up on this place", it will have precious little to do with the people in it whom I like and whose thoughts and opinions matter to me. But all parties come to an end. I don't like to hang around after all the cigarettes have been smoked. 1000. AceofSpades - 2/23/2000 8:57:22 AM
'now
1001. Angel-Five - 2/23/2000 9:36:19 AM I'm happy with Irv's wording of the RoE, because it achieves my primary criteria for an acceptable wording of the RoE. I know it sounds a little melodramatic whenever someone goes on about how this place is stagnant, but there's something to what Seguine is saying. We really need to inject new life into this forum. We knew that we were going to have to do that from the start, and we never really did achieve that (we've picked up a handful of TT refugees and some lone immigrants and that's about it). And we've lost some of the best people we have to personal conflicts. Mondaugen doesn't post here anymore. Philistine doesn't post here anymore. Ad and the Ms barely post here anymore. Floyd barely posts here, Perry never posts here, Hark (and say what you want about him, he's bright and informed) never posts here, Coral barely posts here, Lab never posts here, the list goes on. A LOT of what made the Fray such a great place, something that was worth all the crap we put up with there, has walked out the door. We're devolving from a debate forum into a handful of cliques that like to meet and argue online. I'm not sure how much time that's worth; I'm pretty sure it isn't worth all the time that so many people have put into this forum. We have to start recruiting new talent. It's as simple as that. We've known it ever since we started, we knew it then that if this place would have any hope of being more than a divided clubhouse, we'd have to start bringing people in at a reasonable rate. As I recall that was a nearly unanimous opinion. We have to follow through on it. 1002. Angel-Five - 2/23/2000 9:50:44 AM (Lest any of the newbies feel slighted, I want to clarify that we have attracted some top-notch people. Just not enough.) 1003. CalGal - 2/23/2000 11:44:31 AM Mondaugen does post here--if you kept up, you'd know what id he uses. The Ms is in law school and posts when she can; I have receive no impression that she doesn't like it here. In fact, she recently suggested a new thread and volunteered to host. As for the others, some of them found TT more amenable, and others have said they are busy. Unless you have heard from them and they say they refuse to post here, let's refrain from speaking for them, okay?
The fact is that these continual plaints for the past are a pain. If the people who were here from way back don't want to post here again, that's up to them.
I do not bewail the people who have left; I would be delighted to see them return. But to use their disappearance as indication of stagnancy is absurd. It is nonsense.
We're six months old, have had somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 new members, and given that normally you need a lot of new people to attract even one new member, I think we're doing well. "not enough" "top notch" people? (never mind defining top notch). We haven't even started marketing yet. We're doing very well.
I get a tad tired of people who show up periodically to complain about how old it is here, but make no effort to bring over new people and don't even post often themselves. If you want to help, bring people you know to the Mote, and help make it the type of place you want it to be. If you feel that changes in policies are necessary to bring people over, feel free to try that too. Speaking for myself, I see almost no change in Irv's proposed draft and it seems like a hell of a lot of fuss--over 300 posts--for very little. It seems clear to me that there is no major support for transparency or the rule that Seguine proposed, and Irv's draft makes no mention of either. And yet both Angel and Seguine are happy with the proposed changes. Go figure.
1004. CalGal - 2/23/2000 11:44:55 AM I hope Seguine returns. Given how few people actually leave forums, I expect to see her back, and I will be happy to see her back. But I don't view her posts or her departure as some sort of tolling bell that we should all heed. 1005. CalGal - 2/23/2000 11:53:17 AM As for recruiting new talent, Angel, you might want to consider that Rosetta Stone and Caz between them have done far, far more than anyone else in recruiting new people. Stone on purpose, Caz by bitching. Niner has paid for an ad in a few magazines, others of us have just told our friends. If you want more talent, why not do your personal best to bring some here to check it out? Recognizing, of course, that most people will look in and leave. That's true of all forums, not just this one.
We have had a couple different people take on the task of a larger marketing effort--it needs to be done, and it's probably the biggest hole we have to plug. But in the meantime, we're growing by word of mouth and attracting far more regulars than I thought would be possible, given our small little forum.
Summing up: I don't think this policy set-to has squat to do with anything other than the unhappiness of a few people. And it is certainly worth debating, if they want to have that debate. We had it. But I see no connection with the request to revisit the policy and the state of the community as a whole. I think it's doing well, considering the volunteer nature of the marketing effort. I'll be interested to see how we do once we start actively marketing.
|
