Author
|
Topic: The Pit (Read 4432 times) |
|
BillRoh
Guest
|
 |
The Pit
« on: 2003-01-29 16:09:53 » |
 |
If anyone here, like myself, quickly tires of cruel, redundant and continual verbal battering between different parties, but realizes that we can 't really start moderating people without pissing off half the congregation, then lets have a category called "The Pit" and just plain toss threads there that open up with a diatribe against another member just to pick a fight.
Certainly we can agree that we would much rather go looking in the right place for trouble then to spread the trouble throughout the list.
I would certainly support unilateral decision making on David's part. Or I would do it myself if givin the power and be glad to defend my actions when called into question.
I am not talking heated discussions that degrade to name calling, or questionable behaviour. I am talking about threads dedicated to bashing each other, like:
http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=27704
or
http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=27703
These are good examples of threads that have no place here IMO and should be in "The Pit"
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4289
Reputation: 8.79
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
 
|
|
Re:The Pit
« Reply #1 on: 2003-01-29 17:50:47 » |
|
Now this is what I call ironic. Bill Roh calling for moderation... because yes, moving posts from forum to forum indeed requires a moderator.
As I recall, one of the strongest voices opposing any moderation - never mind calling those attempting to moderate the BBS (Lucifer and I) names - was that of Bill Roh. Which leads me to ask, is Bill really calling for moderation now, or is he really calling for moderation only of those things which he finds offensive? In which case, how do we determine, fairly, what should be subject to moderation and what should not? For there is no doubt in my mind that the exact issues which seem offensive will vary from person to person. For example, Joe Dees' attacks on me and my family - and his own credibility - bother me not at all. If it were not a little sad watching the dying spasms of a great mind, I would find it amusing. After all, he has been responsible for the violent deconstruction and dissassembly of many others who, in my opinion, had done nothing whatsoever to deserve it. But if we don't want personal attacks to appear on the BBS, then it must apply to all attacks. And for that a policy is required.
The previous "moderation policy" (to which Bill objected) remains on the board at Hermit, "Notice to BBS Posters for consideration and comment", 2002-09-19 and while I don't see any comments from Bill Roh on that thread (despite the "label"), and don't see how his proposal differs particularly from the above (except for its lack of practical details) when it comes to dealing with ad hominem, I don't see how this is to be implemented if "50%" of the CoV is opposed to any moderation (how was this measured? I don't recall being polled). Currently the forum and BBS reflects what Bill (and a few noisy others) asserted that the members wanted. Bill now says that this is 50% of the membership. So surely this is a good thing? Or does Bill's apparent change of perspective (a move of 1/1430 or 0.07%) tilt the balance it to only 49.93% against moderation vs 50.0699% for it? If that is the case, I'm still not completely persuaded that we should be implementing changes in such a finely balanced situation.
Then too, the posts to which Bill is objecting are entering via the maillist, not the BBS. And moderating the maillist is technically even more challenging than moderating the BBS. While I have some thoughts on the matter (and I'm sure others do too), I would like to hear how Bill proposes to deal with this issue. After all, st the end of the day, "somebody" would have to implement whatever policy the mice strategized. And the hard-working cats might resent being handed even more to do... So dealing with practical implications might be quite a good idea as no matter how wonderful an abstract system is developed, "somebody" will have to implement the technical details. Who, exactly, is the somebody?
A final problem remains which ended the previous discussions on these lines. How are we going to find moderators prepared to work under these impossible conditions (where 50% of the CoV will be gunning for them, and the other 50% wanting to shoot them), and what rules are they going to follow?
Regards
Hermit (in haste).
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
|
|
BillRoh
Guest
|
|
Re:The Pit
« Reply #3 on: 2003-01-29 19:28:27 » |
|
Carl, you have mischaracterized my feelings regarding moderation.
I'll assume it is a simple error on your part, since you would never purposely do such a thing.
I do not now, or have I ever opposed moderation. I do oppose censorship ans some people here tend to confuse the two. What I also oppose is the moderator acting in his or her own interest above that of the CoV, or in competition with those interests. Carl choose to be the voice of the CoV and from the moment on, the war has been brewing. Indeen Carl's abuses are the root reason for the tumultuous last year the CoV has endoured. While Carl will disagree, he is the only person that, if gone, these problems would have never happened. This is not to say that others, including myself, did not aggravate the situation, we did. But the alternative woyuld be the elimination of the CoV all together replaced by the Hermitites. And who wants to be a Hermatite?
This is not to say that I could not have acted with more tact at times myslef, I am not without fault for sure. But my interests are genuinely the betterment and growth of the CoV, and if someone finds flaw in my love of the CoV, I guarantee that it will not be in a desire to confuse adherents, mold minds or negatively affect lives. This is also not to say that I do not change my mind, opinions, or direction based on new, changing or corrrected information. To look for 100% percent consistency from one year to the next in my thoughts is ignoring the fact that I like to learn, grow and change. Something I hope we all do.
Carl was successful in destroying the First Hierarch by doing whatever was possible to bring everything under his control. Many of us wanted to come public and get things rolling, yet Carl successfully lobbied to keep the group a secret from the rest of the CoV. This is what led to it's demise.
It's been established Carl, that you will attempt to foil any attempt at organization and improvement that does not include a power grab for yourself. I'm sorry if your moderation policy does not light the fire of confidence in our bossoms. Maybe one decided on by a larger group than you, yourself and you, would be more effective.
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4289
Reputation: 8.79
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:The Pit
« Reply #4 on: 2003-01-29 20:25:58 » |
|
So kind of you to make your true position clear. Much better than a pretended bonhomie. I can feel the air clearing already. Why it clarifies the sub-text of your previous posts and throws quite a dramatic light upon the motivations for your previously inexplicable actions in a most remarkable way.
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4289
Reputation: 8.79
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:The Pit
« Reply #5 on: 2003-01-29 20:37:58 » |
|
Quote from: Joe Dees on 2003-01-29 18:45:58
It doesn't matter; there is no pit deep enough to consign the vapid, vacuous and pustulous Hermitic viper to, where he would finally sink to his proper beneath-a-snake's-belly-in-a-wagon-rut-or-whale-shit level. That level is unattainable in the center of a black hole or the magmatic core of this planet, much less in a cyberpit.
|
"Darling" Joe
Is it not fascinating that the example threads which Bill dredged up should have been created by none other than yourself? Consider that Bill, whose own, now public, motivations would presumably lead him to have selected one of my threads to use as an example, had he but had one available...
Perhaps you should spend more time staring into your little mirror. But you may find pulingl the beams out of your own eye, an excellent preliminary.
Love
Hermit
PS IGiven that I have only written about your decrepit, drooling mother so far, and even so, that Bill seems to imagine that I was talking about your "mate", does he know more about your apparently very special mother-son relationship that the rest of us might be interested (or amused) in hearing about? Details and photographs always welcomed.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BillRoh
Guest
|
|
Re:The Pit
« Reply #10 on: 2003-02-03 13:24:52 » |
|
I don't really know much about Alabaster aside from Joe calling him names, and Alabaster posting a few, quite unworkable and unthinkable in my opinion, ideas for wiping out the Christians and the Jews. I would not moderate Alabaster yet as his perspective is at least available for discussion and his insults are short, infrequent, and not particularly biting. I really worry only about the kind of posts Hermit and Joe have been sending back and forth - there is always a jab. To paraphase them:
"You're an ass"
"No, you are an ass"
"No, really, you are an ass"
This kind of tit for tat that seems to be going on is what I think we could all do without.
I would say at the moment though David has the problem solved.
As for your jabs, Jake. You are way too classy in your attacks to ever be moderated. They hit home in an eloquent and succinct manner. The minute your verbal banter falls under the need for moderation, I know I am in trouble!
|
|
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Anarch
Gender: 
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 3.96
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re:The Pit
« Reply #11 on: 2003-02-03 15:19:10 » |
|
Quote from: BillRoh on 2003-02-03 13:24:52
I don't really know much about Alabaster aside from Joe calling him names, and Alabaster posting a few, quite unworkable and unthinkable in my opinion, ideas for wiping out the Christians and the Jews. I would not moderate Alabaster yet as his perspective is at least available for discussion and his insults are short, infrequent, and not particularly biting. I really worry only about the kind of posts Hermit and Joe have been sending back and forth - there is always a jab. To paraphase them:
"You're an ass"
"No, you are an ass"
"No, really, you are an ass"
This kind of tit for tat that seems to be going on is what I think we could all do without.
I would say at the moment though David has the problem solved.
As for your jabs, Jake. You are way too classy in your attacks to ever be moderated. They hit home in an eloquent and succinct manner. The minute your verbal banter falls under the need for moderation, I know I am in trouble!
|
I didn't really submit them for moderation purposes. More of just an entertainment thing.
I do however like the idea of having a Pit section. A place where people can go to see a collection of all the good and all of the bad flames from CoV. Whenever you are in a discussion elsewhere on the BBS and you think someone is hitting below the belt, you can paste it over to the pit to get an opinion. Perhaps even a rating!! There do have to be some kinds of things that are even off limits in the Pit, however, and hence everywhere else on the CoV as well. We might elaborate on this more in the future, but I think we have already witnessed a few examples.
But if we can get a few rules in place, I think we could turn such a place not only into a source of amusement, but perhaps even a laboratory where people can witness and watch various specimen of ad hominem AS THEY DEVELOP! It also might serve to cut down on it elsewhere in the BBS, and I also think the Pit could as well serve as a useful feedback point for making moderating decisions, on CoV as a whole.
I think you have started a good idea here, Bill. Since we know ahead of time that we won't all get along all the time, its a good make the best of it type of solution.
Love,
-Jake
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
|
|
Zloduska
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 113
Reputation: 8.07
Rate Zloduska
Handcuffs are for amateurs.
|
|
Re:The Pit
« Reply #13 on: 2003-02-06 01:30:56 » |
|
Quote:
Bill Roh: I don't really know much about Alabaster aside from Joe calling him names, and Alabaster posting a few, quite unworkable and unthinkable in my opinion, ideas for wiping out the Christians and the Jews. I would not moderate Alabaster yet as his perspective is at least available for discussion and his insults are short, infrequent, and not particularly biting. |
What annoys me about this Alabaster character is that I cannot figure out for the life of me what the hell he is saying. I cannot parse a single sentence of his; it's like shades of ole Brett Lane Robertson all over again. Am I the only one who never has idea what he is talking about? Por ejemplo-
Quote:| Alabaster: Why not just embrace your intellectual and ideological fascism, Jake? |
Has this guy completely missed the boat or what? Hey, it's the Ozzy Osbourne of Academica taking cheap shots, overflowing with nonsensical verbage from the depths of his fried-egg cerebrum. Huh-ughuhgh look'ah mah, wherz mah qua'aludes?!
|
|
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Anarch
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 3.96
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re:The Pit
« Reply #14 on: 2003-02-06 03:56:47 » |
|
Quote from: Zloduska on 2003-02-06 01:30:56
Quote:
Bill Roh: I don't really know much about Alabaster aside from Joe calling him names, and Alabaster posting a few, quite unworkable and unthinkable in my opinion, ideas for wiping out the Christians and the Jews. I would not moderate Alabaster yet as his perspective is at least available for discussion and his insults are short, infrequent, and not particularly biting. |
What annoys me about this Alabaster character is that I cannot figure out for the life of me what the hell he is saying. I cannot parse a single sentence of his; it's like shades of ole Brett Lane Robertson all over again. Am I the only one who never has idea what he is talking about? Por ejemplo-
|
>snip<
Yeah. My GGGGGGGAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwddd!!!!!!
I really think Brett had an organic brain dysfunction of some sort. I know this because I have had to deal with similar type behavior in some of my clients. I think that constant looseness of association kind of gave him away. I know that I really get on to people about "diagnosing" people throught their CoV activities, but Brett was just one of those kinds that so completely breaks the rules of discourse perhaps even seemingly on purpose, that you can't help but to notice. Even a lay person can generally and competantly diagnose a case of decapitation as death and its causes (barring some Transhumanist cryogenic freeze) upon first encounter. I did however find it intensely amusing that new people would from time to time hypothesize that Brett was actually some sort of "legitimate" memetic researcher conducting some unusual experiment or such. Why I could even imagine him getting confused for new breed of postmodernists which in fact I think he was on more than one occassion. No folks, I'm pretty convinced that Brett has either been looney much of his life, or definitely had some sort of onset, if you can catch my drift. Not that actually knowing those things make him any more tolerable, but I did prefer his mindless babble over the AAAAAAAaaaaaaaaagassi!!!
:::Jake waxes sentimental:::
Love always,
-Jake
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
|
Logged
