babble-intro-img
babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

A Rabble Reaction

RevolutionPlease
Offline
Joined: Oct 15 2007

>gimme a minute


Comments

RevolutionPlease
Offline
Joined: Oct 15 2007

With respect Catchfire, perhaps you should just close this whole forum of rabble reactions if you aren't able to reflect on the context of posts and are just going to close them anyway.  ;)

 

You could reread your post #4 and substitute the "work" that it was to try and "teach" E.Tamaran about destructive comments and ask yourself why more effort was not made in "teaching" others about their trolling of threads?  It just seems that dominant white discourse parsed in PC language is allowed to pass freely.

 

I understand that you and Maysie and not compensated to do this job.  I love you two and I don't really see anything in the last thread that is particularly aimed at either of you.  You're doing your best at a job I wouldn't take on.  Thank you!

 

That said, Cueball pointed it out best that this is aimed at rabble management not babble mod's.  Though, I also question why some are allowed to break babble's rules again and again with impunity and I still haven't had an answer.

 

I know this will be locked but better than nobody saying it. 

 

Too often, we all thinking we're attacking each other but we're not.  The battlefield is never online.  That's where we develop our thinking.  The battlefield is on the ground.  The more prepared we are the better.

 

I was accused of going into the sewer last thread.  You know what?  It works with people I know and it worked for Rob Ford and Don Cherry.  We need to mine the same sewers they do against the right wing.  If anything, working class people appreciate it more than the money-grubbing elite.  They love my fuck fuelled invectives against the right.  It brings them on board more than any reasoned, logical argument I can make.

 

Put your thinking hats on.  I think this discussion deserves more contemplation but I'll abide by the decision to close it begrudgingly. 

 

A lot of questions remain unanswered.

 

Solidarity.


RevolutionPlease
Offline
Joined: Oct 15 2007

And before I get locked, Catchfire, everything you said about Maysie's contribution to the board are well said and legitimate.  However, to hold yourselves as sole arbiters on this issue is not.


Slumberjack
Online
Joined: Aug 8 2005

I didn't get back to the last thread before it was closed, but I wanted to make it clear that it wasn't at all meant to delve into the ARAO 'shortcomings' of the mod staff.  Maysie has forgotten more about that than I'll ever know.  It had to do with the climate and pressure that was generated from those who refused to accept the terminology being presented as a legitimate form of protest, which in my opinion has every right to be expressed and seen here.


Slumberjack
Online
Joined: Aug 8 2005

If this thread makes it beyond a few posts, I suggest that Unionist be steered away and provided with something to preoccupy his time elsewhere, as his contributions to the last thread were entirely unproductive, all fucked up to be honest. Unionist has made it clear on a number of occasions that he prefers reverence and politeness when approaching the systemic issues created by the power apparatus in this country. He spares the vitriolic for his disapproval of other approaches. We must all act in solidarity you see, as determined by him.

There should be room on this board for expressions that fall within board policy which do not have to pass the muster of a select group of self appointed judges.


Slumberjack
Online
Joined: Aug 8 2005

Oh, and Catchfire...the closing post in the other thread. 

Quote:
as if none of this had to do with general shitheadedness

A bit of an overreaction, don't you think?


Caissa
Offline
Joined: Jun 14 2006

My name seemed to get taken in vain last night. I support E. Tamaran's right to call all police scum. I, also, support my right to state my belief that this is dehumanizing and stereotyping. These rights should be complementary not mutually exclusive.


siamdave
Offline
Joined: Sep 2 2005

Slumberjack wrote:

I didn't get back to the last thread before it was closed, but I wanted to make it clear that it wasn't at all meant to delve into the ARAO 'shortcomings' of the mod staff.  Maysie has forgotten more about that than I'll ever know.  It had to do with the climate and pressure that was generated from those who refused to accept the terminology being presented as a legitimate form of protest, which in my opinion has every right to be expressed and seen here.

You have had, as far as I recall, two posters who have *questioned* this tactic (which is NOT the same as 'refuse to accept') - most mods and apparently most people who are paying any attention to these threads apparently agree with your "tactic". So for you all to run around screaming that EVERYBOYD HATES US!!!! anytime somebody question this idea that 'ALL PIGS ARE FUCKING SCUM"- is just a rather childish straw dog type rhetorical device, and if you're interested in serious discussion about anything (which, I will admit, certainly doesn't seem to be the case), you wouldn't be doing this kind of thing.

Certainly you have a right to make a case that this is some kind of legitimate form of protest - but don't other people have some small right to disagree?

If you want to forgo the 'forum for discussion' aspect of babble, perhaps you could specify that in an OP - "This is NOT a fucking 'discussion', people - this is a place for ranting based on the FACT THAT ALL PIGS ARE SCUM!!! - or something. Qualified in terms like that, those few of us (apparently) who disagree with the idea might not bother getting involved (and PS - 'trolling' is not an appropriate term for people who disagree with you, and take the time to try to politely offer their opinion that maybe you're getting a bit over the line somehow, and this might not be the best way to win friends and influence others, if you care about doing that at all, about joining together with potential allies to try to get rid of the people who are running our country in ways so many of us do not approve of.

This is, after all, as I noted above, advertised as a "discussion forum', and that means you're going to hear things you disagree with sometimes - you really need to learn to deal with this in a more mature way ...

In my opinion, at any rate.

 


Maysie
Offline
Joined: Apr 21 2005

Chillax I'm not closing this.

If you all don't remember this thread, please give it a refresh. While it's about flagging posts as offensive, the process of banning/suspending someone is similar. We don't do it lightly or frivolously and we consult with each other and the entire moderators list serve. If anyone would like an accounting of our reasons, etc, for every decision of this sort, or of this particular one, that's not going to happen. I was pretty clear in the thread in which I suspended E. Tamaran of the reasons why.

There are a number of reasons why Catchfire and/or myself will ban or suspend someone outright. Um, pressure from various babblers who can't stand Poster XYZ? Dudes, are you fucking kidding me? Half the damn board would be gone. No, I'm not joking. You want to see the gajillion private messages and emails? For the love of cats.

I really hope nobody thinks I require non-swearing language on babble. How many more fucking f-bombs do I have to throw before that's clear too? Tongue out

Revolution Please, you know I love ya, but Catchfire and I are, in fact, the sole arbiters on babble around suspensions, warnings, bannings, etc. Sorry kid but that's how it goes. Sure we'll fuck up once in a while, and yeah we'll change or reverse decisions if the community rallies and we realize the decision needs to be changed. We aren't infallible.

So, what do you want? E.Tamaran reinstated? Very very very small chance of that happening. Or do you want something else? A change in babble culture? How? So there's more swearing? Less? More fighting? Less? More left-wing, socialist, radical content? Less mainstream, center, right-wing content? Sadly, Catchfire and I can't moderate all of that in a macro, directing kinda way. That's babble culture. You wanna change it, then you have to be different. What we do is on a case by case basis, telling babblers to "cut it out" or "knock it off" and issuing occasional warnings, and even rarer brief vacations from babble. 

Is this about warning/suspending/banning long-time babblers, who once in a while require frequent and repeated warnings about the same things over and over and OVER again? That's a far more dicey one, and if that's what the discussion here in this thread is going to be about, I can't speak for Catchfire, but that could be helpful. To me anyways.

While I enforce the rules, I rarely have a blanket way to apply all the rules. I consider that a strength. In my 13+ years as a manager and consultant it's been helpful to consider context and other factors, not just the "on paper" rule violation. The justified criticism of this method however, is inconsistency. You can't be both flexible (Poster JKL is going through a tough time) and consistent. Since I value social justice at the micro and macro level, in practice this can come across as inconsistent. I can live with that. If you want bots for mods, I'm sure there's some tech out there working on the software. Wink

Lack of consistency pisses some babblers off. I hear that. It pisses me off too, sometimes, when someone else does it. But life isn't always that cut and dried, yes? If you view overt favouritism, please flag as offensive and say why. Again, Catchfire and I aren't perfect.

And if anyone is interested in reviving the volunteer moderators program, please let us know. The pay sucks and there's little to no respect. maysie(at)rabble(dot)com  catchfire(at)rabble(dot)com.  

I'll be waiting anxiously by my computer. Laughing


Slumberjack
Online
Joined: Aug 8 2005

siamdave wrote:
  Certainly you have a right to make a case that this is some kind of legitimate form of protest - but don't other people have some small right to disagree? 

Disagree, yes.  What I've observed and contend is that the level and frequency of the argument has a wear down effect on everyone with an interest in these matters, until ultimately the way to deal with it is to please the majority at the expense of the individual, or the minority.  Everyone returns to the regular programming to continue frolicking with the issues that matter to them, until the next unpleasant interruption occurs.  The decision appears irreversable at any rate.  In future, I'll simply have to withhold my 'shitheaded' outbursts to any similiar processing.  Apparently they take on a life of their own.


Unionist
Offline
Joined: Dec 11 2005

Slumberjack wrote:

If this thread makes it beyond a few posts, I suggest that Unionist be steered away and provided with something to preoccupy his time elsewhere, as his contributions to the last thread were entirely unproductive, all fucked up to be honest. Unionist has made it clear on a number of occasions that he prefers reverence and politeness when approaching the systemic issues created by the power apparatus in this country. He spares the vitriolic for his disapproval of other approaches.

Well, for my part, I think you should be allowed to stay here and not be steered away.

[Edited on Maysie's suggestion.]


Maysie
Offline
Joined: Apr 21 2005

I just noticed there's no link in the OP to the original thread, for any newcomers to this fun-fest.

And, unlike what was allowed to go on in that previous train wreck, I mean, thread, there is no calling out of specific babblers allowed. So Slumberjack, your swipe at Unionist in post #4? Knock it off.


Maysie
Offline
Joined: Apr 21 2005

Cross posted with Unionist.

Unionist, don't bring out old and ancient arguments. Knock it the hell off or I will, in fact, close this thread. 

As an aside, the formatting in your post is all wonky and I'm not able to fix it.

 


KenS
Offline
Joined: Aug 6 2001

I volunteer to be a moderator if I have a mandate to improve the culture. Said mandate has to recognize what is feasible. Therefore I will need to suspend people with only notification to babblers of how long, and a box checked in the [long] list of behaviour not conducive to a healthy culture.

One of those items for which people will be suspended is for protesting the suspensions.

If there is any time left after meteing all the suspensions, I may occasionaly explain the enlightened and evolving strategy of culture improvement.


KenS
Offline
Joined: Aug 6 2001

No need to go closing this thread Maysie.

I'll just suspend any of the participants in the old thread who post here.


Maysie
Offline
Joined: Apr 21 2005

KenS wrote:

I volunteer to be a moderator if I have a mandate to improve the culture. Said mandate has to recognize what is feasible. Therefore I will need to suspend people with only notification to babblers of how long, and a box checked in the [long] list of behaviour not conducive to a healthy culture.

One of those items for which people will be suspended is for protesting the suspensions.

If there is any time left after meteing all the suspensions, I may occasionaly explain the enlightened and evolving strategy of culture improvement.

Hee hee, thanks for the giggle KenS, I needed that this morning.


Caissa
Offline
Joined: Jun 14 2006

KenS suggested the creation of a " [long] list of behaviour not conducive to a healthy culture."

 

Caissa thinks it should be dubbed the yogurt list.


Unionist
Offline
Joined: Dec 11 2005

Slumberjack wrote:

Oh, and Catchfire...the closing post in the other thread. 

Quote:
as if none of this had to do with general shitheadedness

A bit of an overreaction, don't you think?

Mieux tard que jamais.

 


Slumberjack
Online
Joined: Aug 8 2005

Unionist wrote:
Mieux tard que jamais. 

Ahh..you're still here.  I see that my earlier suggestion upthread received the same consideration as the call for reinstatement in the other thread.


Unionist
Offline
Joined: Dec 11 2005

Maysie wrote:

Is this about warning/suspending/banning long-time babblers, who once in a while require frequent and repeated warnings about the same things over and over and OVER again? That's a far more dicey one, and if that's what the discussion here in this thread is going to be about, I can't speak for Catchfire, but that could be helpful. To me anyways.

Ok. My answer to your question: Yes to warning, no to banning. And trial period of no suspensions. But combined with an inflexible rule of NO PERSONAL ATTACKS.

This is not a new suggestion, as you know. I suggest we try it. Here it was in detail:

Quote:

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

 

RESOLUTION

 

 

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.

 


I am absolutely convinced that babblers will accept direction from the mods if the community adopts the above.

If I'm wrong, we can suspend the trial or not renew it when it expires.

We have nothing to fear but fear itself.



Caissa
Offline
Joined: Jun 14 2006

And upon what authority or dare I suggest hubris, Slumberjack, do you deign to suggest who should and should not be permitted in a thread? of course, I support your right to do so.


Slumberjack
Online
Joined: Aug 8 2005

We're having a moment Caissa, Unionist and I, and an infrequent one at that.  Leave us alone.


Caissa
Offline
Joined: Jun 14 2006

If you want to be left alone you should get a room, Slumberjack. This is a discussion forum.


Slumberjack
Online
Joined: Aug 8 2005

Unionist wrote:
We have nothing to fear but fear itself.

That, and your seasonal recipes.


George Victor
Offline
Joined: Oct 28 2007

Maysie: "Lack of consistency pisses some babblers off. I hear that. It pisses me off too, sometimes, when someone else does it. But life isn't always that cut and dried, yes? If you view overt favouritism, please flag as offensive and say why. Again, Catchfire and I aren't perfect."

 

Your argument matches that of a retired supreme court judge (John Major), a retired Alberta judge, and a B.C. legal beagle...that Steve's attempt to impose minimal sentencing by the book (and the Alberta Court of Appeal's echo of that draconian position) makes no social or LEGAL sense. It can only create a Texas or California situation. I heard that on CBC Radio 1 this morning.

So, know that you are on the side of the angels ( and the most astute judges) on this, Maysie...and Catchfire.  Bravo...for now.Wink


Slumberjack
Online
Joined: Aug 8 2005

Might we all sleep better knowing that.


Maysie
Offline
Joined: Apr 21 2005

Hey, George, where's my royalty cheque? That's been my management style, as I said, for 13 years.

And me and the angels, well, we have some personality clashes.

It's a rare day when I get kudos from George Victor. I think I need to curl up in a corner somewhere and whimper.

Kiss


siamdave
Offline
Joined: Sep 2 2005

Caissa wrote:

If you want to be left alone you should get a room, Slumberjack. This is a discussion forum.

Hear hear, as they say ....


siamdave
Offline
Joined: Sep 2 2005

Slumberjack wrote:

siamdave wrote:
  Certainly you have a right to make a case that this is some kind of legitimate form of protest - but don't other people have some small right to disagree? 

Disagree, yes.  What I've observed and contend is that the level and frequency of the argument has a wear down effect on everyone with an interest in these matters, until ultimately the way to deal with it is to please the majority at the expense of the individual, or the minority.  Everyone returns to the regular programming to continue frolicking with the issues that matter to them, until the next unpleasant interruption occurs.  The decision appears irreversable at any rate.  In future, I'll simply have to withhold my 'shitheaded' outbursts to any similiar processing.  Apparently they take on a life of their own.

You remind me a bit of the Cdn press or media - they have 99% dominance for pushing their neocon agenda, yet let there be one tiny voice once or twice a month somewhere daring to suggest that just maybe they are wrong about something, or that something on the left JUST MIGHT be worth considering, and you get months of frothing monologues about the damned leftwing media driving the country into ruin.

You need to widen your perspective a bit. When you look in a mirror, sure it's all about you. But to the rest of the world, you and your mirror don't take up that much time or space. And the more you make clear that your space is somewhere in a juvenile schoolyard where he who shouts the loudest wins, the less notice we take of you, not more. You're in grownup land now, and self-centered screaming brats aren't all that welcome when the adults are trying to sort things out.

Good luck with your struggle - I'll leave you to it.


Maysie
Offline
Joined: Apr 21 2005

siamdave wrote:
 your space is somewhere in a juvenile schoolyard where he who shouts the loudest wins, the less notice we take of you, not more. You're in grownup land now, and self-centered screaming brats aren't all that welcome when the adults are trying to sort things out.

siamdave, don't make personal attacks.

 


Slumberjack
Online
Joined: Aug 8 2005

siamdave, it's not my fault that no one wants to take a ride on your one trick pony...monetary policy. I merely pointed out that others are bound to approach the common enemy with a perspective of their own choosing, based on whatever effects and implications they may wish to bring to the debate. Really, there's no need to go on in such a manner, as you're just embarrassing yourself at this point.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments