*** VOTE ON BABBLE PROPOSAL ***

115 posts / 0 new
Last post
triciamarie

al-Qa'bong wrote:

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.

 

See, but this is what I mean. I think I probably know the instance that you're referring to, al-Q; if I'm right, there was one time when (as you said) you had been drinking and it was late and you decided to post the extended lyrics to a violently sexist and racist old sea shanty. I asked if you had any sober second thoughts about those references, and subsequently oldgoat stepped in and deleted them. Is that the time you mean? Because if so, I'm really confused why you would remember that as a personal attack. It was nothing against you personally, it was about the humiliating and demeaning effect on women and POC, or specifically me I guess, of having that language and those ideas up on this site. I actually really like you, and especially your screen name, if that counts for anything. Smile

I'm just concerned that this whole "personal attacker!" meme will end up being another way for folks to forestall legitimate commentary by smearing those who point out this type of problem or who otherwise disagree with them.

I'd be much happier with a resolution that called for everyone to try to be nice to each other. That would be more contextual. And it would offer up excellent opportunities for the kinds of intervention proposed earlier by Snert.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

triciamarie wrote:

I'd be much happier with a resolution that called for everyone to try to be nice to each other.

This is politics. There are literally millions of lives at stake in the real-world ideological battles that are reflected here. If babble ever becomes a place where people must try to be nice to each other, it will die a well-deserved death.

Papal Bull

Yes, M. Spector - The hard hitting investigative journalism, internationally recognized activism, and legacy inspiring essays that regularly appear on babble are going to change the world forever! So we shouldn't be nice to each other, because god knows that manners are reactionary fascist bullshit.

 

The internet - it's serious business.

al-Qa'bong

Quote:
I asked if you had any sober second thoughts about those references, and subsequently oldgoat stepped in and deleted them. Is that the time you mean? Because if so, I'm really confused why you would remember that as a personal attack.

 

I guess "asshole" is open to interpretation.

 

Give me some credit, I (not oldgoat) deleted the lyrics and exchanged them for a link. Since this happened so long ago, I can now admit that I had read only the first couple of paragraphs (from what I understand of songs of this type, there are probably many pages of similar lyrics that could have been added, since soldiers and sailors would make them up themselves) of that song, and hence wasn't even aware of the really offensive stuff when I posted. Once the pile-on - personal attacks included - started, I didn't feel inclined to back down.

remind remind's picture

not back down from presented misogyny?

;bigeyes:

al-Qa'bong

No; back down after being attacked.

Slumberjack

Papal Bull wrote:
The hard hitting investigative journalism, internationally recognized activism, and legacy inspiring essays that regularly appear on babble are going to change the world forever! So we shouldn't be nice to each other, because god knows that manners are reactionary fascist bullshit. 

Many of the posters here provide far more indepth analysis of reality than anything we'll ever see in the mainstream media, regardless if it consists of links to other independently minded journalists, or through providing their own thoughts.  Very little of the issues of the day if any, will change or be understood in context through newspapers or TV anchors.  If we consider that much  of what we witness here from posters equates to bonafide citizen journalism, then it isn't much of a stretch to conclude that it is not the job of journalists to be nice.  We get enough of that embedded dynamic between MSM and power.  There seems to be an unwritten code in the mainstream as well, whereby for the most part, the respective scribes and talking heads do not challenge their collegues viewpoints and editorials because of professional courtesy, but put out their own spin which winds up sounding all to familiar from one to the next.  A few nasty snarks here and there, perhaps mutual dislike on various levels based on challenging ones turns of phrase , a small price in my estimation.  Far more stomach wretching is the hour by hour corporately driven propaganda.

Unionist

Right on, SJ.

 

Jabberwock

Aye for me. 

 

 

Unionist

UPDATED

DISCLAIMER: This of course is not and has never purported to be a "binding" resolution on the moderators. The aim is merely to sound out opinion here and give some guidance to the mods in their deliberation. They and the owners of rabble obviously remain responsible for decisions and policies as to operation of the discussion board.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

RESOLUTION

 

Quote:

Be it resolved that we implement the following policy:

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

2. No bans or suspensions (except obvious trolls/spammers).

3. Mods intervene to lay down the law, gently or firmly as required.

4. Revisit and reconsider these rules in three (3) months.

 

IN FAVOUR:

  1. G. Pie
  2. martin dufresne
  3. Bookish Agrarian (I believe - please confirm)
  4. Tommy_Paine
  5. Unionist
  6. remind
  7. Stargazer
  8. Fidel
  9. janfromthebruce (subject to defining a proper quorum)
  10. Sineed
  11. CMOT Dibbler
  12. Frmrsldr
  13. Frustrated Mess (but: no more introspective babble threads)
  14. George Victor
  15. Prophit
  16. Joey Ramone
  17. Ghislaine
  18. Polunatic2
  19. Jacob Richter
  20. Jabberwock

OPPOSED:

  1. jrootham
  2. genstrike
  3. Caissa
  4. mahmud
  5. Boom Boom
  6. N.Beltov

ABSTAIN:

  1. Farmpunk
  2. Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
  3. Timebandit
  4. bagkitty
  5. HeywoodFloyd
  6. Bubbles
  7. M. Spector
  8. Papal Bull
  9. Refuge

Have commented but awaiting clarification:

  1. Infosaturated
  2. George Victor
  3. Wilf Day (would vote "yes" if amended to read "no bans" only, but allowing suspensions)
  4. Pogo (yes, if amnesty for banned babblers upon appeal by 10 babblers, otherwise abstain)
  5. al-Qa'bong (waiting for mountains to turn blue - await clarification, as some mountains already shimmer blue in their luxuriant robes woven of morning mist)
  6. Slumberjack (doesn't wish to legitimize this exercise by participating)
  7. Erik Redburn (kinda yes, sorta no, depending on coupla amendments)

 

Polunatic2

Quote:
 And, if it's out of order, we don't vote on the amendment.
Absolutely. An amendment that tries to counter the original intent is out of order. For example - "Moved that we do "X".  Amendment: Change the word DO to DON'T - "moved that we DON'T do "X". Out of order. 

Unless someone challenges the chair. Smile Which I'm NOT doing. 

One group I was active in used to do decision making online (maybe they still do). Not exactly the same as babblers because it was a defined committee and everyone knew what quorum was and who got to vote. However, what they did was have a certain open period for discussion of the proposal (e.g. 5 days). Once that was done, there was a certain time frame for voting (e.g. 2 days). In this case, we're voting and discussing at the same time which makes it clunky and next to impossible to amend. 

But I appreciate Unionist's efforts to make this a better place to discuss the substance of issues with less focus on process and tone. 

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Polunatic2 wrote:

For example - "Moved that we do "X".  Amendment: Change the word DO to DON'T - "moved that we DON'T do "X". Out of order.

Except in the present instance, a more appropriate analogy would be "Moved  that we do "X, Y, and Z".  Amendment: "Change X, Y and Z to X, Y, and Not Z."

Not quite so clear-cut, eh?

Polunatic2

No, not so clear cut but I think it's probably still "out of order". 

We could always consider using "Bourinot's Rules of Order". Smile

oldgoat

Closing for length.  Please feel free to start anew.

Pages

Topic locked