BARBELITH underground
 

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


Racism? - now-locked legacy thread

 
  

Page: 12345(6)7

 
 
Alex's Grandma
01:21 / 14.09.06
It's very late everywhere in England, PW.

You've (quite reasonably I think,) been asked to explain the reasons why you feel the requested moderation action is inappropriate. With the best will in the world then, can you just do so? Or failing that, just let the whole thing slide?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
01:23 / 14.09.06
Help me out, PW. You have so far refused to explain why you wnat the move vetoed beyond something about context which you have not fleshed out. You have claimed for yourself the special privilege of being able to compel moderators to do your bidding, until some process which has never as far as I know been practised on Barbelith before, which you also refuse to explain, provides a judgement satisfactory to you. In amongst this, you take time to impugn the integrity of your fellow members of Barbelith, for no other reason as far as I can see except that they ask you to explain things, and seek to bully them into doing what you want with a mixture of insinuations, insults and veiled threats?

Dude.

I'm going to skip voting on this motion for now, because this thread is an embarrassment to Barbelith wherever it goes and I really don't think it matters. However, PW, if you don't get your behaviour under control - because we are reaching the point where you are in effect spamming the Policy with a mixture of abuse and the abstruse - we're going to run into increasing problems. Reading the wiki might be a good start.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
02:05 / 14.09.06
PW;

Reading back over this thread just now, there have been going on for five pages of discussion, pretty much all of it to do with comments made by you, I fear, that could have easily been resolved by the kind of simple apology (eg 'sorry, I screwed up') that you've been calling for at length elsewhere.

Accordingly, I can see why you might not want this thread to be moved to the Conversation - given that it was two years, and less than a page old before all this started, and the way it's flourished since, it doesn't seem as if racism was ever all that serious a problem on Barbelith to begin with, so much as ... well anyway, perhaps it might be better if the whole thing was locked?

You're not a bad guy I'm sure, but at the moment, chief, you seem to be a bit too P, and not enough W. Even in the context of teh Barbelith.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
06:43 / 14.09.06
In my humble, of course.
 
 
Char Aina
07:27 / 14.09.06
why the heck is the thread being moved such a bad thing?
i dont get it, and that seems mostly because there is nothing for me to try to get.

paranoid, tell us why.
please?
haus has asked you about five times to tell us why, and i dont understand why you havent.

if you dont have a good reason, might it be fair to let those who do have a good reason for their actions to perform them?
 
 
Bed Head
07:53 / 14.09.06
pw hasn’t actually said this, but I’m wondering if this talk of ‘how the responses will look’ means that maybe he's worried about a fresh wave of responses if it gets moved. Convo-style responses. Pw, would you be happier if this thread was left to sink for a bit, say a day or two, then transferred to Conversation, so that it doesn’t go straight to the top of the front page? Then it’ll be one of dozens of Convo ‘racism’ threads that come up on a search, and most people just start new threads in there anyway, so you probably needn’t worry about anyone ever seeing this 'incident' again.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
08:15 / 14.09.06
If you modmove a topic, doesn't it go automatically to the top of the forum, though, BH? Also, how exactly would you distinguish the responses so far from Convo-style responses? Still, at least it would be a reason, which would be a start...
 
 
Smoothly
08:44 / 14.09.06
If we’re having to guess PW’s reasons (which, at the moment, is the only option we’ve got), my intuition is the same as Bedhead’s. Emphasis not on the Convo-style, but rather the fresh wave. I suspect this is about the size of the audience.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
08:54 / 14.09.06
But that's not what he said; the closest we have to an actual reason is:

e.g. maybe miss wonderstar wouldn't have bumped / used this thread if had been in conversation. Ze wanted to discuss this issue more seriously, non? Personally, I know my response would have been a whole lot different if this had been Conversation, as well.

That is, moving it to the Conversation will give people the wrong impression about the level at which the issue was pitched - although if there is a way for the response to be less appropriate to the Policy, I'd be interested to see it. I don't see that as a huge factor, personally - it's made clear by this point in the thread that this thread started in the Policy.

Incidentally, the move has been disagreed. I'd be interested to know by whom and why, to further the broader discussion.
 
 
Bed Head
09:03 / 14.09.06
Yeah, but then he also said Yes, but the subject matters are different, and the way they're treated is different.

So, yeah, I definitely think it’s the 'fresh wave' bit, and I think it might be the ‘anything goes’ bit too. His other arguments don’t make too much sense to me.

FWIW, I’ve always thought a moved topic just slots into place according to the time of the last post. So leaving this thread alone for 24 hours might just put it low on page 1 or maybe even onto page 2 of Convo when it gets moved. Maybe. Oh, I could be wrong about that.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
09:18 / 14.09.06
No, actually, on reflection I think you're right. Mixing up my board software...
 
 
Tryphena Absent
10:06 / 14.09.06
If PW specifically doesn't want a fresh wave of responses we can lock it until it sinks down to the bottom of the page, which would probably take about 24 hours, and then unlock it. That's only if that is the worry because that's not the impression I get. if you don't want people to see a thread then Conversation is exactly where you want it, you don't want it to be called Racism (a recurring subject on Barbelith) and kept in P&H.
 
 
Sniv
12:21 / 14.09.06
I don't see what the fuss is really, nobody but you hardcore nutters are posting in this thread anyway. I think if it's moved to convo, we'll get a few piss-taking posts (dibs on that, btw, I've been really holding back on this one) and then this thread will die, because if you're not directly involved in it, it's frickin' boring, and only particularly funny in fits and spurts (like Nina and PW's debate on the previous page, that was classy). And it's not even got that much to do with racism for the past few pages.

As an aside though (because I can't wait for this thread tomove to convo before I ask), what were all of you up to so late last night? Don't any of you have work in the morning?!
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:36 / 14.09.06
When I printed out this post and showed it to my mother, she had no idea why I had bothered to make it either.
 
 
Sniv
12:55 / 14.09.06
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!11!

AHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!123!

Heh.

You've already done that gag once in the last month, Hausy old boy. Time to get some new material, this one has got some holes in it.
 
 
Sniv
12:58 / 14.09.06
And anyway, that still doesn't explain what you're doing debating with PW at 3.00am on a weeknight, does it. I told your mum about that, she says that's why you can never get up for school in the mornings. <- TRUE
 
 
electric monk
12:59 / 14.09.06
John - Please stop. The "fuss", as I'm understanding it, is that we currently have a Policy thread titled 'Racism' that, initially, was a discussion on what to do about posts that are or could be taken as racist. It is, sadly, no longer about that at all. Hence the move to move (or lock and ghost or move and lock, etc. etc.). Can't say I see the humor in any of it and, as a softcore nutter (have been passively following along till now), I honestly think this needs to be resolved somehow. I myself would prefer that it be booted to Convo, locked, and allowed to sink only to be unlocked when it leaves the first page, if ever unlocked at all. It could maybe use a summary change* as well, but I'm not sure on that.

If there is an argument for keeping it in Policy other than one poster being fearful about what kind of response this will generate in Convo, I'd love to hear it. In plain language. With a minimum of teh snark.


*Something along the lines of "A serious discussion goes off the rails. Confusion ensues." maybe. Again, not 100% behind the idea, but there you go.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
13:11 / 14.09.06
I don't really see the big deal about moving it to Convo, tbh- (but then I'm not a Policy mod, so it's someone else's decision). It's what we traditionally do when threads in other fora get way off topic, isn't it? Why should this one be an exception?

Apart from anything else, we probably could do with a racism thread in Policy. This hasn't been it for an awfully long time now.
 
 
pointless & uncalled for
13:14 / 14.09.06
If you're going to lock it until it sinks then there really isn't any point in moving it to the Conversation. Locking it until it sinks really implies that no further discussion is invited, in which case, as the discussion took place in Policy, it should lock and sink in Policy as a matter of archive.

If moved to the Conversation and unlocked when it reached the second page, all it would take in the conversation is one act of pernicious posting to return it to the top and it immediately becomes open for the form of posting that is originally intended to be avoided. It's a redundant move.
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
13:19 / 14.09.06
[threadrot]

Just popping in this thread to say thanks to the mod' who vetoed the move, and to briefly explain what I intend to do later this evening to help resolve this "fuss":



1) I am going to work on an opening post for a thread in Books (maybe Headshop?) called 'Intent + Text + Context = Meaning' A theory I've been trying to crystalise in many ways lately, and which I hope you can all help me with.

2) I'm going to find an example of prejudiced language on Barbelith, stick it here, and ask for a theoretical / Policy orientated discussion of it. To get this thread back on-Policy-topic.

3) I'm going to start a Conversation thread called "Relationships between moderators and members; how this might affect bias?"

4) I'm going to start a thread in Policy called 'When, where, and why to propose a move or a deletion in a fair way?" However, if need be, I will come back here and argue my right to have this left in Policy until WE have decided to move it or not and the reasons are clear for everyone.

5) I may also contribute to other related threads if it proves they are already better suited to any or all of this.



That is my plan. Is that acceptable? If I do not receive PM's supporting or not supporting my plan and/or (hopefully) read no more posts about all this here, in this thread, I will continue as planned.

Hope that sounds serious and reasonable.


[/threadrot]
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:25 / 14.09.06
What I would really, really like, PW, is for you to explain what your argument for keeping this thread in Policy is, here or in an alternate venue of your choice. That is all that has been asked of you.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:43 / 14.09.06
At the moment, the arguments against moving it to Convo are:

1) For reasons that remain opaque, Paranoidwriter does not want it moved. Certainly, he has contributed a large amount of text to this thread, and perhaps as such we should recognise his investment in its future.

2) If we move it, John the Exploding Boy will take the opportunity to tell us all about Political Correctness Gone Mad.

3) The Conversation has done nothing to deserve this.

After four solid pages of threadrot, I think the case for locking it and letting it sink is probably stronger than the case for moving it. However, I'm open to discussion. So far PW wants it to stay here, Nina, Monk and Stoat seem to think that some variation of moving it to the Conversation would be appropriate. Monk also thinks it should be locked, with unlocking to be discussed at a later point. Nina thinks this may also work. Bed Head has suggested something similar - that it be left to sink and _then_ moved to the Conversation, although ignominious has pointed out that if it is unlocked it can (and probably will, realistically, as it is such a heck of a search term) be bumped to the top of the lists very quickly. Alex has proposed it be locked. So far, the only person who is for keeping it in the Policy and unlocked is Paranoidwriter, and presumably the moderator who voted against the move - whose input would be welcome. I hadn't realised that moderators were mere conduits for the will of the people, but at the moment, since the will of the people is to moderate this thread, if we _are_ then we are not doing a very good job of it.

toksik, Nina, Alex, Monk and I have all asked PW to explain why he wants the thread to remain unlocked and in Polcy, so far without success.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
14:00 / 14.09.06
[threadrot]

Just popping in this thread to say thanks to the mod' who vetoed the move, and to briefly explain what I intend to do later this evening to help resolve this "fuss":



1) I am going to work on an opening post for a thread in Books (maybe Headshop?) called 'Intent + Text + Context = Meaning' A theory I've been trying to crystalise in many ways lately, and which I hope you can all help me with.

2) I'm going to find an example of prejudiced language on Barbelith, stick it here, and ask for a theoretical / Policy orientated discussion of it. To get this thread back on-Policy-topic.

3) I'm going to start a Conversation thread called "Relationships between moderators and members; how this might affect bias?"

4) I'm going to start a thread in Policy called 'When, where, and why to propose a move or a deletion in a fair way?" However, if need be, I will come back here and argue my right to have this left in Policy until WE have decided to move it or not and the reasons are clear for everyone.

5) I may also contribute to other related threads if it proves they are already better suited to any or all of this.



That is my plan. Is that acceptable? If I do not receive PM's supporting or not supporting my plan and/or (hopefully) read no more posts about all this here, in this thread, I will continue as planned.

Hope that sounds serious and reasonable.


[/threadrot]


Who was it who said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, or something similar?
 
 
Smoothly
14:09 / 14.09.06
For the record, I favour locking and leaving it here.
I think that moving a thread is justified if doing so would benefit the thread or the forum to or from which it is moved. As it stands, I don’t see either this discussion or the Conversation getting better for it being moved there; it’s clearly no longer working as a Policy thread. No one, not even PW, wants this thread to continue on its current bearing. So, I reason, lock it.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:10 / 14.09.06
Samuel Johnson, although he actually said that Hell itself was paved with good intentions, not the road thereto. However, he was appparently just quoting a popular saying of the time - also not mentioning roads - which is ultimately probably derived from St. Bernard of Clairvaux's statement that Hell was full of good intentions.

Pub quiz, anyone?
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
14:28 / 14.09.06
Gah, no thanks, I still have the hangover from the one I went to TWO FUCKING DAYS AGO.

For the record- I think the ideal solution would be for this thread to fuck off and leave us all alone (but, like a particularly juicy scab, it's hard not to pick at it). The reason I'm in favour of a move to Convo, however, is as a least worst option. I'm not a fan of locking and deleting (unless we're talking Holocaust denial or something) except as a last resort. If Policy mods feel we have reached that point, then I'm not gonna complain too much, really.

This certainly isn't a Policy thread, the way I see it (which, as I'm not a Policy mod, is of dubious provenance). Not any more.
 
 
Smoothly
14:33 / 14.09.06
Gah, no thanks, I still have the hangover from the one I went to

To say less of the time we get beaten by a team who only entered so they could get table.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:38 / 14.09.06
Yeah, but if there'd been a "trying to do a pub quiz while beiing ripped to the tits" round, we would have... well, lost to Stoatie, as it turns out.

OK, so Stoatie would prefer a move to the Conversation to locking and deleting (can I assume also to locking _or_ deleting, Stoats?), but believes that the thread should not remain in its current form - open and in the Policy. Cool.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
15:17 / 14.09.06
Yeah, "or" as well as "and". As I say, I wouldn't be heartbroken were that to happen- it just wouldn't be my first choice.
 
 
Olulabelle
15:31 / 14.09.06
I think this thread should be locked and remain in the policy, but I think it's name should be changed.

That way Nina's concern regarding having two racism threads running here at any point will be addressed, but so will PW's concern regarding moving it, the reason for which, frankly completely escapes me.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
15:37 / 14.09.06
PW, have you got any serious objection to this thread being locked?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:42 / 14.09.06
And renamed, if we're keeping it in Policy, I'd suggest. "Racism - locked legacy thread", or something to that effect. That way confusion will be minimised.
 
 
electric monk
15:45 / 14.09.06
I like that.
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
16:00 / 14.09.06
PW, have you got any serious objection to this thread being locked?

Nope. Please do.

But I'd like it left in Policy, still.

I will explain in another thread (hopefully) later this evening.

Cool?
 
 
grant
16:12 / 14.09.06
For the record, I didn't disagree anything -- I posted what I posted last night, went to bed, then came back here today to find -- whoah! -- another page of discussion.

I think locking is a sensible choice, yes.

Grant: you may be able to help, here. What's the object lesson you think the last pages provide?

Mmm -- ways the board responds to concerns about racism, good, bad and confusing. I mean, it's an example of that process. I'm not sure how constructive an example it is, but it's certainly an example.
 
  

Page: 12345(6)7

 
  
Add Your Reply