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
What about new and future babblers who are totally unaware of the unwritten rules? I'm simply thinking in practical terms and saving everyone some confusion.
But if, of course, the unwritten rules are so silly that writing them up would be to create an embarrassing artefact indicative of inquisitional moderating on babble, then we can surely understand why such a plainly written list of naughty words and phrases mentioned nowhere else on the internet should be avoided at all cost. Better that new and future babblers be totally oblivious of the inquisition and its methods.
Good idea in principle; unfortunately I have seen enough cases where there is confusion about what is and is not a personal attack; ditto for trolling. So really, I see it as good advice rather than a policy change.
Ultimately mods must have the option of banning and suspending. What are you supposed to do if you are dealing with someone who refuses to comply when you say repeatedly to stop? We have all seen that happen a few times.
How about this: no suspensions without a clear warning. And when a mod says "stop" you stop.
I'm with Smith.
More laissez-faire, no suspensions and minimize ideological judgements/ interventions which are frequently clumsy, unnecessary or based on misunderstanding.
And we shall make no further mention of Puerto Rico from here on. Someone said it's okay to liken Canada to a banana republic, though, which I find to be highly ambiguous and arbitrary given the previous unwritten decree.
Bananas grow in Canada?
Sooner than we think, Boom Boom, given the current rates of global warming and inflated petro loonie. We'll know we are in trouble when we see Polar bears selling themselves on the corner of Bay and Dundas. Much will always have more.
I've never seen any significant confusion on this point. I'd be interested in your providing a single example. But what if it's not black and white? The idea of my proposal wasn't to lay down some law. It is a very short simple set of principles that the whole community commits to uphold. I've never seen people here commit, collectively, to avoid personal attacks. Why shouldn't we do that? Because the lines aren't clear? It's in babble policy. Why not make an implicit commitment explicit?
My proposal was "obvious trolls". And so what if there's a grey area once a year on what an "obvious troll" is? I'm not talking about so-called "trolling". I'm talking about trolls.
The idea isn't advice. It's sort of like a pledge.
What happens if the community says, let's not use that power for three months? Instead, when serious trouble arises, the community collectively deals with it - because the decision to abandon those powers for 3 months wasn't just a moderatorial one, it was collective. So we all speak out, ask for the trouble to stop, support the mods in trying to restore order instead of just sitting back and watching - and see what happens.
I haven't seen the community get together and remind that participant of our common norms of behaviour. Let's try that. Then, we still have other tools at our disposal. One of the most powerful is totally ignoring a member who "refuses to comply" - shun them without exiling them, if they don't respond to gentle or firm reminders of the community's expectations.
Of course to the second part. But no suspensions, on a trial basis. We appeal to people's sense of reason and fairness and community. We offer assistance if needed. And we don't "warn" each other either.
I would support U's initiative. Something has to be done - interesting and worthy contributors are leaving in droves.
Unionist, I think it's pretty clear: a personal attack is directed at the person rather than the argument.
Nevertheless, I have seen people accuse others of it on a regular basis. If you really need an example I will PM you one; I am sure you can appreciate it is something best not done in public. My point is that not everyone has exactly the same understanding of any of these concepts - in fact, there are some clear differences.
But like I said, I agree in principle.
By the same token, I don't see the problem; If a moderator tells you to stop something, and you know that a supension is at that point dependent on what you do, really you are in control of what happens next.
I don't want to make out like there are no problems because I know there are problems, but I don't see tying moderators' hands, putting them at the mercy of some presumed collective, and making their job harder than it is as any solution.
Bottom line is that they bear the ultimate responsibility for what happens here. Whether I agree with how they make this or that specific call how can we expect them to hold that responsibility without the power to back it up?
If you are the one who is being hounded and attacked, you want to have someone to be able to act on it. Personally I don't see how the "be nicer" part is in any way dependent on reducing their power.
But what if I inform you that I don't appreciate your allegation of racism? I am not an annointed moderator, but I've been posting here for a while jts. I think that if you can't demonstrate how your Googled-up allegation might be true in the slightest, then perhaps you might reconsider at some point. Instead you became very quiet about it as did mods which was rather conspicuous at the time.
Also, I don't appreciate it when former babblers made moderators accuse me of being a serial conspiracy theorist. The only alleged conspiracy theory I've ever mentioned is 9/11, and yet now I am smeared as a serial conspiracy theorist believing in 9/11 "conspiracy theory" and fake moonlanding conspiracies the same. Leslie Hughes and I might expect this of the third opposition Liberal Party of Canada and lapdog newz media but not babble.
There you go, U.
I don't even have to PM you an example.
But anyway, yes, I agree with you completely that we should all try to be nicer.
"One of the most powerful istotally ignoring a member who "refuses to comply" - shun them without exiling them, if they don't respond to gentle or firm reminders of the community's expectations."
couldn't agree more! all this talk of people "dominating" "derailing" "shouting down" has always seemed a little strange since no one is obliged to pay attention or debate anyone if they don't want to. then the worst thing that can happen is that someone posts a few times, no one responds and it ends. As it is now, people freak out and the thread turn into back and forth accusatins that have nothing to do with the topic until everyone gets frustrated and stops posting, it gets closed or someone gets the boot.
also, anyone who is trying to stir shit up isn't going to keep trying if no one pays attention. i think this would take a lot of heat of the mods to have to act on every perceived comment that offends someone!
She posted Jan. 12:
It's true that she flounced out of the blue Feb. 2 in the middle of a thread she had not been taking part in, which was not taking shots at Paul Dewar or doing anything else specific that she mentioned. Odd. But then she came back, after Lou Arab posted:
To which Catchfire responded:
Finally on Feb.19 nicky had noted that our four Maghrebian-origin MPs all supported Mulcair despite his comments on Israel, and got accused of stereotyping, and OO wrote:
Lord Palmerston responded:
..if i may. i see the frustration, anger, sexism on this board as symptoms of the politics we practice. the party, the union, the ideas to bring change are structured from the top down. it's not because we aren't good enough people though we continually need to try to cooperate with each other. but that our structures ensure that nothing will really change within the system and this will always leave us unsatisfied. in a direct democracy assembly sexism, racism or inequality take on a more garden variety flavour as opposed to the poisonous structural type. inclusion, being part of the solution is experienced and it is there a chance for real change to happen more than any convention or election. it is not a good idea to make the main focus our imperfections. better to change how decisions are made. not sure we can do that on this board but we can do that within our politics.
The way I saw it was you were lagging behind in that mini-debate and so resorted to making bizarre accusations against me for which the most powerful search engine in the world revealed it to be lacking something substantial, like credibility for instance.
Are you kidding?
I'm closing this thread for length. If someone could open a new thread for the constructive sentiment and leave the divisive, diversionary and vendetta stuff out, I think it could be a positive step. Thanks to Winston, epaulo13 and Unionist for trying at the end here.