+++ BABBLE PROPOSAL +++

86 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist
+++ BABBLE PROPOSAL +++

This will be updated from time to time - please post your votes or comments in other Rabble Reactions threads, which I will monitor. Thanks!

 

RESOLUTION

 

Quote:

Be it resolved that we implement the following policy:

1. No personal attacks, whatsoever (understanding that obviously there may be grey areas).

2. No bans or suspensions (except obvious trolls/spammers).

3. Mods intervene to lay down the law, gently or firmly as required.

4. Revisit and reconsider these rules in three (3) months.

 

IN FAVOUR:

  1. G. Pie
  2. martin dufresne
  3. Bookish Agrarian (I believe - please confirm)
  4. Tommy_Paine
  5. Unionist
  6. remind
  7. Stargazer
  8. Fidel
  9. janfromthebruce (subject to defining a proper quorum)
  10. Sineed
  11. CMOT Dibbler
  12. Frmrsldr
  13. Frustrated Mess (but: no more introspective babble threads)
  14. George Victor
  15. Prophit

OPPOSED:

  1. jrootham
  2. genstrike
  3. Caissa
  4. mahmud
  5. Boom Boom

ABSTAIN:

  1. Farmpunk
  2. Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
  3. Timebandit
  4. bagkitty
  5. HeywoodFloyd
  6. Bubbles
  7. M. Spector

Have commented but awaiting clarification:

  1. Infosaturated
  2. George Victor
  3. Wilf Day (would vote "yes" if amended to read "no bans" only, but allowing suspensions)
  4. Pogo (yes, if amnesty for banned babblers upon appeal by 10 babblers, otherwise abstain)
  5. al-Qa'bong (waiting for mountains to turn blue - await clarification, as some mountains already shimmer blue in their luxuriant robes woven of morning mist)
  6. Slumberjack (can't interpret his post today)
  7. Erik Redburn (kinda yes, sorta no, depending on coupla amendments)
  8. N.Beltov (basically agrees with jrootham and Wilf Day - but didn't vote yet)

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I vote not to have Unionist as a moderator.  Are you a new appointee or self appointed?

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Sorry, Unionist, but where's the Amendment that Wilf moved?

Unionist

Boom Boom, the amendment was "no suspensions", which goes against the intent of the original motion. Wilf will tell you that such amendments are out of order. The way to do it is to defeat this motion, then move a new one reading the way you want. On the other hand, an amendment like "let's review in 3 months", or "let's email everyone to tell them the new rules if this passes", etc., is admissible, because it's consistent with the intent. This is all based on Michelle's proposal of "no bans or suspensions".

Kropotkin, I self-appointed in order to bring some order to the discussion, which was all over the place. It was appropriate that this not be done by a mod, because it's a mod who introduced the proposal. If babblers don't want me to tabulate these results, I will gladly back off. If you would like to do it, Kropotkin, let me know - it takes two seconds to set up the thread differently. It's yours.

 

remind remind's picture

I have no issue with unionist undertaking this at all

Caissa

I think the mod's have made it clear that this "vote" is moot.

Unionist

Caissa wrote:

I think the mod's have made it clear that this "vote" is moot.

Really?

If any mod is reading this, please advise if you'd prefer this to stop - and it shall be done instantly. I'll email you in case you miss this post.

 

Unionist

[.]

oldgoat

Caissa wrote:

I think the mod's have made it clear that this "vote" is moot.

 

No Caissa, it is definitely not moot.  Also, I'm grateful to Unionist for taking on this role.  It sort of helps to keep things focussed.

As far as being moot, yes the mods have an overarching duty to keep this place running properly, and we have certain tools to do that.  I'd say that that means Michelle and I can't be held to absolutes in terms of time lines for evaluating this process, but nonetheless, we've sometimes felt kind of helpless about moderating the tone of the board given our limitations, and I think that this initiative, in which we've all taken part is a useful thing.  We want this to work.  Will it? If I wasn't something of an optimist, and if I didn't basically like this place I might have doubts, but let's see where this goes.

BTW, I don't think Unionist is trying to behave like a self appointed moderator.  He's being like the guy in a meeting who volunteers to take notes, or to put all the flip chart paper on the wall with masking tape.  As a person who does a lot of meetings and presentations I thank God for such people regularly.

Wilf Day

Unionist wrote:
Wilf will tell you that such amendments are out of order.

Sorry, I won't. And I am a self-appointed expert on Robert's Rules.

First, that's a fallacy. The amendment must be germane, but need not have the identical intent, as long as its intent is not merely the opposite of the original motion. "An amendment may be in conflict with the spirit of the original motion and still be germane, and therefore in order." (Robert's Rules.)

Second, the original intent requires clarification:

"2. No bans or suspensions (except obvious trolls/spammers).

3. Mods intervene to lay down the law, gently or firmly as required."

"Gently" = warnings.

"Firmly" = what, if not suspensions?

Unionist

Wilf, I don't have a problem with keeping suspensions. I understand and indeed mostly agree with the arguments in favour of that. I'm seriously just trying to codify Michelle's proposal and sound out babblers about it. Once we start taking substantive amendments, I'm not sure where the process stops - and it's procedurally difficult to entertain and vote on amendments in this setting.

As for the gently/firmly dichotomy, "firmly" can simply mean tone of voice, suggestions vs. injunctions, etc. The mods here use those distinctions very skillfully, IMO.

If you want to canvass folks here on the "suspensions" amendment - if it's feasible - and if it produces a broader consensus which preserves the central spirit of this proposal, then I'm all for it. Please present a proposal as to how to do that. [NOTE: It must not contain the acronyms FPTP or PR or MMP or STV... j/k].

 

remind remind's picture

gently = editorial commentary and/or redirection of conversation

sternly = warning leading to ->

firmly = being told to stay out of said thread/forum

As I have taken it to be and voted yes to.

Unionist

*bump*

Unionist

UPDATED

This will be updated from time to time - please post your votes or comments in other Rabble Reactions threads, which I will monitor. Thanks!

DISCLAIMER: This of course is not and has never purported to be a "binding" resolution on the moderators. The aim is merely to sound out opinion here and give some guidance to the mods in their deliberation. They and the owners of rabble obviously remain responsible for decisions and policies as to operation of the discussion board.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

RESOLUTION

 

Quote:

Be it resolved that we implement the following policy:

1. No personal attacks, whatsoever (understanding that obviously there may be grey areas).

2. No bans or suspensions (except obvious trolls/spammers).

3. Mods intervene to lay down the law, gently or firmly as required.

4. Revisit and reconsider these rules in three (3) months.

 

IN FAVOUR:

  1. G. Pie
  2. martin dufresne
  3. Bookish Agrarian (I believe - please confirm)
  4. Tommy_Paine
  5. Unionist
  6. remind
  7. Stargazer
  8. Fidel
  9. janfromthebruce (subject to defining a proper quorum)
  10. Sineed
  11. CMOT Dibbler
  12. Frmrsldr
  13. Frustrated Mess (but: no more introspective babble threads)
  14. George Victor
  15. Prophit
  16. Joey Ramone
  17. Ghislaine
  18. Polunatic2
  19. Jacob Richter
  20. Jabberwock

OPPOSED:

  1. jrootham
  2. genstrike
  3. Caissa
  4. mahmud
  5. Boom Boom
  6. N.Beltov

ABSTAIN:

  1. Farmpunk
  2. Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
  3. Timebandit
  4. bagkitty
  5. HeywoodFloyd
  6. Bubbles
  7. M. Spector
  8. Papal Bull
  9. Refuge

Other:

  1. Wilf Day (would vote "yes" if amended to read "no bans" only, but allowing suspensions)
  2. Pogo (yes, if amnesty for banned babblers upon appeal by 10 babblers, otherwise abstain)
  3. al-Qa'bong (waiting for mountains to turn blue - await clarification, as some mountains already shimmer blue in their luxuriant robes woven of morning mist)
  4. Slumberjack (doesn't wish to legitimize this exercise by participating)
  5. Erik Redburn (kinda yes, sorta no, depending on coupla amendments)

 

Unionist

I'm bumping this thread. Thing went a lot better IMHO for a few months, and now they're degenerating. A significant majority supported this, and even those who didn't (for pretty principled reasons IMO) wanted a brake put on personal attacks. Anyway, enough said.

 

Sven Sven's picture

Unionist wrote:

I'm bumping this thread. Thing went a lot better IMHO for a few months, and now they're degenerating. A significant majority supported this, and even those who didn't (for pretty principled reasons IMO) wanted a brake put on personal attacks. Anyway, enough said.

Thanks for bumping this, Unionist.

All four of the points make sense to me, although I agree with Wilf Day that judicious suspensions by mods are useful.

ETA: Whoops!! I just popped over to this thread from the link you gave me in the other thread, Unionist, and I didn't read the thread title (about no posting in this thread) until after my post!!

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

You're in big trouble Sven.

Unionist

:) that rule is obsolete, Sven. We had many threads going at the time, and I was trying to keep one for updating the list only. Anyway, you're banned for that slip.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

So?  I'm free to post this thread into irrelevancy Unionist?  That's not a personal attack is it.  I'm working at wordsmithing.

 

Fuck, I love your politics Unionist but sometimes you drive me to despair in posts like this.  It's not even really you, just the way things deteriorated lately and how you ignored it.

Sineed

The moderators have resisted a more relaxed moderating style because they say that it would result in making this board less safe for marginalized people and points of view, citing other boards as proof.  However, other boards tend to go the other direction, letting everything slide except blatant trolling and spamming.  Perhaps a middle ground could be sought.

Might be worth a try, and if it doesn't work, the more hands-on moderating style can resume.

Besides which, the mods work too hard, and deserve a break.

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

Readership is down because, I think, people only have so much time and babble competes for people's time with facebook, twitter, and other social media. When I read the comments section (rarely) of on-line news sites it most often appears, with some wonderful exceptions, they have been abandoned to the 14-year-old, emotionally stunted, Ayn Rand set. The exceptions are those that demand a reading level above grade eight. 

Babble has two challenges as I see it: maintain or grow participation; keep it civil.

If the Rabble.ca managers wish to maintain babble as a viable site, I think I would look to how it can be linked into social media sites and necessarily do away with anonymous postings.

I understand the importance of anonymous postings for many, including myself. But anonyminity also allows for the lowering of the standard for discourse. I do not exclude myself from that.

Babble will always attract trolls but that is part of the territory in being a site that in non-comformist and frequently controversial.

Maysie Maysie's picture

Hi everyone.

I've edited the title of this thread, just so people can know it's open to postings.

I'm in a very similar situation to Michelle 8 months ago. In re-reading her smart stuff, I realize that so much hasn't changed, and may not change.

I don't want to be a moderator police, and come slamming down on everyone who squinks out of line for either a moment or as a matter of how they regularly post. And this isn't about being kinder or gentler, either. I despise the idea of tolerating a troll simply because they engage in polite, yet non-progressive discourse. And that's not going to happen.

I've also tried to use gentle language to point out a place where a regular babbler has been problematic or offensive. Let's just say it doesn't usually go over well.

So it really is about each person taking responsibility for what they say. And if called on it, even if it's not done in the "nicest" way, to really try to reflect, "could I have said that differently?"

I've said this before here, but it's much easier to rang on someone who you've never met and will never meet in person and face to face. And I'm guilty of this myself. Posters we disagree with become two- or even one-dimensional entities for us, and we can then feel free to rage at them, while they rage back at us. This is the sometimes hostile environment that Catchfire and I moderate. 

If you are vehemently disagreeing with someone, time and time again, Catchfire and I may ask you to take it off the boards and to private messages. Or you could just do that yourselves, how about that?

We can't police/monitor/read every thread, and even for threads which we read, we may miss something, or we may be in agreement with someone who's squinked over the line, and may miss it for that reason. The only solution I see is to stop engaging in personal attacks, and to take responsibility for your own text, since, at the end, that's all any of us has control over, here. Our words.

Polunatic2

Quote:
Maybe Rabble  has out lived it's usefulness

While Babble is a part of Rabble, I wouldn't conflate the two or make any inferences about traffic at rabble.ca based on the ups and downs at babble. Rabble provides news and opinion that is not found anywhere else. Babble provides an opportunity to discuss rabble content and more. There are undoubtedly many regular rabble.ca readers who never set foot in babble. 

Caissa

I meant Babble. Typing error. I'll go an edit to correct it.

Caissa

After a good night's sleep, I read The Not a Criticism of the Moderatos thread. it seemed rife with personal attacks. Where would one start and stop to flag posts as offensive? People leave Babble, both temporarily and permanently, for a wide variety of reasons. Traffic is down. When I long on in the morning, I am often surprised by how little traffic has taken place in the 16 hours since I logged off. Babble is not a civil site. No one can expect the moderators to make it a civil site for the users. We, the users, need to take  personal ownership of the behaviour on the site. And, when I write "we" I am most definitely including myself. I've have many sins of commission and omission. I'm not reaching for the mote in other's eyes without recognizing the beam in mine.If the current atmosphere continues it will be a survival of the thickest skin and the last babbler left can shut off the servers.

Maybe Babble  has out lived it's usefulness and is on a slow decline to the dustbin of history. I'd like to think it is not, and that it  provides a valuable space for discussion, debate, sharing of information and resources, and organizing. I think we need to be more civil, tolerant and inclusive, if we want to maintain a critical mass of participants on the site.

I'm sure my views are not universally held and I welcome discussing and debating them.

Polunatic2

Quote:
 think we need to be more civil, tolerant and inclusive, if we want to maintain a critical mass of participants on the site.

I agree. 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I saw the revised thread title and thought this was a new thread entirely. All I can say - speaking just for myself - is that I try to avoid the more combative threads.

Farmpunk

I'm with you, Boomster. 

Plus I think a lot of posters - myself included - need to get over our baaad selves sometimes and be able to let some things slide from time to time.  We really are just kicking around ideas here and the regulars don't own the forum. 

I think it's a little odd how babblers take themselves and their online personas so seriously. 

I still abstain. 

In fact, I'm thinking about creating a bloc of voters to vote down the OP's very existence and suggest it's a ban-able offense to mention it ever again.... C'mon mods, we've got an oppression olympics to run here. 

Unionist

Thought I'd go back in history a bit, in the light of the banning of ikosmos.

The background to this thread can be found here: [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/rabble-reactions/vote-babble-proposal]*** VOTE ON BABBLE PROPOSAL ***[/url]

I don't expect everyone to read the whole previous thread. But in case anyone wanted to discuss the policy on banning (which is our absolute right as babble participants), I thought this might be a jumping-off point. Sad to see names of comrades that have left us, in more ways than one.

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

First I'd heard of this proposal. 

6079_Smith_W

No.

Never mind that it is not something that is, nor should properly be up for a vote anyway. But it is a bad, and unfair idea.

 

Unionist

[url=http://rabble.ca/babble/rabble-reactions/change-babble-culture?page=1#co... made sense:[/url]

6079_Smith_W wrote:
How about this: no suspensions without a clear warning. And when a mod says "stop" you stop.

 

Unionist

And [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/rabble-reactions/change-babble-culture?page=1#co... was wisdom:

epaulo13 wrote:
..if i may. i see the frustration, anger, sexism on this board as symptoms of the politics we practice. the party, the union, the ideas to bring change are structured from the top down. it's not because we aren't good enough people though we continually need to try to cooperate with each other. but that our structures ensure that nothing will really change within the system and this will always leave us unsatisfied. in a direct democracy assembly sexism, racism or inequality take on a more garden variety flavour as opposed to the poisonous structural type. inclusion, being part of the solution is experienced and it is there a chance for real change to happen more than any convention or election. it is not a good idea to make the main focus our imperfections. better to change how decisions are made. not sure we can do that on this board but we can do that within our politics.

Wish I could write that way.

6079_Smith_W

Yup, and I still stand by it.

About a month ago MegB asked us all what we thought about ikosmos's presence and actions here.

All of us had an opportunity to speak at that time.

Near as I can tell that is the biggest writing on the wall anyone here has ever been afforded. And it changed nothing.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

I think our laws have similar problems.  What do we do when someone persistently drives when their licence has been suspended?  Extend the suspension?

What I find the most kafkaesque about all of this is that evidently it should be up to all of US to preserve ikosmos' membership here.  It's US who should turn the other cheek, US who should "steer clear" of him like he's some drunken stepfather, US who shouldn't engage him "when he's in one of his moods".

And US who drove him off the deep end, or something.

I'm honestly not cheering that he's gone, but it wasn't hard to see it coming.  And yes, it totally didn't need to happen.  And NO, it wasn't US who should have ensured that it didn't.

As I noted elsehwere, if it went to a vote I'd go with reinstatement.  But if that vote was met with "clap clap.  Give yourself a pat on the head", then what?

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

I wish to express my gratitude for the long-suffering moderators of this board. On that note, I would generally think that it is a free Internet, and if you don't like the way a site is run (especially one which does not belong to you), you can always go somewhere else.

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

If I knew then what I know now... I would have been in the "NO" camp.

lagatta4

I haven't gone through this thread, but I don't believe I ever read it or commented it. Sometimes I'm working away, or at conferences, and don't look at the net except for my e-mail and language threads.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

(dupe)

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

(dupe).

wage zombie

montrealer58 wrote:

I wish to express my gratitude for the long-suffering moderators of this board. On that note, I would generally think that it is a free Internet, and if you don't like the way a site is run (especially one which does not belong to you), you can always go somewhere else.

Agreed.  I don't think Rabble is obligated to do anything at all and there's no entitlement to post here.

NorthReport

We finally get a reasonable moderator here and this is the result. Go figure!

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..i support the decision made by the moderator. and i support the idea for a proposal that can carry us into the future. this will make it ours and like it says above we can continue to revisit the issue. as for ikosmos we can revist that as well down the road. but first we need to address the issue of non compliance.    

Unionist

Ok, clearly I misread the general feeling here. Please ignore this thread and let it slide back into the past. Let's concentrate on whom to ban next.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

I support Unionist's proposal.

Mobo2000

I do as well.

Paladin1

*looks around nervously*

Sean in Ottawa

I am confused-- if there are no bans or suspensions what "laying down the law" options do the mods have other than arguing as well?

Not taking a side -- asking a question.

Unionist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I am confused-- if there are no bans or suspensions what "laying down the law" options do the mods have other than arguing as well?

Not taking a side -- asking a question.

Other than throwing them out of the house permanently or temporarily, what other options do you have when family members don't play by the rules?

Sorry for answering a question with a question. It's in my DNA. My people always had questions. Answers? Not so much.

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I am confused-- if there are no bans or suspensions what "laying down the law" options do the mods have other than arguing as well?

Not taking a side -- asking a question.

Other than throwing them out of the house permanently or temporarily, what other options do you have when family members don't play by the rules?

Sorry for answering a question with a question. It's in my DNA. My people always had questions. Answers? Not so much.

Fair enough but with a kid you can ground them, take away computer or cell time etc. What do we have here that is in between throwing them out of the house and nothing? One would hope that this is what we would be looking for. Your point is well taken.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

On some boards the role of the moderator is not (just) to delete bots and say "hey, knock it off", but also to vett each post.  Posts that are abusive or violate policy are simply not approved and never appear.

I know babble doesn't have the funds for this, and I also imagine it would be as popular as waxed toilet paper, but it's a third option. 

 

Pages