Babble Finished?

Nope it's just a cycle. These whiners are amateurs. Back in the day we could really feud. People get a lot of rope to be asshats around here these days even when it's clear they don't want to learn, or debate just want their entitled opinions endorsed.

 We aren't allowed to  "plonk" anymore.

I'll newbie-bite: what's "plonk" when hit's at 'ome?

Hi Green Grouch, and welcome to the circus. 

Way back when, when someone wanted to indicate to another that they were going to ignore them, they would just say *plonk*.  It meant I'm not even going to read your posts any more. 

 

Actually doing that sure works for me, but it never lasted.  They'd be unplonking and scrapping away in no time.  I think that's why the mod of the day told people to stop plonking, as it was just provocative.

I appreciate the responses everyone. Yesterday I was frustrated by the toxic environment on Babble lately but reading the comments here and particularly oldgoat's comment here and excellent comments in some of the most toxic threads I've decided to stick it out. I'm sure things will improve around here! Given enough time.

jacki-mo: I actually feel the opposite way, regarding broadening acceptable discussion to include right-wing perspectives. I find there is plenty of Islam-bashing and feminist-bashing on the internet already, and I am glad the mods make an effort to restrict that sort of thing here. I just wish they could be quicker to ban some borderline trolls, but thats asking a lot and I think they make a real effort to give posters the benefit of the doubt. The mods have a hard job to do, I think they do it quite well.

What concerned me when I started this thread (and still does) is the rising tendency among long-term babblers to dominate the board with personal fueds. I don't come to babble for soap-opera style drama, and lately there has been more of this than intelligent discussion. However I've been convinced that people are working it out of their systems and that this problem is cyclical and will eventually pass.

"Can you back that statement up with some evidence?"

(chuckles)

Yeah, it's cyclical.  Once it even resulted in the great babble schism.

And I remember back to the wild west days, the early days, the all or nothing days.

Boy, they were fun.  Even Michelle and I used to get into it, though never in too nasty a way.  Which was saying something, considering how artfully nasty I could be back then.

I'm not sure why, I just don't get as testy as I used to.  Maybe it's a been there, done that kind of thing.  Or maybe I'm more growed up.  I think taking a babble hiatus from time to time helps.

As for the bitter arguments between usual combatants,  the "Bear Joke" might prove instructive.  It's long.  Please, um,  bear with me.

One day, a hunter was on top of a ridge, and across the valley, on the other ridge, he spots the biggest bear he's ever seen.  So, he levels his rifle, accounts for windage, puts the cross hairs of the scope right on the bear's heart, and shoots.

He races across the valley, runs up the other ridge to where he's sure he saw the gargantuan bear drop,  only to find empty ground.  Mystified, the hunter is looking for a blood trail, only to feel a heavy paw on his shoulder.  Turning around, he finds himself face to face with the bear, who says, (as bears do in jokes)  "Who are you to come into my home, and shoot at me?" To which the hunter could only manage an inarticulate stammer.  "I think," said the bear,  "I need to teach you a lesson." Where upon the bear committed an offence against the hunter, an offence the nature of wich the hunter could share with not a soul, but nurtured it's burning shame and humiliation until the next hunting season.

The next year,  the vengence filled hunter returned with a machine gun, and proceeded to hunt the bear.  And, he found the bear in a clearing, munching on raspberries.  He emptied an entire magazine into the bear, then another. And another.  Crying and laughing with joy, the hunter waited for the smoke to clear.... only to see empty ground where the bear once was.

And sure enough, he felt the heavy paw of the bear on his shoulder.  And sure enough, the indignity of the previous year was once again visited upon the hapless hunter.

And, all the long months until the next hunting season, the now crazed hunter hatched the ultimate plot.

He returned to the bear's favorite place, hollowed out a stump, and filled it with dynamite.  C4 is more effective, but dynamite is funnier.  Then he put a bushel of raspberries on the stump, and waited for the bear.

Which appeared, and while the bear was wolfing, or perhaps bearing down on the meal, the hunter pushed the plunger, vapourizing the stump, a good bit of the ridge and the bear.

Or so it seemed.  Upon inspecting the blast zone for little bear bits, the hunter felt the big heavy paw of the bear on his shoulder yet again.  But this time, the bear had a wierd look on his face and said to the hunter:

"You don't come here for the huntin' do ya boy?" 

 

 

 

I think a place like babble is needed.  But, a different message board where left and right can meet to debate would be a great thing.

Tommy, it is not as if there are not any, as there is, such as Maple leaf forums, 50Plus, and any assorted CBC G&M, and other media response boards.

Also, the left has been showing right wing defects in thinking for 9 years now, and how is that working?

 

Remind:  True what you say about right wing defects. But who have the left been showing them to? Maybe not the right people or maybe not in the right way? I dunno.

Anyone who wants to "debate" the right doesn't have very far to look IMO... Why eschew a space where ideas and testimony can go further just to accommodate the opposition...

I am interested in the discussion we're having, and as moderators we're obviously trying to figure out what would make this place a more positive experience for everyone (including us). 

I wonder if anyone else is noticing what I am, about the different visions people have for the forum itself, and the modertors' roles within it.  Because what I'm seeing are a lot of viewpoints that are diametrically opposed to each other, so we have a lot to think about.

Some of us want the moderating to be more strict when it comes to content, but less strict when it comes to personal attacks and civility.  Others of us want the opposite - much more lenient on content, much more strict on personal attacks and civility.  Some of us want to see much less banning and suspending of accounts - only in the most extreme circumstances.  Others of us want to see the moderators act much more quickly to ban or suspend accounts.  

And finally, I feel that many of us want to see much stricter moderating when it comes to people and arguments that disagree with them, and much more lenient moderating when it comes to people and viewpoints we agree with.   

So that's the moderating dilemma we're faced with, and I'm not sure how to resolve it.  My personal preference is leaning towards being more lenient on content (to a certain point - where the line is drawn is another debate, of course, since the line always has to be drawn somewhere, unless we want the site filled with spam, porn, and neo-nazis playing bait-the-lefty), and trying to encourage a much more civil tone when it comes to personal attacks and hostility.  

Ever since I can remember on babble, there has always been a debate between people who think that too much insistence on civility creates a less authentic environment where people can't be passionate and can't throw off bourgeois conventions, and those who think that insisting on civility makes this board a much more inviting place and less intimidating to newbies or people who might be a little more timid than those of us who bluster and bicker our way through our days on babble.

I lean towards the latter view now - I didn't always.  I think, for instance, that it would be very difficult for someone who, say, is a survivor of domestic abuse to feel comfortable in an environment where people are fighting and name-calling and being hostile all the time.  I think it might be pretty intimidating for someone whose first language isn't English to join in when they see people immediately assuming the worst about each other's posts instead of trying to clarify first and see whether there was a misunderstanding.  I think it also might be pretty intimidating for people who lean left but maybe haven't been exposed to ideas that we take for granted here to join in and ask questions, learn, and grow.  I think I would be fed to the wolves now if the me in 2001 were to jump forward in time and join babble now - I've learned an awful lot in 7 years, and accepted a lot of viewpoints I hadn't even considered before.

 

Maybe a cool experiment would be to have those of us who have been at babble for over a year or two to "ban" ourselves for a week or two, simultaneously together, once or twice a year or even quarterly, and let new people or lurkers develop their own voice without our rareified insights getting in the way?

 

 

I'm cool with that, I just pop up to make irreverent posts, anyways. =D

I'm a fan of civility. I think incivility can too often be used as a weapon.

I do think a little more debate would be healthy on Babble.

I'm sure everyone is happy to hear that you couldn't pay me enough to moderate.

Not to be an armchair QB, but one thing that might help would be some reasonable working definitions for some of the trigger words that seem to set off meta-discussions and meta-meta-discussions.

I found it interesting and unfortunate, though not really shocking, that an attempt to clarify the term "Zionist" quickly devolved into a cockfight.  That word gets used more often around than some articles of punctuation, and yet at any moment, it means whatever anyone wishes it to mean.  Unsurprisingly, this seems to promote arguing!

Other words that could use some mutually-agreed-upon clarity:  troll, neo-con, feminist (adjective form, not the noun), pro-labour and just for good measure, fascist.

Might not end all the quarrelling, but at least people could quarrel about actual issues, not semantics.