*** VOTE ON BABBLE PROPOSAL ***

115 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist
*** VOTE ON BABBLE PROPOSAL ***

.

janfromthebruce

I am a "yes" now with the amendment and establishing some form of quorium and end date for voting. Also, I would like to hear from the moderators on this.

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Abstaining. But I do compliment the initiative shown, and nice to see democracy breaking out.

Frmrsldr

IN FAVOR:

Aye!

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

I will vote in favour if we can add 5. No more introspecive babble threads.

Pogo Pogo's picture

I am in favour if no banning means that there is an amnesty for banned babblers that get 10 babbles to petition for their reinstatement.

al-Qa'bong

I'm waiting for the mountains to turn blue.

Pogo Pogo's picture

otherwise I abstain

martin dufresne

Actually, closing this thread while making it a sticky would keep people from voting and discussing it here.

Erik Redburn

I want to see this discussed abit further before putting it to a vote because several different suggestions were made with varying degrees of apparent support, and I'd like to see a couple alterations myself but missed out on most of the fun.  (busy doing some repairs)  Couple amendments in interest of maintaining a fair balance Re rabble.ca's mission statement, and I think we could all move on.  Otherwise I can only vote kinda yes but sorta no -depending.  :)

Unionist

martin dufresne wrote:

Actually, closing this thread while making it a sticky would keep people from voting and discussing it here.

... but it would also prevent updates of the list of votes... and here I am posting in this thread and violating my own instruction...

Maybe we should just change the motion to "no personal attacks, we really mean it!", and leave the bans and suspensions at mods' discretion - then rely on peer pressure to be a bit stronger than before? I'm sorta giving up here, it's too complicated to put motions and amendments, and to know when to really end the discussion...

Frmrsldr

Majority (of those who voted) carries the motion. The results can be sent to the Moderators. The Moderators can act, or not act upon it. If enough babblers don't like the results, the matter can be further discussed.

Caissa

Opposed. I can't support line item 2.

mahmud

Let us please keep this thread open exclusively for unionist for his vote tallying task and discuss and submit the votes on the other thread.

CMOT Dibbler

I vote yes.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I thought this thread was closed to everyone except Unionist! Change my vote to 'Opposed', please.

Slumberjack

I'd be in favour, except that point four has no hope of success given the trends in the reaction threads over the years, where things are not in fact revisited every quarter, but every single day.  Similarly, Point one's chances for success can only be imagined as a secondary hallucination within a dream like state while channelling an alternate universe.  So no, not in favour of wasting time...except for this offering on the issue.

triciamarie

The linked thread is closed for length and the other thread I checked also has big restrictions on what can or can't be discussed there -- I hope that's not a sign of where we're going with all this. I'll just note here that I really have no idea what these personal attacks are that are apparently such a problem. I don't think I've been personally attacked and I don't think I've done it, with one exception I can recall, but who knows? Others clearly do identify this as a big issue, so that's fine I guess. But it does seem to me like we're now contemplating infringing our autonomy with a whole new layer of mysterious protocol, beyond babble policy which is already vague and restrictive. I don't see how that is less intimidating to new posters. I'm not complaining about the policy but I think we would do better trying to pin down what we actually mean in terms of that first, before adding more complexity to be interpreted and enforced by our fearless mods (and shadows?)

triciamarie

If suspensions are suspended for three months, does that mean that previously banned babblers can come back? That would be awesome.

Caissa

How many non-trolls have been banned? I can think of at least one but I have only been around for 3 years.

Prophit

The other thread has now been closed and I do want to support this resolution

Unionist

[updated]

canuquetoo

More attempted oppression from a self-appointed meddler who cannot seem to understand that this site has owners who institute and enforce their policy. This exercise is a thinly veiled passive-agressive whine about the moderating.

I think they do a very good job but if the meddler doesn't like it, he is free to leave and start his own site where he can set his own policy and play god. Where do you folks find the time to obsess about nothing - your employer's time? If you really want to improve babble, try harder to stop being a pain in the ass.

Caissa

How does this post fit into the proposed new policy?

oldgoat

Just some thoughts on this.  First, other than the spammers and vandals whom I think we can all agree don't count, we don't suspend that often, and ban very rarely, and I would say only after a graduated process.  Something the moderators had talked about was a greater use of the very short term suspension where things were really getting hot, but it's not something I've really done much.  In the spirit of making things work I'd be happy to try more low key interventions short of suspending but if I absolutely feel I need to close an account for a bit then I gotta do what I gotta do.  I would hope in this unlikely event that the reasons would be pretty self evident.  The mods get paid to see that things don't go down the crapper.

Now, about no personal attacks.  I want to underline the recognition above that there are grey areas.  There are BIG grey areas.  I'd say the majority of items which show up in the "flag as offencive" queue are under the heading of personal attack, and interestingly it's a third party report, not the offendee doing the reporting.  I'm gonna say for most of them I really don't see it as a really big attack, and I also am pretty sure that some of these reports are agenda driven.  Often I know that the reporter just doesn't like the putative offender.  They are valuable though to the extent that they alert the mods to threads which may be becoming problematic, and I would then check in ewhere I otherwise not read it at all.

So, some poster may have a personal idiom which weighs a bit toward the sarcastic.  Another might have the personal quality of having a more tender ego, or of being more defensive.  We all have our buttons in different places.  some judgement on our part will be involved.  off the top of my head, I'll probably look at a thread and ask 'would a new poster likely feel akward or intimidated to make her/his first post here?  Is the discussion becoming more all about the participant rather than the subject?  Are people being mean?

Anyhoo, thus be my thoughts to date.  I'm probably good for a few more this week.

 

Michelle

canuquetoo, I appreciate your praise of the moderating, but it would be great if you could express it without attacking others here.  Don't forget that I actually invited the input we've gotten on this.  So really, it's kind of my fault.  (Careful what you wish for, because you just might get it!)  :)

oldgoat

So you're to blame!  *!#*&%^#  *mumble mumble*

Joey Ramone

I vote "yea", but I'd also like to see a 'no whining' rule.  I'm an activist who is interested in discussing activism so that we can be better, more effective activists.  I can't stand the constant whining on this board about all the bad things that right-wingers and liberals do.  All I want to know is, what are you doing about it?

Ghislaine

I'll vote yea.

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

I like number 1 but I don't see how it can be enforced without use of number 2. So I'm opposed.

G. Muffin

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

 

I've been thinking about this some more. I don't think there are grey areas. There are just varying levels of personal attacks. And if we're saying right off the bat that there are grey areas and implying that there's nothing we can do about them, I think this exercise is doomed.

 

And I think we need to add something to the effect of:

 

No deliberate misunderstanding.

No selective quoting out of context.

No dragging disputes from one thread to another.

 

Unionist

G. Pie wrote:
I don't think there are grey areas. There are just varying levels of personal attacks.

Examples for your consideration:

Quote:
Babbler A: I think the Liberal senators did a good thing by moderating the "tough on crime" bill from the House.

Babbler B: The Senate should be abolished. Also, the Liberals are liars who don't give a damn about crime.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Quote:
Babbler A: I think the NDP was wrong to whip their caucus to vote for Harper's Omnibus Crime Bill and then discipline Bill Siksay for voting his conscience.

Babbler B: You spend most of your time here dredging up tiny trivia to put the NDP in a bad light.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Quote:
Babbler A: The Dalai Lama is a great man of peace and wisdom and a humble representative of his people.

Babbler B: The Dalai Lama selectively preaches non-violence to the victims of U.S. and Western aggression; he mouthes hypocritical platitudes, for which he is adulated and gets paid a monarch's ransom; and he is leading his people down the road of ethnic hatred, violence, separation, and restoration of the Lamas' feudal and tyrannical reign.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Which of the above are personal attacks, G. Pie? All, some, none? Sincere and serious question.

 

Caissa

None.

G. Muffin

None.  The second example is closest but still doesn't meet any reasonable threshold. 

remind remind's picture

I think the examples are extremely disengenuous, and I am withdrawing from this endeavour based upon what I now perceive as things being not in good faith.

Prophit

Your claim oldgaot that you rarely suspend but then only for short periods is a bit suspect. For example, whatever happened to wWnnifred?  Perhaps she left of her own accord after she was suspeneded and if so I apologize but it seems to me that those who are suspended, espeically for ideological differences never come back.

Unionist

G. Pie wrote:

None.  The second example is closest but still doesn't meet any reasonable threshold. 

I agree - but see remind's reaction? I didn't deliberately do this as a "test", and I'm really upset that remind has taken it this way (and I want to sincerely apologize to her - really), but if anyone thinks we'll ever get an agreement on what constitutes a "personal attack", welcome to Fantasyland.

Does that mean this exercise is futile? Absolutely not. Just having people committing to "no personal attacks" is positive and constructive. Because ultimately, it won't be some cop's power to banish, but rather the community's and individual's integrity and commitment, which will keep this place vibrant.

George Victor

I'm in.  Already applying the "no attack" rules in the thread on Obama's Peace Prize award.  It takes some awfully roundabout language, and I'm sure i won't escape the wrath of Khan, but after seeing the degree of sensitivity evidenced toward anyone having the nerve to question majority opinion in that thread... Well, I think it is the perfect example of what happens to minority opinion.  The vigilante posse is never far away, the sherif at hand. and I suspect all of this is not going to overcome the "scary" atmosphere for those out there who are moderate/congenitally non-belligerent/ really-sorta-nice-if-you-could-get-to-know-them-just-a-little-bit-"soft" people.  (There, I worked up courage, said it, and I'm glad. For the moment.)

G. Muffin

Remind didn't answer the question so we don't know.

I seriously doubt any babbler would find any of those three responses to be a personal attack.  Even if they did, I agree renewing our vows (so to speak) is a worthwhile endeavour. 

I just personally happen to believe that personal attacks can be identified as such.  No grey areas required.

Caissa

I find the drive for people to pledge to no personal attacks to be honourable and laudatory, Unionist. I hope  it's clear that where we disagree is on point 2. If we are really committed to points 1-4, then I say let's grandparent it and bring back Jeff House et al.

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

G. Pie wrote:

 

No dragging disputes from one thread to another.

 

YES YES YES YES YES (I hope this indicates the extent to which I agree with G. Pie)

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Caissa wrote:

I find the drive for people to pledge to no personal attacks to be honourable and laudatory, Unionist. I hope  it's clear that where we disagree is on point 2. If we are really committed to points 1-4, then I say let's grandparent it and bring back Jeff House et al.

Hear, hear.

Fidel

Google's definition for the word [url=http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=define%3Apersonal&btnG=Goo... says this:

Quote:
# concerning or affecting a particular person or his or her private life and personality; "a personal favor"; "for your personal use"; "personal ...
# particular to a given individual

I have two questions:

1. Is Fidel a particular person? Is it possible to attack me personally given that my real identity is unknown and my actual personal reputation is not at stake?

Would it be illegal to defame the babbler whose handle is 'Fidel'? Or would the courts laugh me and my alter online ego out of a court room and told to either get off the internet or try putting bubble wrap around my fragile ego?

2. Would either of these comments constitute a personal attack?:

Mouse#1 to mouse#2: You're a mouse who thinks cats can be trusted to run Mouseville.

Mouse#2 to mouse#1: And your problem is that your mousehole is too small and should get out a little more. It's a give and take situation with cats.

 

remind remind's picture

Quote:
I seriously doubt any babbler would find any of those three responses to be a personal attack

Exactly, in  the way they stand as presented, which is why I am removing myself from this endeavour. Not into cute tricks, as I believe that renewal of some sort is needed and that said renewal has now been highjacked by such highly spurious examples, which also indicate a harvesting of threads to be brought up and used against others.

That said, am still going to make every effort to control my own behaviour.

 

G. Muffin

1.a.  Yes.

1.b.  No.

2.a.  No.

2.b.  No.

Unionist

remind wrote:

Quote:
I seriously doubt any babbler would find any of those three responses to be a personal attack

Exactly, in  the way they stand as presented, which is why I am removing myself from this endeavour. Not into cute tricks, as I believe that renewal of some sort is needed and that said renewal has now been highjacked by such highly spurious examples, which also indicate a harvesting of threads to be brought up and used against others.

Remind, I didn't harvest threads - I concocted these examples - because I sincerely thought some people would see them as personal attacks and others wouldn't. My only motive was to question G. Pie's confidence that the line is so clear and there are no "grey areas". I just can't understand your reaction, and I'm still apologizing.

 

G. Muffin

Babbler A:  While I support a woman's right to control her own body, I think we should spend more resources providing education and access to effective birth control. 

Babbler B:  Yeah, well, last time I checked, abortions are effective!  You're promoting the thin edge of the wedge and your actual agenda is to outlaw abortions and birth control.

Caissa

A. No

B. yes.

G. Muffin

I agree, Caissa.  The thing is that I think every babbler would agree.

oldgoat

I SO would like to see people not drag issues from one thread to an unrelated one.

As far as the examples, I've always believed that context is almost everything.  Also, I do become pretty much aware of people who have agendas,(agendum?) and if I miss it it's generally pointed out to me.

I don't know if most, but certainly many people who's posts are experienced as a personal attack probably don't mean it as a personal attack.  What I would like to do in an intervention is point out how a post may contribute to a negative dynamic, rather that labelling it as an attack.  That's the ideal, anyway.

G. Muffin

oldgoat wrote:
I SO would like to see people not drag issues from one thread to an unrelated one.

I really didn't think we were.  It's very hard to come up with a hypothetical personal attack for the purpose of demonstration without bringing up a subject that has actually been discussed on babble. 

Quote:
As far as the examples, I've always believed that context is almost everything.  Also, I do become pretty much aware of people who have agendas,(agendum?) and if I miss it it's generally pointed out to me.

But everybody has an "agenda" if you mean has a point of view and promotes it.

Quote:
I don't know if most, but certainly many people who's posts are experienced as a personal attack probably don't mean it as a personal attack.

And those inadvertent ones can be clarified at any time.  The trouble, in my opinion, is the deliberate personal attacks.

Quote:
What I would like to do in an intervention is point out how a post may contribute to a negative dynamic, rather that labelling it as an attack.

I guess those are more palatable words.  Myself, I think we should call them what they are. 

Pages

Topic locked