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.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
I don't get how it's a double standard. Personal attacks aren't cool. And before I'm put into one category or other, please note that I am a member of the NDP. I understand that criticisms of the party, its leader, structure and MPs ≠ attacks against me.
Because passive agressive attacks on NDP identified babblers happen all the time. It is just couched as a criticism of the NDP, when in reality it is not, sometimes it is just outright baiting and other times it is written as 'how could members of the NDP... they must all be 'some derogatory term'' right after an NDP babbler has commented.
It is never, ever dealt with. And before I am put in one category or another - I am not a member of the NDP. I do however see what goes on here, the double standards and how it drives good people away who are constantly attacked for identifying as NDP members or for defending/explaining NDP actions. The double standard is near constant. The comments of George's are merely a mirror reflection of the types of comments that get thrown at others all the time. Yet never are they admonished like George has been constantly lately. He is making a similar point to what they are doing, only doing it in reverse. That one is tolerated and one is not shows the depth of the double standard here.
I don't know. I have had a post of mine interpreted as an attack on the ndp when I wasn't talking about the ndp at all! This does make me question any assertion that such attacks are "near constant".
Some babblers' "some babblers" arguments were raised as a concern in a previous thread. I share your dislike of this tactic. "Some babblers" isn't something used just by some babblers. It is also used by other babblers.
I find it very annoying, and one of the best recipies for yet another meta discussion.
Still other babblers don't have a problem with "some babblers". And other babblers have persuasive arguments about how "some babblers" can be very diplomatic, and is meant in good faith.
I'd like to see less of it, but that's just me.
But if "some babblers" isn't agreed on as something not to indulge in, then when some babblers – and other babblers – pull out "some babblers", we'll all just have to live with it.
We could debate "some babblers" some more, of course. That all typed up (and hopefully not lost), "some babblers" and "some NDP babblers" still ≠ a personal attack.
I don't see it as an NDP / non-NDP thing.
Another thing I've noticed is that if someone with mod powers flags a post, it disappears. Just so you know. So don't flag a post to deal with it later, or it'll disappear to the non-mods!
Can someone write "test" in a post so I can play with it? Something you don't mind disappearing? I want to try something.
While I applaud the sentiment, I've always felt the 'no personal attacks' rule was pretty tough to enforce in any fair way.
There is no question, 'some babblers' are very good at getting in the digs without getting suspended by moderators.
It may or may not be an NDP/anti-NDP thing, but this comment is bang on:
In this thread, one babbler used this tactic to get the following digs in:
without so much as a warning. He is good at carefully wording his attacks against others as attacks on public figures, who are fair game - but there is no question where the attack is really directed. And it makes it pretty hard for a moderator to say or do much of anything.
Which is why the rule doesn't mean much - it's too easy for one side of a common babble fault line to get around it.
Testing.
One side? I think it's used pretty liberally (hah!) all around.
Interesting observation there, Lou.
"You are an idiot" is clearly a personal attack. Yet saying, "People who support X are idiots" is probably also a personal attack, albeit an indirect one, if the babbler you are having a dialogue with supports X.
Before we float off into the ether, are there examples of Unionist writing, "People who support the NDP are idiots"?
I've never seen anyone post "how could members of the NDP support such an egregious act!?"--if it happens all the time, I must be a poor reader. Regardless, this is not a personal attack. For example, if members of the NDP could support such an egregious act, well, then they explain how. The only personal attack in the example mentioned would be "they must be all [expletive]," which, if brought to the moderator's attention, would be censured. Such a comment has never been brought to my attention while I've been a mod, and I haven't seen one.
Weird examples, Lou. Only the word "harping" and "you have no clue about politics" could be construed as (extremely minor) personal attacks in the context in which they were written (eg. are you a cowardly pro-zionist scum from one of three political parties? No? Then it doesn't apply to you! I'm not even sure what's pejorative about "bureaucratic.") Finally, many of these were directed at Cueball who not only shrugged them off, is not an NDP partisan and usually finds himself in the camp of the "one babbler" you mentioned (i.e. Unionist).
I can only encourage babblers who think they have been personally--personally--attacked, to bring the attack to the attention of the moderator.
That said, I can tell that many NDPers (and some--what, symathizers?) feel hard done by. I don't know what to do about that because I subscribe to the equation writer so helpfully laid out: "criticisms of the party, its leader, structure and MPs ≠ attacks against me." If you feel that party alignment forms a stronger sense of identity and self than I suspect, you should email me or Maysie and we can discuss it. That's a far better way than the method that got George suspended, or showing up and complaining about a double standard after the fact.
This discussion - apparently about me and how good or bad I am - is against babble policy. I'm asking you to stop attacking or defending me, respectively. Find some real issues to discuss.
ETA: Sorry, Catchfire, we crossposted.
Just to be clear, I was neither attacking nor defending you. I just hate these spinning abstractions, and asked for a specific example of what the hell people were claiming was a problem. That written, I agree that a thread has ended up being about a specific babbler which is against babble policy.
It was started as a result of an unfortunate formatting glitch that made a moderator's decision seem unfair. I think that reaction was understandable, in that context.
Glad it was fixed!
Here's a thought Catchfire, call it the where there is smoke there is fire analysis if you like. If a number of people keep seeing the same thing maybe it is an actual problem even if you don't get it. If a number of people keep suggesting that this is going on, and they are babblers who have been around awhile and participate a lot maybe you could think to yourself -"huh- there must be something here I am missing" instead of accusing people of whining - which is essentially what your post is suggesting Lou Arab is doing amongst others.
And your example of Cueball is very skewed. He attacked right back, and if it had been done by an NDP indentified babbler I am willing to bet he would have been admonished by you- but of course it was let slide.
Well of course, given the choice, I would prefer the latter.
Mark my words (if you like). You will never be given a specific example. There aren't any.
Can everyone see post #38 by pogge?
Noooo!
Michelle, what have you done with pogge? I'll never forgive you if you've lost him. ;)
Nope (post #38 is, on my screen, a post by writer).
Interesting! (Oh calm down, folks, all he wrote was "test".) :)
I just flagged his post as offensive, that's all. Now I'm going to see if I can make it reappear.
Well? Do you see it now?
Wow. Now post #38 is by Magoo. How the heck did that happen???
pogge is testing me, Michelle.
Sven, you made me panic for a minute! :D
Thanks, folks.
Okay, so mods, what happens when someone with admin mod powers flags something as "offensive" is that it goes into the "hidden" tab and then the post disappears. It can be put back by hitting "allow" on the flagged post.
Anyhow, as you were. Just wanted to do that experiment.
Hey Michelle, if you still have MOD powers, does that gold star you gave me as a "get out of jail free" card a while back still apply, even though you are no longer one of the front-line moderators? And what is this with experimenting on us innocents without full disclosure and a waiver of liability?
Are you suggesting that if an attack is 'shrugged off' that it's ok on babble? Because that's news to me and changes the rules quite a bit. That essentially means babblers should not complain about personal attacks aimed at someone else.
I would add that the various comments taken individually, (like George's) are mundane and likely indside the rules. Taken as a whole - and these are just pulled from one thread, a pattern emerges.
That's exactly the point I was trying to make. The 'no personal attacks' rule is shite, because it's easy to get around, particularly by those on one side of a common babble rupture point (the NDP does no wrong vs. the NDP does nothing right/left). Unionist is a master of it. He works largely within the rules, I admit it. But the digs and the insults are still very much there, in abundance. So don't pretend there are no personal attacks tolerated on Babble - they are - they just have to be masked a bit.
Horsefeathers.
Spare us the drama, how are you being attacked? By being quoted?
I merely pointed out that you use the rules well. The problem isn't you - it's the rules.
Meh. I don't require explanations from moderators. I require moderation from moderators.