Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Policy & Help >

My two cents (or "What I hear, what I think")

Page: (1)2 3 4

We're The Great Old Ones Now

12:58 / 30.09.03

So, as you probably know, when I put the "Let's Talk" thread up, I also asked people to PM me with any worries they weren't happy to voice in public. This is my take on the whole lot.

I have two concerns about the board at the moment, and they are, of course, interlinked. The first is that I think some people shy away from posting their opinions in threads in which feelings are running high, especially if the long-term, high-volume posters have expressed strong views. There is a sense that contrary opinions will be met with derision rather than considered debate. (Just to make this a little more disturbing, the majority of people who have expressed this feeling to me identify themselves as female.) I should emphasise that the number of people who have expressed this worry is small - but then, it would be; if people felt able to talk about it, there wouldn't be a problem at all.

The second is that there is a general lack of trust. This is by and large a legacy of the board's encounters with trolling. Where once we would have assumed that a poster was misguided, abrupt but good-hearted, or well-intentioned but information-poor, now we tend to worry that they're wrongheaded, rude, prejudiced or willfully ignorant, and we don't necessarily engage. We step back and hope they'll go away. Similarly, where it would two years ago have been the first assumption of most people that moderators were error-prone but honest, now there's concern about abuse of power, and even bullying.

In other words, Barbelith's social contract has cracks in it. I could speculate endlessly about why, but I'm not going to, because I want to hand over to you. My feeling is that we should all simply invest in trust. We should expose ourselves to risk.

I don't mean that we should declare 'open borders', I mean that we should start answering questions more gently, asking questions we have a stake in, thinking before we post, and remembering that the way we behave in one thread will affect not just that discussion but also, cumulatively, the Barbelith Commons as a whole.

Over to you.

The Fifth Columnist

13:27 / 30.09.03

Nick, you've very well possibly summed up my two worries about the board right there.

There is, contrary to what people say, a coolective view/opinion nearly all the time, which negates discussion. it's def detrimental anyway. It feels like, also ,there are maybe twenty people here that always have something to say, and seem to take more time than makes sense to bitch at a poster that says something out of line of 'what goes on' in the subconscious here on Barbelith.

Like Flux's recent patronising comments in the xmen 150 thread in comics forum.

You've also got closed doors, no new users, no name changes allowed anymore, it's not just a lack of trust that pisses me off, but the penalisation of poster that don't actually 'post' much, when it's down to a few trolls that same 20 posters keep encouraging/feeding/whatever.

I think it might be interesting to ban the top few posters for a few months, or only allow them, say five posts a day. To see what happens next?

We're The Great Old Ones Now

14:06 / 30.09.03

Well, look, the trouble with what you've just said is that it's frankly part of the problem. You could have said that you shared my concerns, that you were felt that there were posters (perhaps including yourself) who felt unable to express opinions which don't fit well with those of some of the more prolific Barbelith characters, and that you felt those large-volume posters could serve themselves and the board by posting a little more thoughtfully and receiving new voices a little less scornfully.

Instead of which, you're using words like 'patronising' and taking a deeply partisan stance in the first response to a thread predicated on the idea that we should probably all be a bit nicer to each other and a little more constructive in our debates. You've also, while talking about trust, demonstrated an almost total lack of it with regard to Tom and his attempts to make the board work better - or indeed at all, and with regard to the moderators, many of whom are suffering from abuse-fatigue at the moment and don't deserve it.

Last time this happened in a thread where I was trying to make some progress, I asked the poster in question to put their own post up for deletion. This time, I'd ask that you leave it exactly as it is, and reread it as if you were on the other side of the argument. Trust has to flow in both directions.

Otherwise, the conversation which follows your post goes something like this: Oh, look, Fifth Columnist only has 13 posts and is registered in the USA with a hotmail account... I wonder whether that means ze's a duplicate suit for someone else? I wonder if the suit's been hijacked? I wonder whether zir appearance at this time and in this thread is an innocent contribution from an occasional poster or the latest salvo in Mod3's war?

All of which distracts from the issue and damages the debate. So I'd like to ask anyone who was thinking of pursuing that line of thought to put it on hold. Anyone who posts in this topic - maybe anywhere - should be considered to be sincere and genuine unless something happens to demonstrate otherwise. Why? Because that's how you get to be the reasonable party - which is what everyone wants to be: by trusting and acting in good faith. If someone betrays that trust, well, that's their loss.

14:12 / 30.09.03

Fifth Columnist, you can change your name, but your old name will be visible in small italics underneath your display name, that's all; and I understand that this is intended to be a temporary measure.

It is a shame that you feel that there is a collective, consensual opinion which high-profile posters seek to impose on the board at the expense of other opinions. My take on it would be that high-volume posters don't espouse collective views, only their own views, but that it might feel as if they do espouse a collective, 'accepted' view when they agree with each other, which happens frequently (though there are often nuances in such agreements). But if we accept what Nick is saying, that one of the problems is a lack of faith in the good intentions of posters, it seems to me that that has to work both ways - from lower-volume posters towards higher-volume posters, as well as vice versa. Limiting the involvement of those who have made large contributions to the board is, in my opinion, the antithesis of the idea of having faith in other board members. It is a problem which cannot be solved by regulations alone, but by people behind fictionsuits actually making an effort; and that goes for everyone on the board regardless of their length of tenure (as it were) or their numbers of posts.

It might be good if people attempted to tackle posters on an individual basis rather than immediately assuming that all high-volume posters think alike, in cases such as your problems with Flux's comments in the NXM 150 thread.

14:31 / 30.09.03

Hmmmm.

I agree with Kit-Cat Club that there needs to be tolerance towards the more established posters as well as for new people. Yes, they do often have the same opinion, but then that's partly why they're friends and why they keep coming back here.

On the other hand, it can feel like there's a Barbelith party line on some subjects, it's true, and anyone (new or otherwise) who says something counter to that viewpoint had better be prepared to fight their corner. But, you know, I'm here because I like the way people here think, and so I'm glad Barbelith doesn't just let people away with racist/sexist/ ill-thought-through posts.

I seldom post in opinionated threads but that's because I dislike the sparring that other people enjoy. That's my issue, not theirs, and even when we did have non-combattive threads I didn't join in enough, I suppose. I do read all the vitriol and discussion and over-my-head theory, and enjoy it, even if I'm not active in it all.

Tryphena Absent

14:42 / 30.09.03

Right, to get this back on track I'd like to address some of Nick's points in the original post.

I think some people shy away from posting their opinions in threads in which feelings are running high

This was certainly true of me when I first started posting on barbelith. Actually I was terrified of everyone but I've since developed the need to wade in and bitch (it took me about a year, maybe more).

There is a sense that contrary opinions will be met with derision rather than considered debate

And they often are, less so nowadays I think but that might be because I'm used to the place. I feel like the very nature of argument on barbelith right now is flawed and I think that really adds to the sense of derision. People see tension as there's a basic disagreement about something like welfare but argument can be moved on from that. Don't be worried about doubting people. You just need to put your foot down if you know something is wrong and construct an argument. If it gets struck down don't go on the defensive, either argue back in a gentle way or admit you just don't know.

This place is intimidating but mostly I've found that's because it's very stylised and once you've lurked a bit you pick up the style.

Maybe what I'm trying to say is that even if you feel like everyone's down on you at first and that you're the outsider, even if big posters seem to have no respect for you and you're nervous of them, it can change very quickly.

15:46 / 30.09.03

A little something I picked up in one of the pre-marriage counseling classes I had to go to if we wanted to do the big church wedding: Argue the point, not the person. I think this bit can be universally applied here.

15:46 / 30.09.03

I've never really felt that there is a stifling consensus opinion, in that I've always just posted what I thought. Sometimes I think I've been with the elusive consensus and sometimes not. I suppose that there is a broad Barbelith consensus on some issues but, as KKC says, this consensus does not extend to every detail.

We've all heard the accusations of cliques and conspiracies amongst these high profile posters and they always strike me as faintly ridiculous. The fact that two posters do not argue is more due to the mode of their interaction than in some inseparability of beliefs.

And this, for me, is the key point. You see, I don't think that Tom would tolerate bullying and he wouldn't allow the board to become a place where different views were verboten. Now, one the one hand you may not trust Tom in that way, in which case I think that there is little more to say.

On the other hand, what you then have is more a problem of perception, than of actuality. If people feel constrained then that is clearly a problem. But the solution is not a one sided process. Its not just up to some posters to be less voluble, and I'm not sure that demanding special restrictions on particular members is at all fair. You might ask for a less agressive style and a more constructive approach. However, the problems of subjectivity mean that disagreement to one poster is aggressive hectoring to another.

You cannot expect things to change without trust. Posters have to put their opinions forward contribute to discussions. Bailing out of a discussion once you find disagreement is far from constructive. And if there is a case to be made for bullying, then one needs to calmly appraoch Tom or the moderators about this.

That said, if you are throwing out as much, if not more, abuse than the people you accuse of bullying, then you may not get a sympathetic audience.

Also, though I am getting increasingly weary with the accusation of moderator abuses, we should strive toward a more open culture. Logging actions, more PM notification and so forth. Perhaps a code of practice?

16:01 / 30.09.03

I think that the intimidation is a good thing. It's a mixed blessing, but my whole reason for joining barbelith was that it had an amazing signal to noise ratio and most people were posting things which it was worth my time to read.

This is still true, despite the current issues.

16:13 / 30.09.03

Also, though I am getting increasingly weary with the accusation of moderator abuses, we should strive toward a more open culture. Logging actions, more PM notification and so forth. Perhaps a code of practice?

Or, you know, people actually pointing to specific examples of supposed abuses of power as and when they see them instead of just throwing the accusation out there as a generalisation. Whatever.

Our Lady of The Two Towers

16:21 / 30.09.03

< rottage >

This is perhaps not the most relevent place to say it, but I'm not going to start a new thread in the conversation just to say it, but over the last week or two I've released how incredibly rude and unpleasant my Barbelith-identity has become over the summer, and I was turning into precisely the person that back at the start of the year I didn't want to become. I'm not going to promise it won't happen again, because it probably will, but I apologise to anyone I've offended over the last few months and will try to rengage with the board in the spirit Nick suggests in his first post.

< /rottage >

Less searchable M0rd4nt

16:33 / 30.09.03

Or, you know, people actually pointing to specific examples of supposed abuses of power as and when they see them instead of just throwing the accusation out there as a generalisation.

Yes indeedy. I feel that the continual mud-slinging is in itself a deliberate attempt to intimidate other people, maybe even to get then to leave the board.

I probably shouldn't say this, but it's been bothering me for some time and I think it really ought to be got out in the open: I feel too intimidated to post in The Magick sometimes, especially recently. A lot of negativity was generated during a certain poster's little hissyfit and it feels like if I took a step out of line, I'd get it full in the face. . I feel very anxious now about requesting even the most innocuous of moderation actions, because of the (over?)-reaction that moderation in that forum tends to provoke. It feels like I can't even suggest that maybe I might think about making a moderation request without it being criticised. As for posting anything other than banalities in the Magick these days, I don't have the nerve.

Maybe these fears aren't justified, but they're real to me.

16:50 / 30.09.03

Oh eff. I asked for that post to be deleted, on the basis that I figured it was likely to just get used as an example of bullying behaviour from a moderator. Can someone disagree with the request if they catch it? Cheers.

17:04 / 30.09.03

I've been saying the same thing (in a slightly more belligerent way), Randy—and I'm not a moderator, just someone who appreciates openness, honesty, and straight shooting.

Coyness, innuendo, "you know who you are," "certain pople," and similar phrases... Enough already. It's covering-your-ass cowardice of the rankest sort, and it makes all concerned less likely to take your complaint seriously.

If you've got a legitimate complaint, be direct and upfront. Your argument will stand or fall on its own merits, not on the cleverness with which you phrase it.

pointless and uncalled for

17:25 / 30.09.03

Just a few thoughts on my first reading of this.

This is one of the most ideal threads to have a new suit read before they embark on their rather newborn foal like journey about the board. This being for a number of reasons but mainly because the fostering of trust begins at an early age and this shows some of the far better nature of the serious side of barbelith.

After a summery hiatus of sorts I was returning to the lith when I wondered across such tasty threads as the cliques thread. One of the things that aggravated me to the point where I just didn't want to post anything was the manner in which a number of suits, including some of the high-profile, well-argued, deeply embedded ones, clamoured after details, verification, examples and so on. More so it was the rhetorical manner in which it was done. All I read was same argument, different subject because I have seen it before and not just once. To me that is one of the worst ways to handle such an event particularly if the opening post to a thread, such as the cliques one shows some of the hallmarks of outward processing. That thread clearly demonstrates how easily this board can divide.

I guess what I'm saying is that there is a lot of passive promotion of division under circumstances that are not to hard to come by. If this trust and development is truly a common goal, and I believe it is then you need to think before you post not only of what you're responding to but of what you're leading to and to help people identify how to do that.

More thoughts may follow.

17:42 / 30.09.03

Maybe these fears aren't justified, but they're real to me.

See, that's just the thing. They aren't justified because the best way to overcome this sort of thing is to just post as you would normally and things as a whole will improve naturally. But they are real, because its easy to become intimidated when people are throwing snits and being critical of eachother. Will that be directed at me if I post now? It feels a bit like walking into a domestic dispute, you expect the combatants to turn on you if you say anything. It might not have anything to do with you at all, but when the overall tone changes because of it, we react to that tone. So while it might actually be pretty unlikely that venom will be spread to a new poster in the same area, it still feels that way.

I think this is just a fine example of our actions causing more effect that we can be aware of.

18:23 / 30.09.03

One of the things that aggravated me to the point where I just didn't want to post anything was the manner in which a number of suits, including some of the high-profile, well-argued, deeply embedded ones, clamoured after details, verification, examples and so on. More so it was the rhetorical manner in which it was done.

Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd we're back to being able to discuss the problem without perpetuating it. Which posters? What rhetorical manner?

I mean, would it fucking kill you to just say "Jack Fear's relentless badgering of mod in the 'Cliques' thread served only to amp up the general atmosphere of persecution and paranoia: by turning it into a pissing contest ('have a go if you're hard enough' indeed), he succeeded only in making a bad situation worse," or whatever it is you mean? What have you got to lose?

As for requesting verification and examples—hey that's the basic principle of justice: innocent until proven guilty, and burden of proof is on the accuser. If you want someone who's always gonna take your side based strictly on faith—call your Mom.

18:28 / 30.09.03

(That's the general "you," Seldom, not you personally.)

18:52 / 30.09.03

If we're adding our two cents ...

there were posters [...] who felt unable to express opinions which don't fit well with those of some of the more prolific Barbelith characters, and that you felt those large-volume posters could serve themselves and the board by posting a little more thoughtfully and receiving new voices a little less scornfully.

This comes quite close to summing it up for me. While I consider what are generally known here as the "trolls" entirely responsible for their own childish actions, I do think that one or two overbearing characters on Barbelith have sometimes made for an overly confrontational atmosphere. (I am aware I am sometimes rude myself.) To be honest, while I never believed there was a Barbelith conspiracy, I did sometimes suspect that these individuals perhaps were able to influence some of their fellows with the power of their personalities, especially given the apparent tacit and explicit support. Also I can see why an embittered poster, feeling their own personality overshadowed, might see conspiracies. So, while there was so much bitterness and incomprehension around, cracks were bound to appear, and no one, I think, can be wholly exhonerated.

To repeat, I don't condone the trolls' actions at all -- behaving destructively was only one of their options. I'd also like to say I have never been anything but happy with Barbelith (though sometimes not convinced it had a bright future) and I'm wholly behind the changes I've seen being made so far. I don't see it as a revolution, I see it as some tweaking of checks and balances more to make things seen to be fairer more than anything else. Republics do that from time to time.

I should add that the above is entirely my personal take on recent events at Barbelith and the nature of Barbelith itself. I should also say, even though I'm not allowed to wear it in this forum anyway, I'm writing with my shiny, new moderator hat completely off. And, in case you're wondering, there are no secret orders. In fact, I was asked if I would do it in hypothetical language and I wasn't told I'd been given the job.

20:31 / 30.09.03

Here's a truism that remains as true today as it always has done and is as relevant to moderators, normal members and myself alike:

Don't post angry

I'd like to add that to argue the issue, not the person as the best way of operating in any group discussion.

And if you want my best advice about how to win an argument, it's that you can always gain an edge on your combatant in the eyes of people around you by being the most reasonable person in the room.

23:49 / 30.09.03

it seems to me that that has to work both ways - from lower-volume posters towards higher-volume posters, as well as vice versa.

well, yeah.
but the higher volume folks say more, so they need to be more careful. just maths, y'know?

Limiting the involvement of those who have made large contributions to the board is, in my opinion, the antithesis of the idea of having faith in other board members.

well, yeah. if you see it as a punishment, or a restriction, or a measure designed to clip the wings of BadPosters.
how about if we see it as amateur night?
perhaps we could see it as fostering a new generation of posters.

as it is, no one is likely to come out of the woodwork. whether they should be less scared or others should be less scary is kinda irrelevant.

I mean, would it fucking kill you to just say "Jack Fear's relentless badgering of mod in the 'Cliques' thread served only to amp up the general atmosphere of persecution and paranoia: by turning it into a pissing contest ('have a go if you're hard enough' indeed), he succeeded only in making a bad situation worse," or whatever it is you mean? What have you got to lose?

well, i think that the point. nothing you are scared of, jack, but plenty that i was. i thought i was calling folks on their shit, turns out several people disagreed with me. and they made it plain.

no, i wont name names.

recently i mentioned a certain suit in a less than positive light and when i asked the owner if there were no hard feelings, i got no reply.

maybe there weren't any, but still.

07:40 / 01.10.03

As a no-longer-moderator, I can officially say I'm too intimidated to contribute to this thread.

08:35 / 01.10.03

We'll deal with you later, Nesh.

how about if we see it as amateur night?
perhaps we could see it as fostering a new generation of posters.

as it is, no one is likely to come out of the woodwork. - toksik

I understand where you are coming from, toksik. However, with respect, the last part isn't true. I'm sure that some people are put off, but other people manage. I came "out of the woodwork", as did others. And yeah, I started off with a few arguments. My impression at the start was that you often get the response appropriate to your own tone. Post angry and you get agression. If you post calmly, it is much harder for someone to really go for you, and puts them in a very bad light if they do.

Jack The Bodiless

10:59 / 01.10.03

People (including myself, before any of you wags start) need to think about the manner and the mood in which they post. This isn't a conversation between two or more people in a pub. This is a message board. If you have to keep moving to have a remark moderated or have to keep saying "Am really not making sense, more later when I've had a chance to think", or bursting out with some angry remark after what you consider to be a thoughtless or twatty post, then you're not using the board properly, IMRampantlyRampantO. Read. Consider. Post. If everyone was doing that There Would Be No War, and we could all bounce around being fluffy.

And of course Jack Fear makes it all better by barging in with his size twelves and kicking over everyone's sandcastles. He said, with one eyebrow raised, signifying that he was taking the piss in a gentle manner. You know. Like Jesus did with Simon Peter. Jack, just chill, dude. Stop being so damned grouchy and try asking people to do things in a nice way. Now come and give me a hug, Mr. Grumpy Bear...

Matthew Fluxington

11:06 / 01.10.03

So, wait, let me get this straight:

Barbelith is the way it is right now entirely because of how the moderation works, how a few among us are constantly afraid of trolls, and because sometimes some of the frequent posters are kinda smug and mean?

See, I think these thing aren't the real issue. Most of us wouldn't even give a damn about this if more of us were fully invested in discussions about things other than ourselves. The navel gazing is just a symptom of the fact that the majority of long-term users are finding it harder and harder to get excited about Barbelith. But that's not a bad thing, it just means that they've run out of things to talk about with this limited group of people, or would rather have discussions in smaller groups elsewhere, or are having their individual needs met elsewhere on the internet and in the world. So, really, it's a question of "can we jumpstart this and make it fun again for the long-termers" or should we encourage new members to take this where they want to?

16:03 / 01.10.03

Can't you have both?

There's always new things to talk about.

16:17 / 01.10.03

And of course Jack Fear makes it all better by barging in with his size twelves and kicking over everyone's sandcastles.

Size fourteens. I kid you not. My feet are freakishly huge.

But yeah, you're right. It's frustration, of course: one cannot force people to interact with candor and openness, like sane, reasonable adults, through sheer force of will—though God knows the will is not lacking. The task is made more difficult by the fact that some of the people involved are manifestly not reasonable. Nor adult. Nor, in some cases, entirely sane.

(I'm not naming names either. Fuck you.)

Flux, on the other hand, nails it pretty well.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

16:17 / 01.10.03

Oh God. This feels horribly like one of THOSE CONVERSATIONS you have with a partner. Only it actually seems to be achieving something, so yay this thread.

Personally, I think recently there's been a lot of shit-flinging born from essentially nothing (well, okay, not nothing, but things that could have been dealt with in a much calmer manner- mod abuse, etc)- nobody wants to back down, everyone wants the last word (I'm not innocent of this myself), and as a result, or something similar to a result, everyone's been a lot pricklier than they need to be. Hence more shit-flinging, and so on, and so on. I nearly didn't read all the way down this thread, because it looked like it was gonna go that way itself. Fortunately, it appears not to have done. I think we all need to take a step back and look at what we're pissed off about. And, not only just not posting angry, how's about not posting until we've actually thought about whether we should be pissed off or not?

Fuck, I don't know. Fluffy bunnies to all, except those who hate them. They can have pie.

We're The Great Old Ones Now

16:54 / 01.10.03

Well, I'm for turning, as they say. I'm going to be ruthless with myself and nice to you lot. I'm going to be constructive and polite and generous of spirit. I'm clearing my ignore list, and I'm entering the world like a newborn.

Deep breath...

17:40 / 01.10.03

I'm going to be constructive and polite and generous of spirit.

Abso-bloody-lutely. Brusque, harsh and/or tacitly rude posts do nothing to further discussion, or a sense of well being across the board. I understand that people get frustrated, and I don't object to the odd outburst, but I can't help but feel that some members could do with watching how, and why, they post.

S'why I love Kit-Kat club's posts so much - she manages to be consistently reasonable, respectful and polite. Goes a bloody long way in my book.

19:18 / 01.10.03

I think maybe we should make a concerted effort to start and contribute to threads about stuff other than Barbelith itself - and perhaps try, collectively, not to generalise from specific argument-related snarkiness to 'this confirms what I have long suspected about Barbelith' drama.

ONLY NICE THINGS

21:06 / 01.10.03

recently i mentioned a certain suit in a less than positive light and when i asked the owner if there were no hard feelings, i got no reply.

maybe there weren't any, but still.

Or maybe the suit has been a little busy lately. There's been some stuff going on.

I think G. has a very good position. The current measures are in place as a result of some enthusiastic and tedious trolling. Tom is working out ways to make Barbelith a more user-friendly environment, and, along with IP confusions and posting limit confusions, this wave of self-examination is something to be learned from in the future. However, if we devote ourselves entirely to metacommentary, we're not really giving Tom much to work on on how people want to use Barbelith - if it's merely a means to discuss Barbelith we may as well just watch the footie.

So, Nick has set a sterling example by contributing to threads generally, and broadly that seems a good path to follow. Let's try to establish what makes a good board by action as well as discussion.

05:25 / 02.10.03

Good idea, Nick. Although I can't agree that this apparent lack of trust and intimidation is anything new. It's been this way for at least two years if not more in varying degrees.

I found my way here because Haus commented in such a way as to elicit expressions of discomfort and frustration from several posters. I was interested cause I asked a question down there a couple weeks ago and Flux seemed rather derisive when ze responded.

I see what your anonymous folks mean, though. Even for me, those are two difficult suits to name. And I've had plenty of agreements and disagreements with both of them.

I may take this to another thread. The existence of the Ignore function coupled with even the possibility of unannounced moderation might contribute to an environment where trust is scarce. Trolls' legacy or no, how is one supposed to feel behind the iron curtain? Safe? Nervous?

Tryphena Absent

08:33 / 02.10.03

I'd like to add that to argue the issue, not the person as the best way of operating in any group discussion.

You know I try to do that and I get accused of troll baiting (by about 5 people though not publicly on the board) when I've never had any trouble with a specific poster before. The point is that the only posters that people (specifically me) really don't like are the ones who laugh in the face of sense ie. you address the issue consistently and they respond by telling you that vague incidents of abuse happen.

Kamandi, you're complaining about the fact that Flux is a comics snob and Haus is a moody bastard who likes people to explain their posts? Why don't you ignore them when their idiocy turns on just like everyone else does? I know people find them intimidating but at the end of the day you're just looking at two sarcastic people sitting at their computers and tapping keys.

Regrettable Juvenilia

08:38 / 02.10.03

So Nick, I have to ask: what did starting a new thread achieve that posting to your previous here would not have achieved? Aren't many of us in agreement that this doesn't need to be rehashed AGAIN? I'm with those who feel that one of the best things we can do right now is STOP the constant, circular self-analysis - which on some level means ignoring baseless accusations, as one would in any other aspect of life (eg, the idea that Flux saying something negative about a possible interpretation of Planetary counts as dubious behaviour for a moderator or some such guff - WTF?).

Page: (1)2 3 4