BARBELITH underground
 

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)34

 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
11:21 / 02.10.03
Flyboy:

Well, the first thread was a question, yes? It was an information-gathering exercise. And it has since petered out.

This thread is where I posted my feelings as a result of "Let's Talk". As you will see from my first post, I received a small but possibly significant amount of feedback via PM. It's too strong to say this thread is where I put my conclusions, because I'm more tentative about the situation than that.

I recognise that you might feel this topic stirs up more trouble than it lays down, and that you personally may have been a target for criticism in some of these discussions. At the same time, however, I have come to be genuinely concerned that there is a substratum of posters who are unwilling to join in discussions because they fear their views will be treated with contempt. There's a difference between fighting for your point of view and defending it from mockery.

Barbelith has always been, and always should be, a place for robust debate, but I think it's important that it be a good-natured, approachable variety of robustness. If you'll excuse me being a geek for a second, Barbelith should appear to the new user to be more like Klingon banqueting than Romulan politics: enter, speak loud and proud, take the knocks and eat bloodworms if need-be - but there's no need to fear that five days later you'll wake up staring out of a glass jar on someone's desk.

I agree that we need to be discussing other things, too. I've just started a couple of threads I hope will interest people. I'd be more energetic about it, but I've got a lot of work to do - and anyway, that's hardly the point - I'm one of those long-term posters. We need the new blood to step in and talk - which they won't do if they're scared, of course.

So I have to ask you, as I asked Fifth Columnist, what the point is of coming to this thread and exemplifying what I'm talking about? You say: "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?"

It's possible, to answer that question, that moderators cannot afford to mock anyone, ever. It's possible people who moderate should have one official suit (with a name like 'HeadShop1), which is almost an automaton, and one personal suit, which can say whatever it likes.

More generally, however, the reason I've started yet another thread on this topic is that I think if there's a problem it won't go away as an issue until we come to terms with it. It may, of course, go away as a topic of discussion, but that solves nothing.

I started this thread to talk about fear and trust. I said, gently, that some posters here are afraid of the ridicule of some others. And you stepped in and ridiculed someone in the thread. Try looking at that from the outside for a moment, and then consider - please - whether possibly you need to look at how you respond to people on the board.
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
11:57 / 02.10.03
I feel too intimidated to post in The Magick sometimes, especially recently.

It hadn’t escaped my notice that you don’t seem to post in the magic forum anymore. I just wanted to say that I think that’s a real shame. I miss reading your contribution to threads and, for what it’s worth, would urge you to come back. I’m aware that there were a series of incidents in that forum that led to yourself and several others leaving. Most of it seemed to happen while I was away from barbelith, so I don’t really know the details. I stand by my claim that on a good day, the magic forum can be one of the best places for magical discussion that exists on the web. It strikes me as a shame that several very interesting voices no longer post in the forum, regardless of whatever the reasons may be. I’ve just been made a moderator of the magic forum myself, and personally I’d like to see you posting there again.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
12:06 / 02.10.03
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?

It was the way he said it not what he said.

Nick I hate to say this but you're really presenting some of the posters on this board as lame. I mean I have come to be genuinely concerned that there is a substratum of posters who are unwilling to join in discussions because they fear their views will be treated with contempt. This is precisely what Mod was doing before he was kicked... making vague claims about posters on this board and their feelings, I'm not comparing you but I'm saying that I think you're prolonging this a bit and perpetuating the problem a little despite your best intentions.

Can't we stop with this cloak and dagger shit? I mean seriously people, Kamandi's got the guts to step forward and say he/she has a problem and damn right! But while those posts are a bit offensive, they're just a style of objection. Stick your middle finger up and read the positive responses in a thread instead of the negatives because there are usually plenty.

Nick, Flyboy- can we stop with the baiting here? If you must attack one another than please stick to PM. It's unfortunate that two of the more respected posters on the board have to get in to a mild but rather telling bitchfight in the middle of a discussion about posters who are too intimidated to get stuck in.
 
 
illmatic
12:16 / 02.10.03
I'd just like to echo GL's point to Mordant. I thought about PMIng you about this, but may as well add my comments here. I hope you feel the urge to come back and get stuck in. On a related note, I may start a brainstorming thread over there for new ideas and the like.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
12:18 / 02.10.03
Nick, I didn't ridicule anyone: I ridiculed an idea. Tackling issues, not posters, see?

If moderators cannot afford to make as general and mildly mocking a comment as "it seems like everyone is convinced that there is a secret mystical reason for every bullshit detail in every comic book", then I'm afraid I might have to hand in my badge, and I suspect I might not be alone. However I suspect this would not provide a long-term solution, as the suggestion has also been mooted that "proligic/high-profile/long-term" posters ought to be under some kind of obligation never to be negative about a post, no matter how obnoxious, or offensive, or staggeringly ill-informed. What's particularly galling about this is that, by and large, the people who become moderators *do* tend to be people who've contributed a fair bit to the board at some point or other, even if it's only by the very act of taking on the moderation workload (why is everyone so scared to point this out?) - and now these very people are being put under pressure not to disagree too strongly with anything, lest the cry of "bullying!" go up. It'd be funny if it wasn't so tragic.

Here's a thought. Many other message boards have very specific rules as to what is acceptable, enforced very consistently by moderators. You know what keeps people coming back to those boards? The fact that a lot of people are more interested in having a good discussion than the privilege to post and behave however they want. Weird, huh?

(Anna, I'm not baiting anyone.)
 
 
YNH
12:23 / 02.10.03
If I post twice is that my second cent or am I in for four?

I feel that I /(know)/ the Haus and Flux suits passing well. I am by no means complaining about them, but the tone of the thread suggested that statements merely suggesting "some posters" did "something" would be met with special derision, whereas naming names would, er, "show some sack." I did not mention their moderator status; that was intentional. The connection, Fly, is yours.

However, I think your response, and Anna's, illuminate some possible concerns. Haus and Flux are well loved, trusted, and respected. They also tend to be cranky cunts from time to time. A lurker suit or a newer suit is likely to read those comments as having less old boy charm than Zenith might. Do ya see where ah'm comin' from?

This is now a come lately post. I apologize, I have things.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
12:41 / 02.10.03
Flyboy:

In the context of a message board where we exist only as the sum of our expressed ideas, I'm not sure the distinction between ridiculing an idea and ridiculing the poster who suggests the idea is very strong. But in any case, my point is that in a thread about the possible negative effects of ridicule, why do it? The thing most likely to prolong this discussion, which is partly about whether high-profile posters treat less prolific posters with contempt, is to display contempt for the suggestion.

I realise this is galling. I'd probably find it galling, too, if I were still a moderator. And please note, no one's being put under pressure not to disagree too strongly with anything. That would be pointless and damaging. What I'm suggesting is that there are ways of forumulating disagreement which, however strong that disagreement is, preserve a sense of respect for debate and for one's opposite number in an argument. These are particularly important in discussions about emotive issues. There are other modes of discussion which are more satisfying in terms of venting spleen, but less helpful in terms of creating an environment where ideas are expressed which challenge pre-conceived notions and force examination of positions.

There's no question that some posts deserve a negative response. The question is whether a contemptuous response is useful for more than personal satisfaction. Better, perhaps, to refute gently but in detail any post which is so misguided as to raise one's hackles.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
12:45 / 02.10.03
Okay- Kamandi I was agreeing with you and in fact as I seem to point out over again, the first time I encountered Haus I was terrified. Why would people be concerned by my posts? They're only pointing out the board as I see it. Why should Flux and Haus' reactions in those two threads be tempered? Tell my why their expression should be stunted so that others don't feel that they are? Do you see what I'm saying? Not that they're more important but that they're equal to every other poster on this board and will be treated accordingly.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
12:50 / 02.10.03
Well done both of you. I'm sure this thread is really acheiving something and lots of intimidated people will feel free to express their views in light of your bickering.
 
 
YNH
18:24 / 02.10.03
Anna, I meant neither to disrespect nor to lump you in with Fly's what the fuck comment (which I realize I did.) I also have no real intention of singling out Flux and Haus as the or the only posters who might intimidate or irritate some folks. Those thread did, however, lead me to this one.

And, at the suggestion that their posts in those threads might be intimidating or belligerent, you appeared to balk. I read the response more as, "but that's just how they are," rather than outright disagreement. It was kind of like being at a family gathering where one's jolly uncle uses a slur and nobody talks about it. I do see what you're saying. That is how they are. It also might be intimidating; so might discouraging others from suggesting that. If I still appear to be missing it, let me know.

I don't think they should temper their posts. I'm not sure anyone should. I'm suggesting that maybe telling intimidated posters to "stop being such a goddamned pussy," might not be the best way of dealing with what some concerned folks have identified as a problem.
 
 
Char Aina
18:54 / 02.10.03
originally by nick, but then by anna:
I have come to be genuinely concerned that there is a substratum of posters who are unwilling to join in discussions because they fear their views will be treated with contempt.


okay, anna.
he is talking about me, and the people like me.

have you noticed any really involved posting by me?

of course not. because i havent done any. i stay well clear of voicing my opinion, and of saying that i find anyone elses troublesome. why? because i dont like what happens when one does(and what i imagine may happen next time i do), and i dont have the knowledge to be able to describe what it is exactly about the response i dont like.

like for example, what the hell is tu quoque bait? i think it was distended mass who mentioned it, and i still have no idea what was meant. (yes, yes, i can go google, but i only read it a moment ago. thats not the point)

i guess what i am saying is that i have stuff to say, but i have yet to be convinced that everyone is willing to listen. and no, it wont work just telling me i can speak up now.

the navel gazing is annoying, but you will not get much out of me, and those who are even less 'vocal' until it is complete.


in my HUMBLE opinion.
naturally.
 
 
Lurid Archive
20:53 / 02.10.03
But toksik, I think there should be involved posts from you. Sure, not everyone will listen to you, but partly that is life. You can't go around anticipating rejection though. Thats fucked up dude.

And look at the tu quoque thing. Instead of seeing it as something to be intimidated by, see it as an oppurtunity to learn something. You did. Cool.

We all interact and try to get something out of it. Ach. As an eternal student I think we can all get something from the maxim, "There are no stupid questions".
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
21:54 / 02.10.03
tu quoque is Latin for "you too". It's a variation on the ad hominem, where any criticism is immediately reflected back at the accuser. Distended Mass was trying to argue that I was employing it, in an attempt to draw attention from his original ad hominem attack and general rudeness. Glad to be of service.

I think there *is* an issue here, which is that sometimes people feel that they are not beign given respect, and *that isn't necessarily a bad thing*. toksik, for example, once barrelled up in a thread about racial epithets in the Head Shop with an utterly offtopic demand that he had the right racially to abuse his chum, which was perfectly fair but missing the point utterly, threadrotty and phrased unduly aggressively (the usual gauntlet thrown down to any PC loony trying to stop him fishcakes). This, I believe, led to an attempt to steer the thread back on topic, and then to a bit of reasonably polite criticism. This was criticism not for his beliefs but for his refusal to accept that the thread was not a hopper for whatever happened to be in his head at the time, because (and this is a bit key) Barbelith is not all about any one person, even if that one person happens to be you.

I would be surprised, by the way, if toksik can actually identify any point at which I said that he was worthless to Barbelith. That would be uncharacteristically melodramatic.

I'm sorry if that was enough to convince you never to post an opinion again, toksik. It might hopefully have been enough to convince you not to ramble off-topic and try to pick fights without having apparently read the thread you were posting to. This is not silencing the quieter voices, it is attempting to maintain an environment where some respect for other people's beliefs and right to have them listened to is maintained.

Thing is, people will at times feel hard done by. I am feeling hard done by right now because Kamandi has apparently compared me to a racist uncle, in a partial Godwin suplex. Kamandi is feeling hard done by because Flux has poured scorn on him. toksik is feeling hard done by because he has not yet received a reply to a PM asking to be reassured that there are no hard feelings from another member he keeps bringing up as an example of badness. Modzero felt hard done by because he felt he was being persecuted, as did Ierne, as did sexless, and so on. In some cases, one is feeling hard done by because one *is* hard done by. At other times, your feeling of being hard done by is doubtless valid and useful to you, but is not actually Barbelith's problem. Beyond a certain point, and where that point is is certainly an important question, we are not actually obliged to let the potential affront caused to others stop us from speaking or acting.

Personally, I intend to think from now on of tiny shrews sitting in my lap as I post (or possibly baby hedgehogs). Too much volume or needle will disturb these tiny and loavable creatures, and as such should be avoided. If I feel angry, I will think of the shrews, and their tiny warm bodies and lovely wuffly noses. I suspect this will make me utterly unbearable, but much nicer.

Après çela, les deluggles.
 
 
YNH
22:58 / 02.10.03
Thou art more lovely and more temperate, Haus. I was comparing the emotion of the situations rather than their content. I suppose I may have been feeling hard done, but I was more confused than anything. I suppose the old boy was simply having a bad day. And anyway the bullshit detail signified something, mystical or no; and I felt better.

I suppose I should find better metaphors.

And [then] being a winner, God give you good night!
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
07:41 / 03.10.03
Since we're all being conciliatory I will put my hands up and say this: I have been guilty of the regrettable habit of holding it against someone after they post one of more things which I find appalling. What's really regrettable about this is the fact that sometimes this may have continued even after I forgot what it was they actually posted in the first place to piss me off, and allowed the grudge to affect my response to other things they posted (although if they're clearly worth listening to I get over it eventually). There was a specific instance a few months ago where I said something mean about toksik which I regret - I was called on it (by a bunch of people including other moderators and including Haus, it may be worth noting) and apologised, but still, would have been better if I'd never let my pettiness get the better of me. In general, the idea that we should all be trying to express ourselves with a little more respect for each other unless that respect has been seriously forfeited (by which I mean behaviour that has only been demonstrated by people who were subsequently kicked off the board) is one I can get behind. My only qualifications don't really need repeating.
 
 
Char Aina
11:30 / 03.10.03
I would be surprised, by the way, if toksik can actually identify any point at which I said that he was worthless to Barbelith. That would be uncharacteristically melodramatic.


if i could remember what thread it was in, i would have looked. i think i replied witha simple 'thanks', if that helps jog your memory.



toksik is feeling hard done by because he has not yet received a reply to a PM asking to be reassured that there are no hard feelings from another member he keeps bringing up as an example of badness.

no, i am not. i was worried that there were hard feelings, not upset that there was no reply. my ego is not that easily wounded. i figured there were a few reasons that i could have not recieved the reply, one of them being that the only response was tooo negative to voice. another of them being, as you so rightly(and, if i may say, patronisingly)said, that the suit in question was too busy with things more important than allaying my fears of having caused upset.


i assume that was the reason, then. seeing as i have had no response yet, the suit involved appears to assume this exchange between you and i will suffice.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
14:21 / 03.10.03
Oh god. Haus is getting huggly again. I may go and hide; it's not gonna be pretty.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
14:51 / 03.10.03
I think the trouble with accusations of snarkiness or hostility or whatever is that there's a danger of a sort of halo effect creeping in. If someone tells you "Oh, so-and-so's a right snidey git," you may tend to read their posts in a snidey git way. The mental voice that you hear when you read the text becomes unpleasant in tone. I'm been told in the past (here and elsewhere) that posts which are intended to be freindly or encouraging are read as patronising.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
14:52 / 03.10.03
Stoatie:

Don't knock it.

Although the image of him sitting there with shrews all over his lap is not one I really wanted in my head.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
15:10 / 03.10.03
Hmm... I recall you getting kicked in to shape toksik and remember being pleasantly surprised as your posts started to get more inciteful (sp?) as time went on. I think you should state your opinion more often but in the same style that you post now. It's rather pleasant!
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
15:18 / 03.10.03
[grin: offtopic:]

Anna - "insightful" - offers view to the heart of things, perhaps affords access to the inner workings of sthg to an outsider; "incite" - stir up trouble...
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
17:13 / 03.10.03
Mr. Size Fourteens Fear - I really think that the bit about responding to and leading too sum up my position on why I didn't name names. This really isn't the thread in which to air my greivances about the actions of other in another thread. It was started with a clear purpose in mind and I think that this needs to be respected. If I really wanted to discuss that issue then I would have started a thread about it and clearly named the guilty, placed quotes that linked to the event and probably included foot size measurements for a frame of reference. However, those details were ommited as that section was used for example purposes as something that I felt people would be familiar with and therefore contextualise my position.
 
 
Char Aina
17:25 / 03.10.03
aw, nick! i wana be inciteful and insightful!
 
 
bob
20:28 / 03.10.03
Personally, I intend to think from now on of tiny shrews sitting in my lap as I post (or possibly baby hedgehogs). Too much volume or needle will disturb these tiny and loavable creatures, and as such should be avoided. If I feel angry, I will think of the shrews, and their tiny warm bodies and lovely wuffly noses. I suspect this will make me utterly unbearable, but much nicer.

How utterly saccharinely condescending of you. We are like children or little babies in your lap. Fantastic. I know you are trying to be all huggles here but your view is from on high atop a sand castle built in the air. You are no better than any of those little shrews. You are no different than those little shrews.

Try to put yourself in shoes that fit, OK?
 
 
Tom Coates
22:33 / 03.10.03
Bob - no offence - but while you've been registered a long time, you haven't posted more than forty times in the last two years. Until you've earned everyone's trust a bit more and have demonstrated that you've got used to people's style of posting, I'd rather you didn't react so strongly to perceived (or actual) condescension. As I think we all know, iIt's very easy to misinterpret people's 'tone of voice' when all you see is words on a screen and responding with such aggression is almost certainly unwarranted. It's particularly innappropriate in a thread which is specifically designed to find ways of mending fences. If you're still on the board in a couple of months and have developed decent two-way relationships with other board-members (and you still feel this way), then your comments will seem both more plausible and more reasonable.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
00:24 / 04.10.03
Tom is right.

Also: Could you not detect that this was part of Haus's sense of humor, Bob? It's not exactly puns and slapstick, but it seems pretty obvious that he's going for some kind of comedy. Try not to be so intensely earnest, man!
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
08:18 / 04.10.03
Plus also there's this whole issue about shrews which everyone seems to be ignoring: they bite like fuckers when they're nervous. I was once savaged by a baby shrew, shortly before it did the other thing shrews do when nervous, which is expire of heart failure.

I'm not convinced that Haus' shrew analogy isn't a pretty good one - he never said he was going to treat us like shrews, just that he would post as if there were shrews. It strikes me that it's also a statement of almost religious profundity: in life, we all spend much of our time running around the crotch of a largely-indifferent metaphorical bastard, while at the same time trying not to waken the shrews of our own crotches.

This has really got away from me, hasn't it?
 
 
bob
08:22 / 04.10.03
Sorry. I read that and it rubbed me the wrong way. Tom & Flux might be right. But they might be wrong. I don't know. But I am sorry for the little bit of venom. I don't like the idea that anyone might think of me or others as a baby in their lap. Humor or not.

In my experience this humor or style will often cause some people troubles. Typically the ones who use such style and humor.

Sorry for stepping on toes.

On the number of posts: I have lurked off and on over the last while after an initial try at posting which did not turn out as I had hoped. I wasn't ready then, but maybe now? I don't know. We'll see.

Give me some SLACK if you are willing please?
 
 
Tom Coates
10:41 / 04.10.03
Apologies if I sounded brash, bob. I hope I didn't make you feel uncomfortable.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
12:00 / 04.10.03
bob - and anyone else - there's now a thread in the Conversation for ideas which still have training wheels on.

What I hope will happen with this is that anyone who has a serious but half-baked idea will put it there, and people will struggle to help them articulate it. With any luck, it should be a spawning ground for threads in other forums (fora?), where the fully-grown ideas can then face the music.

I'd like to ask people, especially those who are tentative about engaging in possibly emotive debates here, to throw stuff into the thread, because otherwise it's just another lead balloon.
 
 
Char Aina
12:53 / 04.10.03
i think it was kinda obvous that haus was talking about a way of being chilled at his terminal, not a lens through which to see us.

i could be wrong.

a vewwy stwange image, vewwy stwange indeed. but stwangely alluwing...
 
 
Tryphena Absent
20:17 / 04.10.03
[offtopic] Damn I knew I spelt that wrong. Teach me to post something nice for once! It must be a subconscious urge to be a negative cow [/offtopic]
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
23:22 / 04.10.03
I would like to make it quite clear that I was planning to behave as if there were shrews, not as if you were shrews. The shrews perk their ears up, fearful of thunder. I respect their tiny feelings.

Bob, a good way to start your new career as a relaunched poster on Barbelith may be to read others' posts before reacting to them. They have usually put them there for a reason, and a very good way to find out that reason is to read them. I accept your apology, however, and hope we will not have such misunderstandings in the future, which may lead ironically to people thinking of you as the aforementioned babe in arms.

I'm thinking we could really do with the return of a "previous posts/previous threads by this poster" function. The absence of rapid name changes in future will make it easier to track people's actions and also to maintain a degre of coherence in how we think about each other, and this would also help.
 
 
Jack Denfeld
03:55 / 05.10.03
Hello everyone. I could probably count on my two hands the number of times I've actually posted on Barbelith. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a newbie, I guess I'm what some people would call a lurker.

There are a couple of reasons I don't really post. Sometimes I find that if you post and you're not a moderator or Barbelith celebrity, you don't get respect. Despite having never changed my name on this board I've had my name misspelled several times by people at Barbelith. It's a little thing, I know, but little things like learning a poster's name makes me feel more comfy.

The few times I've posted at all were when I felt the topics were simply too important to ignore, mostly global politics and human rights issues. And even then it took great courage on my part to participate.

Some people act like they are the Kings and Queens of Barbelith, and internet or real life, I bow to no one. Thank you, I will now go back to lurking.
 
 
Ganesh
12:14 / 05.10.03
I think we should call inexperienced posters 'shrewbies'.
 
  

Page: 1(2)34

 
  
Add Your Reply