|
840. Indiana Jones - 2/21/2000 11:16:56 PM The "hurt feelings" rule is a bad idea. TableTalk has such a rule (including even the word "gratuitous"), and it causes no end of grief.
The existing framework is very liberal, and wabbit's benign enforcement of it makes it even more so. As a result, this community is mostly what it's participants make of it. You don't like how a moderator runs a particular thread, quit posting there. You don't like the way some people talk, quit frequenting those threads. If you hate the whole thing, go somewhere else.
Other posters can do very little to you unless you let them. Hence, the argument that a person's rights extend until they affect another person's is pretty persuasive.
Obviously, spamming and using RL info or making RL threats run afoul of this. Sufficient spamming does infringe upon the rights of others to be able to carry on a conversation. RL info can be used to intimidate exercise of poster rights.
I see the social contract of the Mote as being: "This community gives you a venue to communicate openly and honestly without fear of RL consequences. In return, you promise to give all community members the same right." Breaking that social contract should result in expulsion from the society.
All else is a day-to-day negotiation. 841. PincherMartin - 2/21/2000 11:35:56 PM Do you think the Founding Fathers spent this much time on the Constitution before ratifying it?
Really, people. In a small community like this, legalistic charters are a waste of time. Imagining that a well-written RoE can solve our problems and resolve debate on matters of banning, suspending, and the proper dose of insults in our forum is somewhat akin to believing in witchcraft or astrology. People here never read the same sentence in the same way, and with the multitude of lawyers (and lawyer-wanna bes) here -- which is our curse -- it's guaranteed they never will. The prose means nothing; application is everything.
Pelle is right. People don't read these fucking documents anyway. End this silly talk.
Indiana is right. When asked how judgements are made here, the top creme should say by "caprice and whim," and then say no more. After this answer is given a few times, everyone will go back to their conversations for good. 842. DanDillon - 2/21/2000 11:42:24 PM This is a debate simply not worth having. Like everything else these days, we're cannibalizing ourselves, and frankly, it's unattractive.
843. CalGal - 2/21/2000 11:47:10 PM When asked how judgements are made here, the top creme should say by "caprice and whim," and then say no more.
Well, in fairness, that's what the RoE says now. I think honesty is the best policy.
And to be fair to Angel and Seguine, Irv invited them to put a proposal on the table. I didn't agree, since I think there first needs to be agreement that a change is necessary. I don't think any such consensus exists.
844. CalGal - 2/21/2000 11:50:46 PM And yes, I don't think this is attractive and I also think it is misleading. It's not like there's an actual rebellion. There are only two people who object to the current rules (at least there are only two people who are saying so), and I frankly dislike feeling like justification is necessary.
At the same time, if Irv welcomes someone to put out a new policy for inspection--even if one isn't necessarily desired--what is to be done except discuss it? If we don't discuss it, Angel could then argue that silence = agreement. In my case, I don't agree.
845. PincherMartin - 2/21/2000 11:53:10 PM And to be fair to Angel and Seguine, Irv invited them to put a proposal on the table. I didn't agree, since I think there first needs to be agreement that a change is necessary. I don't think any such consensus exists.
I can be fair to Seguine and Angel. Can you?
846. CalGal - 2/21/2000 11:53:52 PM I told Seguine and Angel that they should see if there is a consensus for change out there. Barring that, I think we should leave things alone.
The thread has been on the front page for a while, people have been invited in the Policies thread, and there is no demand for a change and considerable crankiness about the discussion at all. Can we decide to leave things alone? 847. CalGal - 2/21/2000 11:55:39 PM Pincher,
If you, too, are going to make this about me, take it to the Inferno. I have had well more than enough of this shit. 848. PincherMartin - 2/21/2000 11:58:27 PM At the same time, if Irv welcomes someone to put out a new policy for inspection--even if one isn't necessarily desired--what is to be done except discuss it?
Excuse me, but I think that Irv is a civilian just like the rest of us now. His permission was not necessary for a discussion to begin on this subject. I did not seek his (or your) permission to say that I objected to this debate. Angel and Seguine did not need his okay to begin this discussion nor will they need his okay to end it. Perhaps if you stop talking as if you're in charge or even know what the hell you're talking about, people would not get any misconceptions about the way things are run here. 849. CalGal - 2/22/2000 12:04:54 AM Excuse me, but I think that Irv is a civilian just like the rest of us now.
Where did I imply otherwise? Irv, if you saw it as an accusation, I apologize. I do think your voice carries extra weight, but I could just as easily have said "any Mote member".
What I was asking is this: given that some people are upset that the subject has even come up, how do we move from complaints to determining if there is a need for action? It doesn't matter who tells them to go ahead and post their ideas. But are we bound to go through this any time someone wants to change?
As for the rest, Pincher--like I said, take it elsewhere. 850. Seguine - 2/22/2000 12:11:04 AM A proposal:
The Mote is a not-for-profit discussion forum hosted and run by member volunteers. Membership is free. Commercial solicitations and spam are not permitted.
Strenuous argument is acceptable in this forum. However, certain important rules govern the exchange of personal information and private information:
851. Seguine - 2/22/2000 12:11:40 AM 1. Any personal information you reveal about others, whether certain or speculative, intentionally or unintentionally disclosed, previously revealed or not, obtained online, in correspondence, or elsewhere, is potentially an offense. Posts that reveal others’ personal information may be summarily deleted by the thread hosts or the forum moderator, at management’s discretion. If you use others' personal information, whether you believe it is private or not, to harass, abuse, insult, or threaten, your remarks will be deleted and you will be denied access to this site, either temporarily or permanently, at the forum managers' discretion.
Do not call attention to others' accidental disclosures, or repeat accidentally disclosed private information. If you inadvertently reveal information that you realize later may have been private, email the immediately and ask that your post be deleted.
2. Threats, and revelation of real names, addresses, phone numbers, places of employment, ISP email addresses, or other such information as may put a forum participant at risk for unwanted contact, are expressly forbidden. Violation of this rule will result in denial of access to the site.
In any dispute concerning an offense, the forum manager(s) decisions are final. By participating in this forum, you agree to abide by the Rules of Engagement, which may be revised from time to time. In the event of revisions to this agreement, registered members of the forum will be notified in advance by email. Members’ input conerning revisions is welcomed, but decisions concerning these guidelines and other matters pertaining to the forum or its governance will be implemented solely at the forum management’s discretion.
852. PsychProf - 2/22/2000 12:17:53 AM Seguine...Message # 850 concise and informative.
853. Seguine - 2/22/2000 12:18:08 AM [End]
Erratum: "If you inadvertently reveal information that you realize later may have been private, email the forum moderator immediately and ask that your post be deleted."
"Forum manager" should be a link to Wabbit.
In addition, there should be FAQ link at the bottom of the RoE. Transparency should be part of its objective, for greater transparency will help counter the impression that the Mote is inbred, run by a cabal, etc.
Some questions that should be adressed in the FAQ:
Q. Who runs the Mote? [A. As of [date], the following individuals perform the duties described here and may be contacted via the Moderator: [list]]
Q. What's the definition of "personal", definition of "private"?
Q. Copyright issues?
Q. How did the Mote come into existence? [provide history, mention Fray]
Q. How do I propose a policy change?
854. PincherMartin - 2/22/2000 12:18:12 AM CalGal --
I'm discussing Mote Policy, and your distorted interpretations of it, so I'll keep it right here. If you don't like it, tough shit. 855. Seguine - 2/22/2000 12:19:10 AM Soory; forum moderator should be a link to Wabbit. 856. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/22/2000 12:20:05 AM CalGal:
I asked people to give their suggestions for three reasons:
1) I was getting very tired of the discussion dwelling on how the original rules were formulated and I wanted to move things forward.
2) I was very interested in the input others had to offer. I found A5's and Seguine's proposals productive. They obviously care about our community and their proposals are worth discussing.
If we decide in the end to leave things unchanged, it will make the rules more meaningful for being discussed.
3) It is apparent that some people feel they didn't have a chance to provide input when the rules were formulated. I firmly believe there's nothing wrong with letting them add their opinions and proposals now, and revisiting the rules.
Their proposals were not an attack on the rules as they now stand, but were an attempt to stimulate discussion in areas they feel strongly about.
You feel the rules don't need changing. They feel they do. What's wrong with discussing it? You've made your point. Let others make theirs. Once again, if the end result is we don't change the rules, it will be a good thing to have them reaffirmed. If the consensus is that they need changing or fine-tuning, that too would be a good thing.
The community can't lose if we stick to revisiting the RoE and keep individual personalities out of it.
There's no reason my voice carries extra weight. I am just one voice here. I do have a little experience in this area, which merely means I can sometimes offer an angle others can't. But that's all. 857. Seguine - 2/22/2000 12:30:26 AM CalGal: "But are we bound to go through this any time someone wants to change?"
I suggested early in this discussion that a time frame for making policy changes should be announced. Policy might automatically be reviewed every 6 months (or, and especially later, every year). This might seem like a pain in the ass, but if an objective is to give newcomers a stake in the forum, then they shouldn't have to be 'in the know' about how things change in order to affect change, and they should not be accused of "whining" when they disagree with existing rules. Nor should anyone have to be chummy with one contingent or another to learn when policy revisions are under serious consideration, or feel it necessary to overcome their newcomer status in order to weigh in, etc.
858. PsychProf - 2/22/2000 12:30:35 AM This is a much needed discussion that should take place w/o the propagation of previous vendettas and personal animosity. We need to establish the rules under which we operate so that leadership has a foundation to proceed. Conflict here, used in a reasoned way, will be beneficial. I do not perceive any Motehead to be on a power trip, and I see no evidence that any single individual is trying to exert undue influence. It is important to differentiate between having done what needed to be done(at "conception) and being "in charge". IMHO, we need to step outside our monikers and reason together. I am such a geek... 859. CalGal - 2/22/2000 12:37:17 AM Irv,
What's wrong with discussing it?
Jesus. Nothing is wrong in discussing it. I've been discussing it. I also don't mind if enough people decide that a change is needed. I've said that enough times I didn't think it needed repeating.
But two people came in and demanded to know what the hell we were talking about this for? So I responded to them--basically we are discussing it because someone invited them to put their policy changes on the table. While I personally would rather we not invite everyone to do so just because they don't like the existing ones, that's just my preference. I then pointed out that the only way to avoid this would be to have some sort of consensus required in order to make a change.
That's my answer to them, given their complaints about the discussion. So you took my answer to Dan and Pincher--who are actually the ones bitching about the discussion--and respond to it as if I'm the one growling about the discussion. But that's their beef, not mine. Please make your point about discussion to them. Me, I've responded to the proposed change.
|
 |
Go To Mote #
|
|
