Dealing with poor behaviour on babble
Here is my proposal from that thread:
Well, my thoughts are as follows (and I have been talking about this with the other mods too).
I think Infosaturated is correct, that this place is intimidating to newcomers and, frankly, the amount of hostility and anger here lately is unhealthy. babble culture has expanded to include nastiness, snarkiness, rudeness, hostility, anger, and I also agree that the mods (okay, I'll speak for myself - I, as one mod) have given a lot more leeway for this type of behaviour to some longer-term babblers than newbies or people who don't post as frequently. It has resulted in a complete lack of self-control in some, and defensive reactions in others.
I also agree that long-term babblers who engage in this kind of behaviour get a free pass when it is seen by them, or some others, as "righteous anger". All this "righteous anger" that gets a pass - and that even I as a mod engage in occasionally - is making babble a really scary place for all but the most outgoing, most thick-skinned newcomers and occasional posters. Lately, there is so much fighting and anger. Not pleasant.
I think that, even if people have a good reason to be angry with someone else, we should start really focusing on a "no personal attacks on other babblers" policy that really, really means "no personal attacks".
Not "no personal attacks on other babblers unless you get really mad at someone."
Not "no personal attacks on other babblers unless you do it in a really passive-aggressive, snide way."
Not "no personal attacks on other babblers unless you think someone said something really bad/non-progressive/against babble policy."
Because of the really unhealthy dynamic on babble lately, I think that it should be simply, "No personal attacks on other babblers, period." No matter what.
How does it get enforced? I would prefer to enforce it without any bannings or suspensions at all, except for obvious spammers and really, really nasty trolls. Why no bannings or suspensions? Because I think bannings and suspensions reinforce the culture of anger and temper tantrums on babble by regulars. When the mods regularly use "the stick", people will feel they can engage in poor behaviour up to the point where the mods use "the stick". I think it also encourages infantile behaviour - when you treat people like children with the whole "reward/punishment" thing, then they become conditioned to act like children.
I would say it gets enforced by the mods stepping in and naming the behaviour when we see it, and then, if we need to name it again for the same person several times in one thread, asking them to leave the thread (but not others) if the behaviour becomes extreme.
We would also, of course, step in and name it if we could see that someone was baiting people and hoping for a reaction so that the mods would come down on the people who react (and by that, I mean posting stuff against babble policy, as interpreted by the moderators). But that would not absolve babblers of their responsibility to not respond with personal attacks. We are all responsible for our own behaviour, and no one "makes" anyone insult people, no matter what they say "first".
It would also, of course, be the responsibility of the moderators to ensure that when we do step in, we don't take advantage of our privilege as mods to bend the rules and be snarky about it ourselves (something that I know I do on occasion).
Perhaps we could also have threads in rabble reactions that go back to basics when it comes to interpersonal skills - how to disagree without posting personal attacks, things to do other than a knee-jerk flame reaction to offensive posts, etc.
Would this work for people, at least for a while? I know it will probably feel like a constraint, but I think it's possible to have passionate discussions without tearing each other down and intimidating all but the most thick-skinned of participants / potential participants.
I think suspensions can be good.
The problem with just "calling out" a babbler is that a babbler can shoot off a vicious personal attack knowing that the only "consequence" of doing so is being "called out" and asked not to participate in that thread. But, at the end of the day, they get to shoot whatever zinger of a personal attack that they want...and from one thread to another.
Suspensions provide a real consequence to bad behavior: Loss of posting rights for some period of time. From my observation, suspensions have a good cooling-off effect on most babblers.
Calling out is what is happening now and it is clearly not working for some of us.
So what should the threshold be for imposing a suspension?
So what should the threshold be for imposing a suspension?
It's obviously a subjective call by the mods. But, let's say that a particular moderator's subjective standard is relatively low (i.e., a suspension is relatively easily triggered with that mod). What's the worst thing that happens? A babbler gets a short break from babble.
I think it would enhance civility here tremendously and, as Pogo pointed out, the current policy of "calling out" babblers is, IMHO, ineffective (as evidenced by the tenor of babble lately).
Thanks, Sven. Do you think a spate of suspensions would possibly cause some vicarious learning on the part of other Babblers?
I think the threat of suspension might actually be driving some of the hostility, though. babblers play up to the line because the line is there. Or perhaps in order to try to push other people over it. And you wouldn't believe the number of requests we get to "ban so-and-so" or "give so-and-so a time-out". It's like watching the emperor give the thumbs down in the colosseum, you know? :D
I think that if we realize that we're not going to get the satisfaction of seeing our babble enemies banned or suspended, and that we are going to be called on personal attacks every single time we make them, then there will be less incentive for us to keep it up. I strongly believe that if we're treated as adults, we just might act like adults. Moderators should be here to guide the discussion away from dead ends, and be more like editors rather than doling out spankings.
Pogo, I disagree that calling out is what is happening now. I think there are a number of babblers who are not called out by moderators on personal attacks every time they make them, because a culture has taken hold, of letting personal attacks go if the person making them is a "regular", or if they are perceived as "correct" or "baited" or "righteously angry".
I like to think that we babblers, as adults, will respond positively if moderators focus more on defusing and redirecting away from personal attacks rather than punishing and scolding.
And perhaps there should be a rabble reactions thread where moderators can be reminded of the same if we fall off the wagon and into snarkiness or personal attacks ourselves, since we're not immune!
There's an interesting issue in there Michelle, wrt the "ban so-and-so" emails. Perhaps one option would be to do an after-action review of a thread in which someone's actions have resulted in their banning or suspension. Everyone who contributed to that action by responding to their posts/escalating the tension/ really anything that lead to the banning (obvious trolling exculded) should be given a 24 hour ban.
This way the running to the line is stopped, as is all the in-the-rules provocations.
Perhaps, if the moderators want to apply some kind of penalty to misbehavers, they could play around with the babbler labels.
For example, who would want their name to have "Harper supporter" under it? Or "Campbell in 2009!!" or "I_heart_Emay"?
Failing that, it could be kind of amusing if the mods just took it upon themselves, when threads become donnybrooks, to insert apologies and other conciliatory messages into posts.
"You're a running dog of the Capitalist overlord and you'll be first against the wall when the revolution comes" could be turned into "I'm inclined to disagree, though I'm sure we could find some common ground, and I'm sorry for calling you an Imperialist Stooge... hug?"
FOFLMAO, Snert. This one needs to go in the babble hall of fame.
Haha! Great idea! :D
The fundamental problem is that certain long time posters get a pass based on longevity. The double standard is obvious and it gives others a feeling of license to either pile on or to respond in kind. The idea above is probably a better way to handle it then my preference- which is to ban- for some limited amount of time. When our now adult kids fought it didn't matter who started it- they were all in trouble if they started hitting each other. Starting it shouldn't matter. If babblers - on either side decide to join in on a tit for tat then they should all suffer the consuequences of their actions.
Oooh, yes, let's build a "personal attack post cleanser" that the mods can apply to offending posts. I'm with you Snert. It could search for certain trigger phrases and replace them with care bear conflict-resolution. The more offending the original post, the more marshmallow-y the filtered text.
I don't think longevity is the reason. Rather as KenS points to a certain ability to walk close to the line, push back appropriately when challenged and dodge when necessary. I can point to myself at times using this behaviour, though I am certainly not proud of it. Longevity plays into it in that the if there is a mod/poster confrontation the mod knows that they are going to be challenged they think twice before getting into it with the poster.
I agree with you that this has happened, Life, and continues to happen. I also agree with you that it's offputting to new members and that it shouldn't be like that.
It's interesting, how many people seem to lean towards suspensions and bans.
Here is the problem I see with "progressive suspensions". Most lurkers (including right-wing troll types) get to know the regulars pretty well. One thing we've seen on babble on occasion is the slow-to-explode right-wing troll type who skirts the rules for a while, staying just this side of the line, and getting the regulars all riled up. So they watch the board for a while, and then go after someone who's had a few "strikes" and this time that person's going to be gone for a month (or whatever) if they screw up again. So that's the person they focus on baiting, in order to try to get them to lose their cool.
And the mod might be onto that troll, but then once that troll is banned, they come back with a new account, slightly different personality, and start baiting certain babblers again.
The other thing is, our regulars have a lot invested in coming to babble for years on end, but trolls have nothing invested. So they start flame wars with the regulars (who shouldn't engage, but hey, we're human) and the troll doesn't care if they lose their account - heck, they can just open another account and keep going where they left off, baiting the same people until they lose that account. But the people who have a lot invested in this community might bend under the pressure, and after the troll's gone through a few accounts, the regular has finally gotten themselves banned because they've given in to the trolling onslaught.
And I think it's a fair question, whether people who have devoted years of their time to building this community, even if the occasional person is abrasive, shouldn't get a bit more leeway than someone who is brand new and already acting like a jerk.
I'm not saying I have the answers to these questions. I'm just saying that I don't think it's quite as simple as merely saying that everyone gets progressive suspensions until they're banned.
Not to mention that the moderators would probably find it pretty difficult to remember which level of suspension each person on babble had last, if any.
So basically nothings going to really change. The mods are going to play nanny and continue to favor insiders. Not banning and not giving suspensions reinforces the culture of anger and temper tantrums by regulars. It also tells newcomers that it's acceptable behavior. Why shouldn't I call someone a fuckwad if all you are going to do is come in and tell me it's rude. I know it's rude, that's why I'm saying it. I won't even be kicked out of the thread so I can needle and insult people a few times before being kicked out... except that is only true for the real insiders. I certainly couldn't do it if my target was an insider.
Your thread title suggests you are dealing with children who haven't learned how to get along. You still intend to molly-coddle regulars. They will continue to model behavior that newcomers will assume is okay because at worst the mods will just tell posters they are being naughty a few times then tell them they can't post in that thread anymore. You think unionist doesn't know when he is insulting someone? You think it's going to bother him that he can only get a few shots in before he can't post in that thread anymore. He's already decided he isn't interested in engaging in discussion and he is amusing himself by taking potshots. You are saying he's allowed to do that and all you'll do is tell him he's being rude.
Deciding whether or not someone is baiting is not always a clear cut call but if someone's opinion might upset one of the regulars then labeled "baiting" even if it isn't. You are policing views not actions. That is fine in clear cut cases where the individual is clearly right-wing but the problem isn't with trolls or right-wingers. In the thread on the proposed changes to custody laws the individual who came in to promote father's rights was shut down instantly. Nobody bothered to engage or respond seriously to the poster because they were clearly educated on the issue and had made up their mind.
What if the poster had been someone who sincerely wasn't aware that misinformation was being promoted and was falling for those arguments but decided to post here to find out what the "other side" of the argument was. Now that person would be engaged through being treated with derision and the mods would warn the OP that their views aren't welcome here and treat them like a troll an idiot or both. They would be driven out. Doesn't matter if they participated in every peace march ever held in North America for the past 40 years.
I agree that trolls can be sneaky and disrupt a board but the answer is not to allow attacks on anyone suspected of being a "mole" because they don't instantly agree with the most extremist views. If they are a troll that will become obvious soon enough. If they are genuine but a more moderate leftist that too will become clear.
In the professor who got arrested thread I never said anything racist. All I suggested was that the incident might not be one-sided. Facts came out that suggest there is some ambiguity. The professor had trouble with the door because there was a recent attempted break-in at his very house. In the previous few weeks there had been a flurry of daytime break-ins. The woman reporting the incident didn't say a word about "black men". Nuns, real nuns, have been caught shop-lifting. People dressed as nuns have smuggled drugs. Babies and children have been used to smuggle drugs. A flurry of daytime robberies means that somehow the robbers must appear as though they belong where they are. A robber could use suitcases to carry out stolen goods. Turns out the cop in question gave mouth to mouth resuscitation to a black man. But I was deemed out of line for suggesting that just maybe people were jumping to conclusions and this particular incident might not be an example of racism because we didn't have all the facts. That was not "racist" on my part.
Turns out the woman was lying in the Duke rape case yet at first I jumped on the bandwagon of condemning the Duke players. They deserved to be condemned for their misogyny but not for raping that woman because they didn't do it. How would someone who suggested things might not be what they seem, that the men might be innocent, be treated here? As a baiter, a troll, and anti-feminist.
This part of policy "babble is NOT intended as a place where the basic and essential values of human rights, feminism, anti-racism, and labour rights are to be debated or refought." is being used as justification for preventing progressive people from disagreeing with the board insiders including mods. The insiders are allowed to fight amongst themselves but no one else is allowed to say anything that offends an insider. Disagreeing with an insider is "baiting" because insiders can't be expected to control themselves when other people upset them by having an opposing opinion. Insiders, however, are free to bait people who admire the Dalai Lam or Mr. Moist and if they complain they are accused of being petty or unreasonable.
It goes well beyond some posters being allowed to be rude. This is from the other thread:
On the issue of joint custody, I'm very lucky to have Michelle pretty much channelling my thoughts on that because I, G. Pie, would not dare to post further on that subject. So while on one hand I'm grateful to Michelle for fighting the good fight, on the other I'm wondering why I, one of the riff-raff, am not allowed to post pretty much the same POV.
Even if G. Pie is wrong and could have participated in that thread the perception remains that posters will be judged by who they are not by what they say.
Poster after poster, both old and new, lurkers, part-time participants, is agreeing that they don't know where the line is because it moves depending on who the poster is and what their viewpoint is. People don't post because they don't want to become the target of some insider They know the mods will side with their favorites no matter what. Some people are saying they lurk and figure out who's who then avoid specific threads where they suspect they will be attacked. Others post a few times and give up stating that their reason is the way the board is moderated, or not moderated. These are just the ones that speak up. You don't even bother to hide the fact that you play favorites instead you justify it.
You seem to think the insiders will leave unless they are allowed to run roughshot over everyone else. Well if that's the case maybe they should leave so rabble can build a message board where progressives feel welcome to post instead of feeling like they are entering a hostile environment where they have to fella-tio the insiders if they want to participate.
Telling flamers they are rude is meaningless. They know they are being rude. They are being rude on purpose because they want to inflame their target. That's the whole point.
You have explicitly granted permission to your favorites to be rude 2 or 3 times per thread that they want to trash.
You have explicitly told your favored group of posters that they will not be held to the same standards as others because you don't want them to feel alienated. (apparently it's fine to alienate everyone else)
My perception is that babble is run by a clique of which the mods appear to be members. Neither mods nor insiders make any secret of it. Some potential posters are so alienated by the blatant prejudice and favoritism that they refrain from participating or leave in disgust shortly after joining.
One thing that needs to happen is the stopping of 'I am ignoring you' posts. This is just another way of launching a passive aggressive attack, and remincisent of something my grandkids would do, and the online equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling lalalalalala over and over. It just adds to a climate of hostility, but it being allowed regularly. The other fundamental thing that must change is that the double standard given to some select posters must stop, or you might as well just make rabble/babble a private club and quit pretending it is open to all progressives. Because right now it is only open to progressives that 'happen to agree with us".
ETA - Michelle the problem is not with obvious trolls but long time posters who have now put themselves in opposite camps. Say anything in any thread that might seem like you supported something that camp said then you can see yourself opened up to endless attacks too. The problem is that some long time babblers understand the rules and are much sneaker than newbies or the more straightforward. If babble is to become the place it wants to be, as uncomfortable as it might be, those people are going to have to be dealt with and sternly because they have shown themselve incapable of acting like adults. It's a bit like the jackasses who heckle in the House of Commons. Sure it can be entertaining, but does it really add anything to debate, or does it debase the whole place. I would suspect the latter.
Because of the really unhealthy dynamic on babble lately, I think that it should be simply, "No personal attacks on other babblers, period." No matter what.
How does it get enforced? I would prefer to enforce it without any bannings or suspensions at all, except for obvious spammers and really, really nasty trolls.
Been thinking this over and reading the constructive posts, and with some trepidation, I agree. I've never called for the banning of any poster (except the obvious troll after a first post), and I've lobbied for the return of some - even though I understood the logic behind the sanction. What's the worst that can happen if we try your suggestion? If it breaks down, we'll call another meeting, review, and amend.
Actually, since it was mentioned, I think the "Should shared parenting be forced?" thread is going remarkably well. No one could suspect Michelle and I of seeing eye to eye on most issues... but we have had, so far, a perfectly civil exchange, based on feelings, evidence, other people and organizations' assesments and... look Ma, no blood! Others have joined the discussion with differing POVs and still no fracas, despite the issue being such a flashpoint in society. I sincerely believe that cyniscm is not warranted and that anyone not indulging in personal attacks or no-holds-barred defensiveness of one's opinions would and will be respected in this thread and elsewhere.
Well, not sure how to respond to that post, Infosaturated. I guess all I can do is promise to try my best not to show favourtism and to make this work. I think we have different outlooks when it comes to the intentions of the people who post here. I think most people who post here do not intentionally set out to fight all the time - I think that it just takes some time to change unhealthy dynamics and people fall into old patterns easily. I'd like to try and help change that with as little punitive action as possible, while also trying to correct the imbalance that you and Life have observed when it comes to favouring certain long-time babblers over others.
Martin, it was an earlier thread on the same subject that I was referring to in Infosaturated's post.
Life, do you really believe there is any sort of agreement between long time babblers, on most anything? The infighting going on here speaks otherwise to that notion, don't you think?
As one should be able to see, there isn't, there is a huge gap between, feminists, Libertarians, neo-Liberals, anarchists, labour union people's, 3rd wayers, environmentalists, urban rural, and any other assorted grouping which belong to the forum.
Most often times we on the left, hear that type of description from the right wing crowd, who think we are some large homogenous group, that does group think.
As such, it is my opinion, in this instance, you are mischaracterizing things a bit, in this respect.
Infosaturated, you are expressing what I feel even though I am a recent poster. I have lurked for a while then tried to get into some of the conversations. Those pertaining to the Middle East have been the most challenging. I have been threatened twice by the mods with banning and I am still confused as to what rules I violated. Certainly in comparison to one longtime Babbler who consistently intimidates, name calls and bullies, I have never approached that level of parlance.
I'm not sure in the end if anything can be done. A Board like this thrives on its longtime posters and simply put you don't want to piss them off. Indeed, I have also been told in no uncertain terms that if I don't like it here I can leave. Not what I expect from a progressive board. The usual reason given is that some here disagree with my position on the Middle East even though I am consonant with many other Jewish progressive leftists like Jeff Rose and Phil Berger to name just a couple.
I look forward to seeing if any changes arise from this important thread.
I dare you guys to try to outlaw fighting. You'll have cut out the heart and soul of the internet, we might as well be talking face to face or something weird like that.
However, dealing with the poor behaviour should be met with 'mutings'. I've been on boards that force certain posters to have 'cool down periods' where they are given a temp ban for 2-4 hours or something along those lines. You ban the two combatants, they can continue duking it out over PMs if they so choose, the thread can go on and those that oppose the moderators glorious and eternal moderate revolution can go and gripe in one of their babble counter-revolutionary reactionary threads. The rest of us will lead on to a shining and prosperous tomorrow (eventually getting rid of the hierarchal and oppressive monsters that we call mods (mod is dead - Nietzsche))
Great, now people are calling for the banning of regular posters. Guess what? All you lurkers and occassional posters will eventually become regulars too, and you will have some fighting moments with others, it's human nature. Then you're all banned for a new crop. Repeat the same all over again?
I came to this board when it was chock full of regulars debating and yes, getting peeved at each other, because that is how life works sometimes. If we all want some squeaky clean board where we all agree, and there are never, ever any words that may rile someone up, I think we're living in fairy tale land.
What we can do is attempty to control our behaviour. Period. I don't think calls for mass bannings of regulars is really the way to go, and it is quite a nasty thing to do.
OK, Mass bannings are extreme, but the mods are trying hard to come up with a comprehensive strategy to deal with all the sniping and I don't think that relying on board members to control themselves has worked very well. There is something about Internet forums. They make individuals go MAD.
Then provide a permanent flaming thread so babblers can let loose there. Are these people not adults?
And I think it's a fair question, whether people who have devoted years of their time to building this community, even if the occasional person is abrasive, shouldn't get a bit more leeway than someone who is brand new and already acting like a jerk.
On any other message board I have participated in it is the regulars that are supposed to set an example for newcomers. Why shouldn't a newcomer act like a jerk? That is the example being set for them. It's like you invite some kids over who see your kids writing on the wall with crayons. So, they pick up crayons and write on the wall. Then you tell them off but not your kids.
No, I don't think it's fair for "regulars" to get to throw their weight around because they were here first. You say they built a community. I say they built a clique. They aren't attacking trolls that baited them they are attacking anyone they please.
You set up this scenario where a troll lures some regular how exactly? By having a viewpoint that enrages the regular? Do these trolls pretend to be sincere then suddenly pop out and say neener neener I really love Bush you suckers?
I'm not saying I have the answers to these questions. I'm just saying that I don't think it's quite as simple as merely saying that everyone gets progressive suspensions until they're banned.
Not to mention that the moderators would probably find it pretty difficult to remember which level of suspension each person on babble had last, if any.
So don't make it progressive. If regulars are so devoted to this board then a 3 day suspension will help them to learn how to control themselves, a skill all adults should have. Personally, I think most attacks are quite deliberate not due to a loss of control. The attacker may lose their temper but they feel free to indulge it rather than control it. If a global 3 day suspension policy doesn't work then make it a week. If they value the board so much they will learn to confine their flaming to the flame war thread.
It is not a case of an occasional poster getting abrasive. It is a case of some posters being allow to bait and flame other posters because they have been here longer and the mods like them or agree with their views. It's about allowing only a certain brand of progressives to post. It's not about some poor regular being baited by a troll for weeks or months and finally exploding. It's about regulars being allowed to insult and bait anyone they please while being protected by the mods.
I am interested in why the odd regular poster gets to frankly misbehave in a pretty obnoxious manner. Frankly, I would love to post who I am thinking about but Im afraid it would get me banned.
You are using incredibly exclusive language. We "regulars" are reading these threads. Perhaps you can discuss these issues with that in mind. You know, that we are actual real people and not just "them". It would be nice if you actually engaged us in communication, instead of coming here and dictating what that should look like and speaking about us as if we are children.
We get a lot farther with kindness then bullying and innuendos.
Oh we cross posted Jaku. This comment wasn't meant for you.
Stargazer how would you have us engage in the way you see would be helpful?
Stargazer, I am not sure who you are referencing. Could you please clarify.
I think that a time out for a couple of hours is a good idea. But I think that time out has to come with an explanation that is fair to both parties, not just the one screaming the most. The problems I can see coming from short suspensions is the inability for others to figure out who is right or wrong. Actually forget who is right or wrong, maybe when two people or more are going at it in a really bad way, suspend both parties until they calm down.
Then perhaps we have a referee is need be. Someone who is impartial. The mods already do a good job of that.
Edited to add: I'm referencing Infosaturated's post. I don't think we need to be called "them" and treated like small children. I just find that language very exclusionary and alienating.
Perhaps part of the timeout process should include an acknowledgement of the wrongdoing to get reinstated.
But isn't it kind of difficult not to other people on message boards?
SG I know some stuff about you, but that's not the same as actually KNOWING you.
It is really difficult CMOT. But look at the amount of information the majority of us have shared with each other. I think I have shared more with people here than I have with my "real life" friends. I think that this sharing gives us a human face to our onscreen moniker and it is probably also the reason why we tend to get on each other sometimes. I think we all just have to stop and ask ourselves, "Is it really that important to me for others to completely see things as I do?" The answer is no but hell, I still do it sometimes, despite common sense. :)
Bloody humans. We're a great lot aren't we?
Perhaps part of the timeout process should include an acknowledgement of the wrongdoing to get reinstated.
I doubt that in a lot of cases you'd get much recognition of someone's own wrongdoings. A quick 'you guys are gone for a few hours, see you soon!' would suffice in fairness. It isn't, by any means, a harsh measure - anyone who complains about being booted from a site for 2 or 4 hours really needs something better to complain about. They'll be right back at the board, the mods can make a comment explaining the action in the thread (and preempt our supreme babbler ability to shout at each other aimlessly by perhaps having a thread to discuss recent short-term bans, or at least give whatever extra 'splainin' they care to). I can't really see anyone having a problem with being told 'hey, shut up, you've made about 50 attacking posts in a thread of 112 posts prior to closing, and now you're starting the same trend in the thread pt. 2'. Such a method of divine moderator retribution would also encourage people to not hop right into the attacking pool, instead, isolating the pissy user, making them stand out, and iMbarassing them online - a dual use 'ha ha' to anyone who really feels it is necessary to, and I'm just making this as general as possible 'hey, x, fuck you. i disafuckinggree with your fucked position on political issue y. go fuck yourself, i have more slurs that won't be paraphrased by PB in this post'. Really, I have to stress that this will isolate fights, isolate the combatants and discourage some of the more creative dog pile alliances that have sprung up on here over the aeons of internetting that have ocurred.
I think I have shared more with people here than I have with my "real life" friends. I think that this sharing gives us a human face to our onscreen moniker and it is probably also the reason why we tend to get on each other sometimes. I think we all just have to stop and ask ourselves, "Is it really that important to me for others to completely see things as I do?" The answer is no but hell, I still do it sometimes, despite common sense. :)
Alright, but I think that if I had met, for example, Martin(hugged his cat, gossiped with his grandma, commandeered his computer to play doom etc.) before meeting him online, I wouldn't be as willing to tear him apart in bouts of Web combat, and we wouldn't be standing on either side of a chasm created by Internet induced ignorance.
In talking about mass banning of regulars which I believe was alluded to somewhere above, really, that's getting a bit ahead of things. In a word, no. The whole idea here is to use less suspensions and bannings, but it will require a buy in by all posters here. This is something Michelle and I are suggesting, it's not really something we can do on our own.
Bannings and suspensions are still going to happen because we'll still get the usual trolls registering here, commercial spammers etc.
I agree, as I said before. I would go further, and suggest we try dispensing with bans and suspensions altogether (except for obvious trolls of course). That could be combined with the methods Michelle advocated (identifying abusive behaviour), with a collaborative effort by babblers to ignore attacks until the attacker gets tired, maybe even a call by the mods to ignore a babbler until further notice - but don't throw them out. I think it's worth a try. For one thing, it will avoid "wrongful convictions", and for another, it will give babblers better testing and training in self-restraint.
Unless you have a suggestion as to how to deal with this, why not just leave it alone, and use the same methods as above? Of course, "calling out" posters on such behaviour may be a little more difficult.
Finally, we could agree that only mods can comment on or criticize posting behaviour. Even reminding someone of the rules can be taken as (and sometimes amounts to) a personal attack. Use PM or email - and while waiting, use "ignore". Again, I think it's worth a try. Anything that helps reduce the use of the word "you" in posts can't hurt.
Fortunately, the chasm isn't as wide or deep as it seems, CMOT. I have to say really like you and your input... and I agree things might have been easier if we had had the opportunity to meet.
Or not. Because, to address Stargazer's insight ("...I think that this sharing gives us a human face to our onscreen moniker and it is probably also the reason why we tend to get on each other sometimes...), the closer we become, the more expectations we have of each other and difficulty we have seeing others rally to or maintain positions that go totally against the grain of our own. I have experienced this after having had the chance to meet a few Babblers in person.
An interesting dialectic all around.
You are using incredibly exclusive language. We "regulars" are reading these threads. Perhaps you can discuss these issues with that in mind. You know, that we are actual real people and not just "them". It would be nice if you actually engaged us in communication, instead of coming here and dictating what that should look like and speaking about us as if we are children.
We get a lot farther with kindness then bullying and innuendos.
Well I am not going to suck up to you just because you are an insider and being here a long time is not the only criteria for being one. All I have said is that posters should be treated as equals and all I am reading is that the insiders club needs special consideration because secret nasty trolls torture them and force them to behave badly whereas new posters should know that only the insiders are protected.
REAL women of Canada do not speak for the majority. Nice to see the company the anti-prostitution crowd keeps.
Mods are tripping over themselves to justify the above as long as it's said by an insider. If I were allowed to be equally rude I would be fine with it. If threads didn't get closed because insiders are judged by the moderators to be incapable of self-control I'd just ignore the bickering, or maybe join in.
The choices are not limited to ban all the insiders or give them preferencial treatment. You could choose to treat everyone the same instead of creating a lower-class of posters that aren't entitled to defend themselves or express themselves like the privileged class.
Non-insiders should not be target practice for insiders.
.
Actually, this serves as a good teaching moment as the sort of sentiment which could either have been expressed in a less confrontative manner, or foregone entirely. It's unneccesarily confrontative and doesn't really serve a point.
Regarding the second quote, I scrolled up and couldn't find it. Assuming it's from somewhere else and I didn't just miss it, I'd like to say that bringing quotes from other contexts is extraordinarily unhelpful, and a lot of people do it. From a practical viewpoint it makes things really hard to moderate, and the fairness is questionable.
Finally, we could agree that only mods can comment on or criticize posting behaviour. Even reminding someone of the rules can be taken as (and sometimes amounts to) a personal attack. Use PM or email - and while waiting, use "ignore". Again, I think it's worth a try.
That would make sense on a forum board that had full-time moderators. Because rabble.ca wrongly thinks it can run a 24/7 political discussion board with part-time moderators, regular members have to take up some of the slack. In my opinion, people should be reminded of the rules far more often and by far more people than is the case now.
Finally, we could agree that only mods can comment on or criticize posting behaviour. Even reminding someone of the rules can be taken as (and sometimes amounts to) a personal attack. Use PM or email - and while waiting, use "ignore". Again, I think it's worth a try.
That would make sense on a forum board that had full-time moderators. Because rabble.ca wrongly thinks it can run a 24/7 political discussion board with part-time moderators, regular members have to take up some of the slack. In my opinion, people should be reminded of the rules far more often and by far more people than is the case now.
I understand the risk in my suggestion, but yours carries the risk of discussions degenerating entirely into debates over who is following or interpreting the rules correctly - even if the discussion remains polite.
What did you think of my principal suggestion (no bans or suspensions except for blatant trolls, on a trial basis, with calls to ignore, etc.)?
Actually, this serves as a good teaching moment as the sort of sentiment which could either have been expressed in a less confrontative manner, or foregone entirely. It's unneccesarily confrontative and doesn't really serve a point.
At the risk of being seen as "unnecessarily confrontative," oldgoat, I will observe that your teaching moment actually serves to illustrate Infosaturated's point very nicely.
I hope I can be forgiven for intruding here.
I have been spending a great deal of time with an older relative who is quite unwell. Seeing as they are also farmers I have been spending a lot of time by myself doing chores on the combined 4 farms we own. The only time recently I spent any time on babble was at work (ssshhh!) don't tell. In that brief space of time a babbler I really like and respect and I seemed to be talking past each other and in retrospect we were really talking about two different issues around a similar theme. (Sean I apologize for my part in that). In the end we were talking past each other and I fear because of that I caused some upset. Doing what I have been doing really puts things and real priorities into perspective.
My time alone doing work with my hands has given me a great deal of time to realize that some of us have very toxic personalities no matter how polite and cute we wrap it up in. (I am not excluding myself). While babble can be a life-line for some of us- my recent experiences tell me in the end it really isn't nearly as important as our life outside this place. I say that even though there are some babblers I know and like and would absolutely love to spend time with outside babble. Those babblers I knew before babble or have since met are extrodinary people (and I mean truly amazing and inspiring) I am enourmously thankful for the fact that babble got me in contact with them. However, babble has become a truly toxic space (yet it is bizzarely addictive). Yet some of us invest far too much of our emotions in the place and that causes the entrenchment some are speaking to in this and the other thread.
I know this won't be a popular sentiment (I guess I am one of those lifers being dissed) but I really feel some selective banning of two combatents is going to be necessary. (I think I could have benefite from that over the years.) Let's make it something where they have to report back to the mods something they did away from the computer - maybe it was read a book, or helped someone cross the street, or took a walk., before then can come back. Something that takes them away from the computer. In the end most of these fights are pointless - totally, utterly pointless. If you had to desribe what you were fighting about to a friend or love one, would they really think it was worth all that energy, or might they just think to themselves that maybe you are just ever so slightly a little nuts. (and I am not saying everything is pointless, but much of it when I read it over, including threads I have been involved with, reads about the same as overhearing a bunch of the bickering that goes on between kids, or drunken duffi in a bar)
I have resolved after the last few days of periodically thinking about babble as random thoughts went through my head to only check in on babble for the polling thread because it is a conveince to me. No one will miss me, even though I will miss some of the really interesting posters. Unfortunetly, because of that I won't be able to share the discoveries I made around celery and oil conversion, or that secret language I have been able to detrmine that chickens speak and how that relates to armageddon and 2012. Such is life, or it will be up until 2012 anyway.
I also really don't like the active ignore suggestions - to me it sounds an awful lot like the shunning some of my female friends went through in grade and highschool.
OK, I actually am leaving babble like I posted yesterday (as did at least three others in threads I read, over issues of this place and certain posters being ever so hostile/confrontational). I don't flatter myself that this is any great loss, although I think the departure of ennir and Catchfire and Coyote are all losses. But back for one final post. Well, link. Not that it will alter the zOMG Cliques of the Internet or that everything written applies, but sometimes the classics are still great.
The Tyranny of Structurelessness
I concur with you about the shunning, BA.
And wb, I have missed you. are you going to start a 2012 chicken thread?
.
Actually, this serves as a good teaching moment as the sort of sentiment which could either have been expressed in a less confrontative manner, or foregone entirely. It's unneccesarily confrontative and doesn't really serve a point.
Regarding the second quote, I scrolled up and couldn't find it. Assuming it's from somewhere else and I didn't just miss it, I'd like to say that bringing quotes from other contexts is extraordinarily unhelpful, and a lot of people do it. From a practical viewpoint it makes things really hard to moderate, and the fairness is questionable.
Why didn't you point out that Stargazer's initial attack on me was out of line. Couldn't her sentiment have been expressed in a less confrontational manner?
The second quote is from somewhere else but can you think of any context in which it is acceptable to infer that people on the thread who are against the legalization of prostitution consort with or are associates of "REAL" Women.
If I don't quote examples (which primarily come from other threads) to prove my point that there are two classes of posters then I can't illustrate my claim in one place. I may post a bit more but don't worry because I will leave again soon. I don't like being treated like a second-class citizen and I don't like seeing other posters that I respect being treated like second-class citizens. It's especially depressing to see it happening on a message board that presents itself as progressive.
Musical Interlude.
OK, I actually am leaving babble like I posted yesterday (as did at least three others in threads I read, over issues of this place and certain posters being ever so hostile/confrontational). I don't flatter myself that this is any great loss, although I think the departure of ennir and Catchfire and Coyote are all losses.
Catchfire and Kiyoot are leaving? I don't know ennir very well, but the other two, and Cueball, have been among the babblers whose words I most like reading, and from whom I've learned the most.
Damn.
Give some babblers the ability to flag another babbler for a time out for going overboard. If someone gets x flags in y hours, then they get a short timeout. Babblers who abuse this flagging ability would lose it soon enough.
All of this would be very easy to set up in drupal.
I dare you guys to try to outlaw fighting. You'll have cut out the heart and soul of the internet, we might as well be talking face to face or something weird like that. [Sven's emphasis added]
Perhaps part of the timeout process should include an acknowledgement of the wrongdoing to get reinstated.
Pogo I love the suggestion, but would suggest that it doesn't have a great track record in the "real world" (the two examples that immediately come to my mind are "criticism and self-criticism" sessions from the Cultural Revolution and the Roman Catholic requirement for "sincere acts of contrition"). There is just too big a risk of it becoming a mockery of itself.
Personally, my problem with the hostility that has been so much in evidence as of late is that it is so utterly and incredibly boring. Maybe I have a higher tolerance for negative emotions being bandied about than some others, I am not particularly offended by it, just bored... it is tiring to open a thread with a promising title and to have to scroll past so much second rate one upmanship. This is not to say that I haven't been occasionally amused by a particular well written barb, but the rate of return is really low and probably not worth the time invested in trying to find them.
Personal note to remind: I still think the most practical solution is to arm them all with foam rubber baseball bats and let them wail on each other until they are exhausted. I am convinced it would be therapeutic and that the resulting friction burns are not too high a price to pay.
Bag kitty - I'm with you on this one - open thread - war again - by same posters - quit reading the thread - move on - boring.
What I dislike as much, is/are [a] babbler(s) who appear to purposely go around the threads trying to derail them - repeatedly. It is almost like, well nobody listened to me over there so I will come here, and here, and here until you all darn well listen to me.
I also think that other babblers, like myself, are by-standers who play a role and could play a better role.
Just suggesting that the posters are in a "flaming war". I don't think taking sides would be helpful in that regard, because sometimes the attack shifts to you. That's for the mods to figure out the tit for tat stuff.
You know infosaturated, you remind me of another poster that had it out for me, and started thread after thread of how to get rid of me and a couple others. No one "attacked" you. I asked you to speak TO us, not at us. As for aggressiveness, you might want to check out how you treated our only sex worker here, susan davis.
Oldgoat, that second quote of mine way above (posted by Infosaturated) is a response to me seeing just who is siding with those against prostitution. It was not an "attack" on anyone. It was a statement of fact on who the anti-prostitution people are in agreeance with.
Crossposted from a less active thread:
One of the advantages of only reading babble in the day time is that I can read discussions that have taken place over a sixteen hour period. I just read the discussions on behaviour lots of interesting exchanges and povs. I feel for Infosaturated. I'm not sure everyone was heard in those discussions. I have recently been calling for people to be more civil. However, I don't think this should be to the exclusion of suspensions for egregious behaviour. The threads seemed to implicitly ask Babblers what they think should be done. The frustrating part for some babblers was that the Moderators were simultaneously telling people what was going to be done. Several expressed skepticism that this would work and suggesting various types of suspesnions should be used as well. After reading everything written overnight on the topic, I agree that Babblers need to agree to be more civil and suspensions need to be imposed when they aren't most especially to those of us Babblers with high post counts. This would show that no Bablber is more valued than any other babbler. A fundamental characteristic of a civil society and a fair justice system.
Thanks for the link Ze.
So I haven't entirely flounced. lol
And thank you Michelle for opening this dialogue. I agree that personal attacks against other posters should be stopped and I would also extend that to those we discuss, my feeling is that as long as it is okay to do that then that is the culture that is promoted.
A small confession, some years ago, during Audra's time I posted here as Rinne, I was part of the "en masse migration" and for some time hung out there but they too split and for a time I was at BreadnRoses, then there was a period of about three years when the only posting I did was to a health related board as I was too ill to do anything else. This past year I have been well enough to want to venture into the world of opinions again and so I have spent time at EM and B&R and I came here and my opinion is that we, progessive thinkers, have been greatly diminished by our inability to be civil to each other.
Perhaps I am not well enough to tolerate hostility, perhaps I am oversensitive, but more than my sensitivity I cannot see how it helps us manifest as mature human beings.
Reading through the last thread that Michelle started it is difficult to see how it can change when the thread itself demonstrates how little respect some posters have for eachother or for Michelle's request that the thread not be a place to rehash old arguments. I found it quite funny actually.
Here's my remedy, if you find yourself getting too upset stop and sing a little song that goes"ai, ai, ai,ai, mi, mi, mi mi, AI, AI, AI, AI, MI, MI, MI, MI, sing it like a Mexican serenade and reflect upon the fact that being attached to I and Me inevitably brings conflict and suffering.
I think that if we realize that we're not going to get the satisfaction of seeing our babble enemies banned or suspended, and that we are going to be called on personal attacks every single time we make them, then there will be less incentive for us to keep it up. I strongly believe that if we're treated as adults, we just might act like adults. Moderators should be here to guide the discussion away from dead ends, and be more like editors rather than doling out spankings.
I agree, as I agreed in essence with Michelle's proposal in the OP. This thread has tended to veer off in other directions, but unless we want to forget about this whole subject, it would be nice to hear babblers' views on this - particularly those who plan on sticking around.
:D :D :D
On that note, I have made a first step forward on my alternative idea, apparently there is funding available too. :bigeyes:
Seriously! I was astounded that it could be so...
Plus, there is a critical component available, who is interested in such a project, knows how to apply for the funding, has the ability to put it on paper, and the skills to present it to the public, too. Just one chance comment, to apparently the correct person, about our conversation topic and it all seems to becoming together with no real effort, whatsoever. :more bigeyes:
Should you want to hear more tell me, and I will pm you.
Whatever happened to that pleasant habit of posting a recipe when things got a bit hoary?
MANGO CURRY
Ingredients:
1/2 tsp Cumin seeds
1 tbsp Oil
1 tbsp Jaggery
6 Red Chillies
3/4 tsp Salt
1/2 Coconut, grated
2 Onion, sliced
250 gms Green Mangoes
6 Pods Garlic flakes
1 tsp Coriander seeds
1/2 tsp Turmeric powder
1 inch Ginger
How to make mango curry:
Peel green mangoes.
Slice each mango into small pieces, removing seed.
Wash and keep aside.
Grind together coconut, chillies, garlic, ginger, cumin and coriander.
Heat oil and fry onions till transparent.
Add ground mixture and stir-fry well, till oil begins to leave the masala.
Add mango slices and jaggery Pour one glass water.
Add salt and prepare on medium flame till mangoes are tender and curry thickens.
Smiles all around guaranteed...
I also like the complete subject re-assignment approach:
"This thread is now about pancakes vs. waffles: which is better? Discuss."
But at least with the recipe strategy you get a new recipe.
remind - well if you want to go that route you don't have to worry about me making any claims about intellectual property rights
on the one hand, when I hear the word culture, I reach for my beer - performance art, on the other hand, requires distilled spirits
A few patterns and hints from Moyer, Tuttle and Pomerantz (old Lefties) about interactions in mixed groups.
Thanks for that recipe martin, I have copied and printed it out. :)
Are individuals trying to derail this thread or are we just experiencing a little thread drift?
I am not sure but i doubt that their is a babble here who has not at one time or another come close to crossing the line if not actually crossing the line in response to something that is written in a thread. While it is easy to blame the trolls who jump into a thread only to be a muckraker it is not always the trolls that set babblers off.
I think that most of us do a good job just identifying the trolls and after carefull reminding we ignore them until the cavalry arrives and they are removed until next time.
But one thing we can never do is preventing the passion from being used in our posts. and it is the passion and / or heat of the moment posts that are usually the among the most interesting on this site.
Banning is a threat but as Michelle has written people will dip their toe into the line in the sand and see exactly what is required to get called out.
I have had my arguments with many on this board, i would like to think that those i have disagreed with have argued on the topic without getting personal. But i have also sent my share of pm's of apoligy and recieved many pm's of apoligy from babblers of all political stripes when things have become heated.
Here is the crux of the matter -- as one babble told me once in a pm shortly after i joined the family -- respect has to be earned. one can disagree with what is being said but can still respect the poster who posts it. I have my own opinions on the middle east, domestic policy, racism and sports teams :-) but that does not mean that I ignore the opinions of others. Some spew hatred but others provide their opinions backed up by passion and evidence.
for Babble to survive we need to respect each other, we can disagree we can argue but we must respect opinions that are different from ours.
on the one hand, when I hear the word culture, I reach for my beer - performance art, on the other hand, requires distilled spirits
Well, thank you for the release of the intellectual property rights! ;)
But I will make sure, you get recognition in the "inspired by" credit line. :D
Good post jpj, i fully agree. I'm not sure how to respond to anything on Babble now that hits me wrong. No idea what a personal attack is (apparently almost anything). Everything we say is going to get a crack down if it remotely peeves someone else. The passion will be completely removed, which is what made babble great. Just my opinion.
jpj, I agree that passion is a good thing, but I would suggest that there is a tendency on here for self-righteous indignation to be mistaken for passion. I don't think passion precludes being open to nuance or questioning, but the same does not hold true for self-righteous indignation... at best it becomes a flag or rallying point, but more often it is a cudgel used to bash "the unbelievers" -- it is a tool of fundamentalists of all stripes to attempt to make those who question cower and to silence dissent. I don't think it is all that difficult to spot the difference between the two -- those who are passionate are usually trying to recruit, to share their passion -- those who are indulging their indignation are like those angry old guys in cardigans standing on the porch trying to intimidate the world into conforming.
I am going to continue to be passionate. Do not know how not to, just going to more carefully word things.
This reminds me of a project on effective communication skills that I worked with in tandem with the college.
Part of that was an exercise in describing something to someone, so they could get it, without seeing it or the person describing it.
One person was the drawer, while the other was the sender of the description of what was to be drawn. The drawer was blind folded and had to draw a representation of what was being described to them by the unseen person.
It taught listening skills, to the drawer, and communication skills to the describer.
The better someone could describe what they were viewing the better the blindfolded representation was.
Ha, that's a good one remind. As you know I also do not know how to not be passionate. This technique may work.
You know, funny how we can separate work from personal life applications, as I just never thought about using it as a technique here and other in written non-visual interpersonal activities on line.
Down time, and all of that, you know. ;)
Hope it helps.
One thing I need to work on in life as well as babble is favouring the most generous interpretation. If something is a little ambiguous, I'm going to try not to jump to conclusions.
I just wanted to throw in here a great example of good babbling (and, no, I can't be bothered to post the actual thread). The discussion was about ADD/ADHD kids getting to queue jump at amusement parks because it is so hard for them to stand in line. I posted something to the effect that I disapproved of this kind of accommodation and gave an example of my own family where one person had anger issues and everybody else was encouraged to tie themselves up into pretzels so as not to set this person off.
In response, Caissa posted, without any comment, a link to the symptoms of ADHD (of which rage is not one!)
As you know I also do not know how to not be passionate. This technique may work.
Pretend everything in life is a technical manual - adjust view point accordingly.
Or pretend everything is a point of law and adjust accordingly.
[threaddrift] Watched a news segment last night on a study of ADD and ADHD sufferers, and it seems they have found a direct correlation between it and pregnancies of women that had elevated contact with the chemical, Bisphenol A, that hardens plastics and lines the inside of tin cans, amongst other uses.
So we are giving children physical and social problems, because of toxic chemical usage, and then are giving them drugs to treat it.
Was wondering why my daughter and granddaughter were not suffers of either, now I know! ;) [/thread drift]
Babble is very cool in a lot of ways, but when all is said and done, it's still a message board, and a very provides us with a very limited form of communication. Someone mentioned something about having to work with people who couldn't behavioral cues properly. The problem with this place is that there are no cues to speak of. All we have is text, we don't know whether someone is smiling when they write it, so often somthing meant as a joke comes off as offensive.
Nothing can replace actual contact with other humans.Care to offer a program title to help us trace this, remind? (Sorry for the short drift)
For the ADD segment martin?
Fortunately, the chasm isn't as wide or deep as it seems, CMOT. I have to say really like you and your input... and I agree things might have been easier if we had had the opportunity to meet.
We already know which topics we argue about. All we need to do is avoid those topics and everything should be fine. We could talk about Orange juice, or the cost of housing in montreal, or...I think that, even if people have a good reason to be angry with someone else, we should start really focusing on a "no personal attacks on other babblers" policy that really, really means "no personal attacks". [...]
Because of the really unhealthy dynamic on babble lately, I think that it should be simply, "No personal attacks on other babblers, period." No matter what.
How does it get enforced? I would prefer to enforce it without any bannings or suspensions at all, except for obvious spammers and really, really nasty trolls.
I'm still reflecting on this, and I still think Michelle's proposal is worth a try. It would be fantastic if we could get a consensus of babblers in this regard.
Anyone?
hmmm, thought the consensus was made, no bannings or suspensions, self control and contacting the mods if ever needed.
Absolutely, but the issue becomes what is a personal attack? I've already seen people stating they were personally attacked when I don't see it as a personal attack. Or how about people complaining to the mods about a poster who hasn't actually personally attacked the complainant? (I have been guilty of both). I think it really is a good idea but I'm afraid that if done so strictly there will be absolutely no room for disagreement with anyone and we'll all be in our little corners, censoring everything we wish to speak about.
For example, would stating "many men are capable of rape" be a personal attack? It could be construed as one.
My spellchecker is not working.
I don't think there are any circumstances under which that statement by itself could be construed as a personal attack.
For example, would stating "many men are capable of rape" be a personal attack? It could be construed as one.
But any mod worth her/his salt would bat down such a claim.
For example, would stating "many men are capable of rape" be a personal attack? It could be construed as one.
But any mod worth her/his salt would bat down such a claim.
Yes, I agree. So do we really have a consensus as remind believes:
1. No personal attacks, whatsoever (understanding that obviously there may be grey areas).
2. No bans or suspensions (except obvious trolls).
3. Mods intervene to lay down the law, gently or firmly as required.
Yes?
Count me in.
Ditto.
You know this 'consensus' arrived at by those of us in the 'in crowd' is pretty darn funny given some of the concerns less regular babblers were posting.
There is probably a life lesson in there, but heck if I can figure it out.
Count me in. I'll do my best not to be offensive.
I note there is no promise not to be boring. Excruciatingly boring. Indignant and boring.
Hey BA, it's a general call: any reader or lurker is free to pipe up.
Also I don't consider myself an oldtimer/insider/chosen fiou! (just a motormouth)
I call the question.
Hey, BA, great to see you!
Tommy has called the question, but I don't know whether we're using Robert's or Bourinot's...
It is called seniority, not the "in crowd" BA ;)
And Stargazer, tommy made some pretty good links, I think it was in the other thread about attacks.
So my overview is; as union stated above, and no reliance on, or use of the "lists" as made in another thread, and yea'd and nayed there.
I am not trying to get rid of you or anyone else.
I just don't think you (or anyone else) should be entitled to special treatment based on your length of time here or your friendship with moderators nor because moderators agree with your political view on any particular subject. If you get to initiate attacks on me or anyone else, then me and everyone else should have the right to initiate attacks on you too. We certainly shouldn't be criticized for defending ourselves while you get a pass. Would you agree with that?
I do not have a list of names of the people who are considered entitled to special treatment and I don't know if you are one of them. Even if they are aware they are getting special treatment they may agree they aren't entitled to it. If anyone who self-identifies as recieving special treatment wants to engage me on the topic I would definitely address them directly. If I see a specific example that I believe exemplifies the issue then of course specific names will come into play.
I have not denigrated or disrespected Susan Davis although I have been disrespected and denigrated because of my point of view. Even so I did not retaliate.
Are you implying that I have accused you or someone else of being inappropriately aggressive? I genuinely don't remember having done so. I'm not demanding a quote although that would be nice but if not could you tell me the context?
So using Michelle's example you would consider it valid if I observe that "supporters of legalization" are in agreement with human-traffickers. You genuinely would not have been offended by that? (I appreciate your response to this in the other thread Michelle, I am not actually equating or associating Stargazer or Susan or Remind or Maysie or anyone else here with human-traffickers)
1) Did you really make that comment not realizing it had offensive implications to people who are against legalization?
2) What is the basis for your accusation that I have treated Susan Davis in an inappropriately aggressive manner?
3) As far as I can recall, I agreed with Martin that you threw the first punch in the Polanski thread but I didn't attack you or criticize you personally for it. I used your comment about REAL women as an example of baiting. As only I and Martin within that thread are against legalization it seemed to be directed at us.
4) Is there some way in which you believe I am deliberately targeting you or baiting you by making sly digs?
I believe the question has been called.
So those who are in favour of the motion regarding watermelons and the coming apocolypse in 2012 please indicate your support by saying 'aye"
Oh wait sorry the clerk of the committee is trying to get my attention.
Apparently I have the wrong question and also revealed some heavy duty state secrets - sorry, wrong page of my how to disrupt committee meetings handed to me by a friend in government.
So anyway - as you were.
Well BA, maybe there should be a decision by the chair as to whether or not the question has been called. Had you said we had reached the "Point of No Return" (the one Roberts' always seems to leave out) I would be in 100% agreement with you.
As to the existence of an "in-crowd" -- can we refer to them as "the wildly prolific bunch"? or maybe the "cool kids"? Just getting tired of see seeing the reference to "in crowd" - what can I say, I crave a little variety.
tee hee (see, I am human...)
AS you were saying, BA, let's see how the "newcomers" fare under this proposal. ;) (what constitutes an "attack" for them).
So, I was never very good at figuring out my peer group dynamics. Who are the cool kids here again? Who are the wannabes? Who are the 'untouchables'? (Forget it, I do know that - they're the ones you never see outside of the middle east forums.)
I have no idea who the cool kids are, or the in crowd, or even the wannabees.
But I do understad the principles of seniority! :D
Gettin' long. time to close.
continued here
I want to be on the record as saying that with no changes in moderation will come no changes in the tenor of the board. Personal attacks will still occur and still be tolerated.
ya coulda said that in the continuation thread :D
I saw in the accordéon/bagpipe thread that skdadl has returned. I also noticed an instant elevation in the level of discourse on babble.
As far as all these proposals for new policies, &tc. around here go; they bug me, but that's because I generally don't like rules.
vive l'anarchie.