*** VOTE ON BABBLE PROPOSAL ***

115 posts / 0 new
Last post
remind remind's picture

Sealed

Michelle

Yeah, this whole exercise is kind of striking me as pretty legalistic.  There are going to be exceptions, based on what the moderators feel is best editorially for the site and the dynamics of the board.  So I'm not saying I'll never ever ban anyone ever.  I'm also not saying that I'm going to set out a babble civil law code and define every single infraction and give a set penalty for each.  The mods aren't supreme court judges here, and we don't get paid to create an entire judicial system on babble.

What I was suggesting was a change in the general style of moderating, going to a less punitive and more collegial approach, along with an effort on all sides, babblers and mods, to remain civil.  That doesn't mean, however, that if we feel that there are certain people who are constantly being disruptive and they're here on bad faith and doing nothing but disparaging the people in this community (e.g. Winnifred, which is why I never bothered reopening her account, after a closer review of her posting history during her "suspension"), that we're never going to get rid of them.  Again, this isn't the Supreme Court.  It's a discussion forum with moderators who have editorial discretion, which we will continue to use when it comes to contributors and postings.

But we'll also discuss our moderating style with babblers in general and get input into what sort of direction they want to see us take, which was the point of my original post on the matter.

oldgoat

G. Pie, when I mentioned dragging issues from one thread to another, I meant globally, not in this thread.  It's bugged me since the dawn of babble history.  And sometimes it can be a legitimate case of coming up with an instructive example of something.

By agenda, I don't mean a POV, I mean an agenda often hidden and sometimes not.  Never well hidden..  To produce specific examples of this just now would just be provocative.

 

Caissa

thread drift/see everyone Tuesday. Hope you have a great long weekend/end thread drift

Michelle

Well, we don't really need to use real examples - we can just say what oldgoat did before - that sometimes we'll get complaints from people over relatively mild infractions (or sometimes not an infraction at all, but simply something they've interpreted as one), but we know that the person complaining really dislikes the person they're complaining about, so we take that into account - especially if it's a third-party complaint (e.g. the person isn't involved in the argument in any way), if the participants in the argument got over it (I'll never understand why people flag posts when it's all over and done with and it's 40 posts later and blown over), etc.  Occasionally we'll find a pattern of campaigning on the part of one person (or sometimes it's a gang-up of several people) to get the mods to go after someone they don't like, etc.

So there is still lots that is going to be left up to our discretion, and that's just the way it'll have to be.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Michelle wrote:
(I'll never understand why people flag posts when it's all over and done with and it's 40 posts later and blown over), etc.

You mean, if a moderator didn't notice it, it never happened? 

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Unionist wrote:

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.

In what version of Fantasyland is this not an example of a personal attack?

Babbler A expresses a political opinion and Babbler B responds by commenting on A's posting behaviour and ascribing sinister motives to him or her.

Unionist

I agree, M. Spector - but isn't it interesting that not everyone does?

 

Ken Burch

Yes.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Unionist wrote:

I agree, M. Spector - but isn't it interesting that not everyone does?

So when you said "I agree" at #37 you were agreeing about something else?

It is interesting that not everyone agrees on what a personal attack is. I suspect to most people it all depends on how much their feelings are hurt (or if they are not the attackee, how much they imagine the attackee's feelings ought to be hurt). No objective criteria, just pure emotion.

Slumberjack

In the pantheon of useless babble threads, this has to rank as a contender for some sort of prize.  Sorry Unionist, or congratulations as it were.  The mods do what they can with this diverse rabble, and perfection will never be achieved to everyone's satisfaction.  How on earth can a set of 'personal attack' rules be enforced when for some, the slightest political disagreement with honestly held beliefs is seen as such?  It's the sorting out of context, demeanour and intent on a daily basis that determines what is a genuine personal attack that warrants attention, warnings or whatever as required, and for that, along with the endless troll patrols, we've been extremely well served over the years.  Sure, there were times when each of us has held the opinion that they should have come down harder in some cases, or more lightly in others, but these are personally held preferences of the moment, where anger driven thoughtlessness overrides better judgement.  As for long time babblers getting their backs up against one another, I'd prefer if the interventions were done by PMs to the respective parties, instead of out in the open as is normally the case, mostly because I've always felt that people whose views I've come to respect over the years needn't be humiliated any more than they do to themselves.  But that is a personal view.  I believe they've done a fine job and we should let them get back to doing so without all this continual second guessing about effectiveness when that is exactly what has been provided to this community for so long.

Michelle

I get what you're saying, Slumberjack, but do you have to call the thread "useless"?  To those who posted it and participated in it, it's not useless.  I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I feel badly about those who say the mods are doing a great job (thanks for that!) but in the same post, put down the efforts of other babblers to try to participate.  Once again - I did ask for people's opinions, and I'm glad babblers are sharing them.

G. Muffin

M. Spector wrote:
In what version of Fantasyland is this not an example of a personal attack?

 

See, I think this response is itself at least a borderline personal attack on anybody (such as myself) who believes that the original statement was not an example of a personal attack.

 

Why not skip the "what version of Fantasyland" business and try opening with "I disagree and here's why ...."

 

ETA:  Likewise, why presume that babblers' views on personal attacks are based on "no objective criteria, just pure emotion"?

Slumberjack

I know, I know.  It's just the endless naval gazing reactions threads that never change anything when it is all too obvious that people must enjoy at some level their own role in making the atmosphere what it is, and yet they come here and say they do not like it as much when others do exactly the same thing.  I'm not above it, i'm down with it for sure with an edge of my own no doubt.  If change is desirable here...I'd suggest that mirrors are more useful than reactions and faux outrage over everyone elses behaviour but ones own.

Unionist

You know, SJ, although I think (and have long thought) that the moderation here is admirable, and I viscerally disagree with some who pop up here and attack everyone and everything that babble is about - have you really really seen that many threads like these last few, when we have discussed, in significant numbers, some of these fundamentals? I don't think I have. I'm not suggesting it's earth-shattering or uniformly positive. But if we can slightly raise our own consciousness about the need to debate ideas rather than undermine and humiliate others, that would suffice in my book.

 

Polunatic2

I voted yes on another thread with comments which I won't bother to repeat. I don't think there's much to lose by trying something new. 

Slumberjack

Ok.  So you did have serious intent with this thread.  Difficult to tell at times, as you might well imagine.  My apologies for thinking otherwise.

Unionist

Slumberjack wrote:

Ok.  So you did have serious intent with this thread.  Difficult to tell at times, as you might well imagine.  My apologies for thinking otherwise.

I recognize that I joke around a fair bit, but not on this topic. Did you want to vote yes, no, abstain, or none of the above?

 

Papal Bull

Alright, I'm just going to use my awful, awful voice here for a moment.

 

An internet message board is a dictatorship. It has to be. The internet, via the power of anonymity, turns people into raving assholejackals. We've seen this a lot - most regulars who deny that they've not spilled a boiling pot of hate-venom into a thread is a liar. However, back to my main point. I'm 22. The first forum I joined was when I was 10, when my parents first got the internet and everything was shiney, new, and the medium of pornography was mostly reposts from magazines, photoshopped celebs, and stolen higher grade stuff - gonzo had not yet invaded the scene and made everything really weird and awkward. But, I digress. I've seen the internet change and evolve as I have grown up - I'd say that it is my least comfortable medium of communication, but oddly it is one of the ones I am best versed in. Moderators on a message board fulfil the vital role of stopping regulars from becoming overpowerful jackasses. Those that do become overpowerful, but can restrain themselves, are elevated to the position of moderator. Those that do not get that power generally spend many-a-month shadowing and just being general fools. They stop randos that come in on raids from the broader internet to feed the requisite board crazies so that they can screen cap some amusing posts. Moderators, in short, act as a secret police unit that identify themselves, are functionally all powerful, and may or may not show restraint. They have to be dictators. I've seen this all before, giving the board members power over decisions leads to larger and larger schisms, factionalism, and attempts at currying favor with the mods so that they can extend their powerplays and exhert new priveleges. And who here hasn't done that? We've all got, on some level or another, a relationship with the moderating crew. It protects us. Us regulars form a functional mafia that has lovely little vigilante actions. When we detect something we don't like, factions are drawn up (generally not through any organized event, it just happens by the force of people's online personas) and we eliminate it. That oldbie that is all of a sudden not the sort we thought they were? Gone! That newbie who has mildly divergent views? FUCK YOU REACTIONARY PIECE OF SHIT (this is unique to this board, I have found).

It happens, welcome to the webbeast.

As such, I'm not going to bother to think that this exercise is particularly useful. I'm a negative person when it comes to user driven webocracy. It doesn't work. I've tried being the online revolutionary and tried to reform some longstanding issues I had with an old board. It looked like the closest thing to concensus, but the whole issue comes down to the fact that majority rules on the internet is inherently unfair and those that didn't agree with what had happened weren't merely driven away, they left a certain void that was filled with a new sense of factionalism (well, you shouldn't have pushed this or that or this or that in our little group building exercises there!). This exercise is interesting in that the initiative is pretty unusual. Normally people, logically, give up on a place. The internet is big, it can be vacated. If the environment changes to your dislike, you just go and with a few megabytes of data, you have your own loving environment that you can hope to alter as you see fit. This board has had netizens that have been here for years, there has been a schism and all of that. The environment degraded into a toxic pissing contest recently, and it will return. This board's culture is too inward. Sooner or later the old online antagonisms will flare up. And what will you do? Flag someone's post? Tell them "no, BAD USER! You can't call x a y". And for the most part this place is full of clever people who will attempt to find ways to skirt the rules. I mean, come on, what is with this fear of temp bans and suspensions for regulars? It isn't to make things more fair - it does less of that, it continues to entrench the protection of the oldbies here. The regular clique. It is a self-defence mechanism. The moderation here can be awfully lenient - generally speaking, the boards I've been on have been far more peaceful and when flame wars erupt, they're quickly put out with a 24 hour ban and a quick announcement. No arguing. If the person feels so greviously injured, they can take it up by PMs or they can just leave. They broke the rules - don't matter if you're old or new. Them be rules. Needless to say, I think that outlawing banning/suspending oldbies will lead to the same situation that got this board into this whole mess. It's silly. It sucks for the mods that they have to put in that extra energy (I've moderated similarly sized boards whose focus was Nintendo video games - but people always love to argue so I was stuck moderating the angry yelling politics forum), but them is the breaks to keep order.

 

A lot of the time personal rivalries will peter out, but here I've noticed they just continuously drag out.

 

This vote on a proposal changes nothing. It is just putting the current status quo in order. The people here cannot stop attacking. Sure, it may be mildly decreased, but the fights will come back because there is no stick here but the words "I'm not giving you a carrot".

 

And there is my nerd insight of the day. I'm going to go eat Cheetos, drink Jolt Cola, and do a raid in WoW and be generally nonsocial. (PS, I hate Cheetos and WoW)

Papal Bull

Oh, also the tl;dr on my post is basically 'this won't work, and I'm abstaining from voting'

Unionist

It's very unfortunate that this whole discussion has converged on "bans & suspensions, yes or no", instead of what I (at least) was hoping - a simple collective and individual resolve to try not attacking individuals. No "majority rules", no tyranny, no new "legislation" nothing like that. Just a renewed resolve. I've learned some things here.

 

HeywoodFloyd

Unionist wrote:

It's very unfortunate that this whole discussion has converged on "bans & suspensions, yes or no", instead of what I (at least) was hoping - a simple collective and individual resolve to try not attacking individuals. No "majority rules", no tyranny, no new "legislation" nothing like that. Just a renewed resolve. I've learned some things here.

 

e

WHy not a new resolution. One that people can chose to avow to. One that says "I will not engage in Personal Attacks, be it directly, indirectly, snarkily, or the like. I will not grossly overreact to posts, nitpick others posts, bla bla bla." or something to that effect.

If the big hang up is on the banning clauses, then take them out of play.

Slumberjack

Unionist wrote:
Did you want to vote yes, no, abstain, or none of the above? 

Selecting from the available options on hand typically implies a belief in the legitimacy of process.  I choose not to lend a shred of validity to it, such that it were, by participating.

Michelle

I know!  It works great for me too!  All I see is this beautiful sea of blank posts!

...er...did I say that out loud?

;)

Farmpunk

With my ignore feature installed... this thread reads remarkably well.

Will that ^^^ kind of post be acceptable once a vote happens?  I may need to change my vote depending on an answer from the voting majority.

remind remind's picture

It is all about neurolinguistics and what social style one is; expressive, amiable, driver, or analytical.

Each type perceives things differently and has differing needs arising from said discussion.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

G. Pie wrote:

M. Spector wrote:
In what version of Fantasyland is this not an example of a personal attack?

See, I think this response is itself at least a borderline personal attack on anybody (such as myself) who believes that the original statement was not an example of a personal attack.

Why not skip the "what version of Fantasyland" business and try opening with "I disagree and here's why ...."

See, this is the whole problem with the "personal attack" meme. Because I disagree with you and others about whether that particular example is a personal attack or not, you assume that my opinion is "at least a borderline personal attack" on you. It is not.

My post was really directed at Unionist, and was riffing on his previous statement, "if anyone thinks we'll ever get an agreement on what constitutes a 'personal attack', welcome to Fantasyland." (A statement with which I agree, BTW). And it wasn't a personal attack on him, either. Nor did he choose to take it that way.

I also disagree with your earlier statement: "I just personally happen to believe that personal attacks can be identified as such. No grey areas required." There are plenty of grey areas; and besides, a lot of people have different ideas of what a personal attack is.

Does my disagreement with your earlier statement constitute a personal attack? Does it depend on the difference between saying "What are you talking about..." and "What in hell are you talking about..."? Does it depend on whether I use a rhetorical question? Does it depend on how strongly I disagree, or how articulate I am in making my point, or how persuasive my argument is, or whether I have had strong disagreements with other people in the past? Does it matter whether I am attacking what somebody said or attacking the person herself? Does it depend on my intention - that is, on whether I intended to make a personal attack, even if I didn't actually do so? Can one unintentionally make a personal attack on somebody?

G. Pie wrote:
ETA: Likewise, why presume that babblers' views on personal attacks are based on "no objective criteria, just pure emotion"?

That was not a presumption on my part; it was a suspicion. I said "I suspect..."

Should I now take umbrage with you because you have made a borderline personal attack on me, by wrongly accusing me of making a presumption? No, of course not.

G. Muffin

M. Spector wrote:

G. Pie wrote:

M. Spector wrote:
In what version of Fantasyland is this not an example of a personal attack?

See, I think this response is itself at least a borderline personal attack on anybody (such as myself) who believes that the original statement was not an example of a personal attack.

Why not skip the "what version of Fantasyland" business and try opening with "I disagree and here's why ...."

See, this is the whole problem with the "personal attack" meme. Because I disagree with you and others about whether that particular example is a personal attack or not, you assume that my opinion is "at least a borderline personal attack" on you. It is not.

No, it is not the fact of our disagreement that rubbed me the wrong way here.  Please don't assume (or presume or even suspect) that that's the case.  Rightly or wrongly (wrongly, as it turns out), your response seemed borderline and required clarification.

Quote:
My post was really directed at Unionist, and was riffing on his previous statement, "if anyone thinks we'll ever get an agreement on what constitutes a 'personal attack', welcome to Fantasyland." (A statement with which I agree, BTW). And it wasn't a personal attack on him, either. Nor did he choose to take it that way.

Okay, clarification received.  I no longer see your earlier response in the same negative light.  I had completely missed the reference to Fantasyland.  Now that I've seen it, your earlier response looks quite different.

Quote:
I also disagree with your earlier statement: "I just personally happen to believe that personal attacks can be identified as such. No grey areas required." There are plenty of grey areas; and besides, a lot of people have different ideas of what a personal attack is.

Does my disagreement with your earlier statement constitute a personal attack?

Absolutely not, in the language you have used here. 

Quote:
Does it depend on the difference between saying "What are you talking about..." and "What in hell are you talking about..."? Does it depend on whether I use a rhetorical question? Does it depend on how strongly I disagree, or how articulate I am in making my point, or how persuasive my argument is, or whether I have had strong disagreements with other people in the past? Does it matter whether I am attacking what somebody said or attacking the person herself? Does it depend on my intention - that is, on whether I intended to make a personal attack, even if I didn't actually do so?

[emphasis added]  Yes, this one.  In general, it depends on how hostile the statement is. 

Quote:
Can one unintentionally make a personal attack on somebody?

Of course but, as I said before, those ones aren't the problem.  They're easily cleared up.

Quote:
G. Pie wrote:
ETA: Likewise, why presume that babblers' views on personal attacks are based on "no objective criteria, just pure emotion"?

That was not a presumption on my part; it was a suspicion. I said "I suspect..."

You are correct and I apologize.  "Presumption" was an incorrect word.  I should instead have asked on what do you base your suspicion that most babblers rely on pure emotion when assessing personal attacks.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

G. Pie wrote:

No, it is not the fact of our disagreement that rubbed me the wrong way here. Please don't assume (or presume or even suspect) that that's the case.

I wasn't talking about what it was I said that "rubbed you the wrong way", but rather what it was that was a "personal attack". Which leads me to wonder whether you think anything that rubs you the wrong way is a personal attack.

G. Pie wrote:
Okay, clarification received. I no longer see your earlier response in the same negative light. I had completely missed the reference to Fantasyland. Now that I've seen it, your earlier response looks quite different.

So it turns out that the accusation of a "borderline" personal attack was based on my use of the word Fantasyland?

Do you not see how totally subjective your definition of "personal attack" is?

G. Pie wrote:
In general, it depends on how hostile the statement is.

Instead of a rule against personal attacks, why don't we have a rule against making hostile statements?

G. Pie wrote:

M. Spector wrote:
Can one unintentionally make a personal attack on somebody?

Of course but, as I said before, those ones aren't the problem. They're easily cleared up.

No, personal attacks are by definition intentional. Calling a statement an attack is a statement about the intention of the person making it, not a description of the subjective impression it makes on the person reading it.

G. Pie wrote:

You are correct and I apologize. "Presumption" was an incorrect word.

No apology is necessary. As I pointed out, I did not consider your question to be a personal attack.

G. Pie wrote:

I should instead have asked on what do you base your suspicion that most babblers rely on pure emotion when assessing personal attacks.

Are you asking me that question now? Do you really want to know the answer?

Wilf Day

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

I vote yes to that (other than the obvious trolls.)

Rexdale_Punjabi Rexdale_Punjabi's picture

yes

Erik Redburn

I vote that another proposal be drafted, separating the two questions with a possibility of adding one or two other addendas.  Each one getting a separate vote, as a lot of members seem to like one but not the other.  And somemore discussion over it might be a good idea -as in what could work and what not--- if it's going to be binding.  If some think it's a waste of time (and may well be right) they don't have to add anything more than another short vote --or abstain again.  I suppose I've been as much a problem here as anyone, at least when I was posting regularly, and I can live with whatever, but I don't see how a simple yes or no can really work, especially with two questions that will probably end up cancel each other out in practice.  Just my usual two bits.

G. Muffin

M. Spector wrote:
I wasn't talking about what it was I said that "rubbed you the wrong way", but rather what it was that was a "personal attack".

And I answered you. It was the reference to Fantasyland.

Here's what you said:  "Because I disagree with you and others about whether that particular example is a personal attack or not, you assume that my opinion is "at least a borderline personal attack" on you."

You are stating your belief that I have assumed your comment is a personal attack solely because you disagree with me.  [Added:]  That is untrue.  What came across as a borderline personal attack was the idea that anybody whose opinion differed from yours must be living in Fantasyland, i.e. delusional.

Quote:
Which leads me to wonder whether you think anything that rubs you the wrong way is a personal attack.

Not following you. Personal attacks do rub me the wrong way but they're only part of the vast universe of things that do.

Quote:
So it turns out that the accusation of a "borderline" personal attack was based on my use of the word Fantasyland?

Yes, as I said.

Quote:
Do you not see how totally subjective your definition of "personal attack" is?

No, not really.

Quote:
Instead of a rule against personal attacks, why don't we have a rule against making hostile statements?

Because they amount to the same thing. 

Quote:
No, personal attacks are by definition intentional. Calling a statement an attack is a statement about the intention of the person making it, not a description of the subjective impression it makes on the person reading it.

Okay, "attack" is not the right word, then. So we need a better one.

G. Pie wrote:
I should instead have asked on what do you base your suspicion that most babblers rely on pure emotion when assessing personal attacks.

Quote:
Are you asking me that question now? Do you really want to know the answer?

Yes, please, whenever you're ready.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

G. Pie wrote:

What came across as a borderline personal attack was the idea that anybody whose opinion differed from yours must be living in Fantasyland, i.e. delusional.

If that's what you really believe it means, then how did my explanation of why I used the term Fantasyland change what I said from a personal attack into something else?

G. Pie wrote:

M. Spector wrote:
Instead of a rule against personal attacks, why don't we have a rule against making hostile statements?

Because they amount to the same thing.

Hostile remarks and personal attacks amount to the same thing?

If I said that was a ridiculous thing to say, you would be correct in thinking I was being hostile, but absolutely wrong in thinking it was a personal attack.

G. Pie wrote:

M.Spector wrote:
Are you asking me that question now? Do you really want to know the answer?

Yes, please, whenever you're ready.

What I said was:

Quote:
It is interesting that not everyone agrees on what a personal attack is. I suspect to most people it all depends on how much their feelings are hurt (or if they are not the attackee, how much they imagine the attackee's feelings ought to be hurt). No objective criteria, just pure emotion.

My suspicion was based on careful observation over the years of how babblers talk about personal attacks, and the kind of things they consider to be, or not to be, personal attacks. In most cases, it appears that accusations of personal attack are based on nothing more than hurt feelings.

G. Muffin

M. Spector wrote:

G. Pie wrote:

What came across as a borderline personal attack was the idea that anybody whose opinion differed from yours must be living in Fantasyland, i.e. delusional.

If that's what you really believe it means, then how did my explanation of why I used the term Fantasyland change what I said from a personal attack into something else?

Hmm.  Yes, I see what you mean there.

M. Spector wrote:
Hostile remarks and personal attacks amount to the same thing?

If I said that was a ridiculous thing to say, you would be correct in thinking I was being hostile, but absolutely wrong in thinking it was a personal attack.

It wouldn't be hostile to say "that's ridiculous," I don't think.  Nor, as you point out, would it be a personal attack.  I really can't think of a statement that is hostile but not a personal attack (in the context of a discussion in an internet forum).  If I come across one, I'll happily change my mind.  Until then, I'll continue to think they amount to the same thing.

M.Spector wrote:
My suspicion was based on careful observation over the years of how babblers talk about personal attacks, and the kind of things they consider to be, or not to be, personal attacks. In most cases, it appears that accusations of personal attack are based on nothing more than hurt feelings.

But here you've just restated your original post.  When I responded to your "Are you asking me that question now?  Do you really want to know the answer?" I was hoping for something devastatingly clever, demonstrating that my reactions are based on "pure emotion."  Fair expectation, no?

Polunatic2

Smile Can use of a smiley constitute a personal attack? Smile

When are we calling the question Unionist?  

 

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

G. Pie wrote:

It wouldn't be hostile to say "that's ridiculous," I don't think.  Nor, as you point out, would it be a personal attack.

I don't think you know what a personal attack is, and now I'm wondering if you know the meaning of the word "hostile" either.

G. Pie wrote:
But here you've just restated your original post.  When I responded to your "Are you asking me that question now?  Do you really want to know the answer?" I was hoping for something devastatingly clever, demonstrating that my reactions are based on "pure emotion."  Fair expectation, no?

Not at all. I don't have anything devastatingly clever to say, and if I did you would probably mistake it for a personal attack. I honestly could not tell whether you were really expecting an answer to the question you said you should have asked. That's why I asked for clarification. It seemed odd to me that you would actually be asking me to explain something that simple. 

Your expectation about insights into your reactions was unreasonable, since the original comment I was explaining was neither directed to you nor about you. I leave it to the readers of this thread to arrive at those insights on their own.

Refuge Refuge's picture

I will abstain mostly because I haven't been a regular poster on babble in a few months and am just getting back into lurking and posting once or twice a week (or less) right now.

If I start to become a regular poster again I will reserve the right to change my vote!Laughing 

Unionist

Polunatic2 wrote:

Smile Can use of a smiley constitute a personal attack? Smile

When are we calling the question Unionist?  

 

The question was called long ago - that's when the voting started. It just takes a while to complete, because a simultaneous show of hands is a bit challenging to organize online. The question is, when should we declare the voting over? Any suggestions? I'm still concerned about the "no suspensions" issue. That seems to be preventing a strong consensus on the rest of the motion. Even if Wilf is right about his amendment being admissible (I'm not convinced, because it directly negates one of the key elements of the original motion), wouldn't we then have to vote on the amendment, and then vote on the main motion? Any suggestions on that???

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Unionist wrote:
 Even if Wilf is right about his amendment being admissible (I'm not convinced, because it directly negates one of the key elements of the original motion), wouldn't we then have to vote on the amendment, and then vote on the main motion?

I believe I made that point in the previous thread - that the amendment should be voted on first.

jas

I vote against.

 

al-Qa'bong

triciamarie wrote:

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?

 

I know of one directed at me.

I think a general amnesty for banned babblers would be great.  Let them out of their exile in Bablyon and allow them to help build a new Jerusalem on this site.

 

janfromthebruce

Unionist, in Robert's rule we first vote on the amendment. Once that is dealt with, we vote on the main motion (whether the amendment passed or not.

Thus if the amendment passed,

the motion would be the whole thing "as amended".

At this point I don't care, so I will go with the majority (with or without the amendment).

Unionist

janfromthebruce wrote:

Unionist, in Robert's rule we first vote on the amendment. Once that is dealt with, we vote on the main motion (whether the amendment passed or not.

 

Yes, after 10 million union meetings in my life (many of which I had the misfortune of chairing), I understand that. I also know Wilf is mistaken, because the motion calls for three substantive things (no attacks, no bans, no suspensions), and the amendment directly negates one of three elements of a conjunctive statement, therefore it directly negates the conjunctive statement as a whole, therefore it's out of order.

And, if it's out of order, we don't vote on the amendment. We first defeat the original motion, then someone makes a new motion containing the earlier amendment, then we vote on that one.

But, as I said before, I don't care if it's out of order - I'd be prepared to entertain a vote on the amendment, then on the original motion (amended or unamended as the case may be).

Now: Would you please tell me how to organize all that on a discussion board?

jbgatkinkos

I would add as a ground for banning personal threats or stalking. Other than that we need less banning and more debate.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

jbgatkinkos wrote:

I would add as a ground for banning personal threats or stalking. Other than that we need less banning and more debate.

Oh, great. This right-wing jerk gets the same right to "vote" as everyone else here?

Jacob Richter

I'm posting here to say "Aye" to the resolution.

al-Qa'bong

Quote:
Your claim oldgaot that you rarely suspend but then only for short periods is a bit suspect. For example, whatever happened to wWnnifred?

 

After I pointed out that Winnifred's writing style was the same as that of Mishei, who was a sock puppet of Maccabee, Lakesh and a couple of other handles, he stopped posting.

 

I'd like to see my old buddy flotsom (who was banned for outing Mishei, unfortunately) and Jeff House receive amnesties.

G. Muffin

M. Spector wrote:

G. Pie wrote:

It wouldn't be hostile to say "that's ridiculous," I don't think.  Nor, as you point out, would it be a personal attack.

I don't think you know what a personal attack is, and now I'm wondering if you know the meaning of the word "hostile" either.

G. Pie wrote:
But here you've just restated your original post.  When I responded to your "Are you asking me that question now?  Do you really want to know the answer?" I was hoping for something devastatingly clever, demonstrating that my reactions are based on "pure emotion."  Fair expectation, no?

Not at all. I don't have anything devastatingly clever to say, and if I did you would probably mistake it for a personal attack. I honestly could not tell whether you were really expecting an answer to the question you said you should have asked. That's why I asked for clarification. It seemed odd to me that you would actually be asking me to explain something that simple. 

Your expectation about insights into your reactions was unreasonable, since the original comment I was explaining was neither directed to you nor about you. I leave it to the readers of this thread to arrive at those insights on their own.

You know, M. Spector, this thread and in fact this whole initiative is about making babble a more constructive and less hostile place.  Are you furthering that goal when you attribute fictional things to me like my "expectation about insights into [my] reactions"?  Your style is smarmy and off-putting and your smugness is unbearable.  I am putting you on "ignore." 

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

G. Pie wrote:

Are you furthering that goal when you attribute fictional things to me like my "expectation about insights into [my] reactions"?  Your style is smarmy and off-putting and your smugness is unbearable.  I am putting you on "ignore."

Now that you're ignoring me, I guess you won't be reading this, but others might. (BTW this is the second time you have said you were putting me on ignore).

I attributed no fictional things to you. You yourself said you had an "expectation" that I would say something to demonstrate that your "reactions are based on 'pure emotion'." All I did was paraphrase your words into the phrase "expectation about insights into your reactions". I don't see how that's an inaccurate, much less "fictional", restatement of your expectation.

Good luck with your quest to turn babble into a hostility-free political discussion forum. It will be the first on the planet.

And you'll be pleased to know that when and if that ever happens, I won't be staying around for the tea party.

Pages

Topic locked