BARBELITH underground
 

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


Moderating the Temple

 
  

Page: 1 ... 2627282930(31)32333435

 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
08:06 / 27.02.08
Is there a way we could skip to the end on this one? There's no way, realistically, to shut anybody on Barbelith up any more, the Furries are going to the West, this is the face of the future of Barbelith, and realistically being a bit too pleased with a decent 2.1 from a second-tier university is not a crime, else so many of us would hang. So many.
 
 
Glenn Close But No Cigar
10:07 / 27.02.08
First from Oxford, was it Haus?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:16 / 27.02.08
Actually, in my subject Durham has a much better course, and better tutors, and you don't have to hang around with a load of smug Oxford nobbers. I went for the interview, to keep my parents happy, but I _deliberately_ messed it up on purpose.
 
 
Glenn Close But No Cigar
11:08 / 27.02.08
Oxford it is, then.
 
 
Papess
11:41 / 27.02.08
Papess, I'm not sure what gives you the authority to speak for most of Barbelith, or even how you came to know, as you claim to, most of Barbelith's minds. At at rate, you don't seem to credit most of Barbelith with much in the way of reading skills.

Life is interesting. I once asked the same question of Haus when I had first come to the board. It's like this though, Glenn: It's not an authority, it's just that I pay attention.

I know that Barbelith is not a board where people are okay with being wound up by thoughtless commentary. Barbelither's have gone to great lengths to make guidelines and policy regarding proper etiquette on the board. I observe that there are quite a few prolific posters who take issue with you, Glenn. I also see that are some very interesting posts which you make and people enjoy...you know, when you aren't taking potshots at other posters.

See in my experience on Barbelith, (and it has been a number of years)and my interactions with Barbelithers - on and off board - and with people in general, leads me to have a certain understanding that you simply don't have as of yet, Glenn. It goes like this: People (Barbelithers especially, but non-barbelithers as well) don't like it when people interrupt their conversations with non-funny, non-serious comments with obfuscated intent. Unless, one considers the intention to irritate others or showboat, I can't see the point of your "non-funny/non-serious" posts other than to satisfy your own ego and need for attention. You added NOTHING to the discussion.

From what I understand of the expectations of Barbelith - meaning the people of Barbelith - a number if them whom I have interacted with off board as well as on board, in intimate ways, in real-life situations - don't care for this behaviour at all. However, one needn't have relationships off the board with other 'lithers to make that call. Ne merely has to understand what healthy social interaction is about. You have been clearly told this time and time again about these types of comments. Apparently, you aren't paying attention, or you just don't care how you interact with other people.

Either way, you are displaying anti-social behaviour that you may want to seek professional help for. This is not a potshot at you (because I have a feeling you will take it this way), it is a well founded concern based on your own behaviour on this board, with your clear disregard for other people, the conversation they are having and the way you affect those around you.


Not so much funny as non-serious...

See, that is a problem. Such a half measure for a post that adds nothing to the actual discussion in the way of relevancy. Try being serious for once, Glenn, or at least, seriously funny.
 
 
Glenn Close But No Cigar
13:22 / 27.02.08
If you like, Papess.

Thing is, I pay attention too, and I haven't actually taken a pot shot at any other poster in this thread, or at the very least have only returned fire. In fact, the only non-retaliatory pot shot I've ever fired, IIRC, was when I asked Mordant Carnival whether the problem with the Temple might not be her massive power issues - something I later explained as a warm hearted, even affectionate exercise in absurdism.

Nevertheless, therapy beckons! I picture a room - no, a 'safe space', dammit - in which a kindly man named Nigel will just... listen.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:16 / 27.02.08
A younger Haus might help with your memory on this one, which is entirely off. A younger Haus might also note that nobody has so far bought your defence of your warm-hearted, absurdist dig at Mordant - that, no matter how sincere you are, nobody has at any point expressed any confidence that you are accurate in your depiction of your motives there. This young man might suggest that you think about what has happened, in terms of the community whose perceived reading skills you are keen to defend, to make it more likely that such a statement from you will be taken as a personal attack and then, when defended as affectionate and humorous, that that defence will be assumed to be a lie.

There would then be a pause, and the compassionate, arm-throwing, wheedling bit would begin. This would involve pointing out that it seems from your behaviour that you are trying to be a more worthwhile and valuable member, saying some interesting things, on occasions actually being amusing, only that your pride seems unable to allow you to accept any correction or challenge without the original statement being claimed to be a joke that everybody else who encountered it was just too dull to recognise, and in extremity plumps for for the Last of the Summer Wine pictures in an attempt to replicate the effects of the Mosquito on children, except on people who can be arsed.

The companionable arm would quiver heroically as this young chap, still thinking he could change the world, would explain that a bad name had a terrible adhesion, and that if one was serious about being a part of a community (and, God knows, I have often puzzled at why, the benefits therefrom being often so intangible and the number on the Internet thereof being so numerous, people get so bent out of shape about not being carried shoulder-high by one particular group of a few dozen furries) the only thing one can really do is do one's best not to be misunderstood, not to seek out people with whom one has previously knocked skulls and not, ultimately, to be a gigantodouche, or even one whose behaviour can be misconstrued as appropriate to such a mighty piece of unisex cleansing equipment.

But, you know, older, and thinking "well, what gives me the right, really? What a prig young me was! Many of the largely Temply women who seem to get a load of affectionate, absurdist not-hassling seem to be likely to leave for the West soon, there's nothing much here to defend or integrate with, and this kind of Churchill Hall japery is the future of Barbelith through sheer determination, whether one really fancies it or not. Why not celebrate that?"
 
 
Spatula Clarke
17:20 / 27.02.08
Um, might it not have occured to you that I know that the 'trickster defence' holds little, if any, water here, and was consequently laying it on a bit, um, thick?

No.
 
 
Thaddeus "B." Glands
23:48 / 27.02.08
Um, might it not have occured to you that I know that the 'trickster defence' holds little, if any, water here, and was consequently laying it on a bit, um, thick?

As a relative newcomer to the board, I don't necessarily mean to take an ultimate stance, but I do have to ask the question: if you know that the 'trickster defense' holds no water, why are you bothering to lay 'it on a bit, um thick'?

Given that it's all likely to boil down to the same thing where you're attempting to shake things up with humour, but really you're just de-railing a discussion so that we can all discuss you?
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
09:17 / 28.02.08
You know, I can actually hear some of those mosquito tones. They fuck with my head. For some reason, it's even worse in my "deaf" ear. Matter of fact, there's a lot of high-frequency electronic noise that really bothers me. You learn to tune it out, but sometimes it gets loud enough that you basically have to go in the other room for a bit. You're all rrrgh and everyone else is like, what, I can't hear anything. This one time I was on an escalator behind this woman and her bag clasp was rubbing against the metal side of the escalator all like SCKREEEEEEE and I really wanted to ask her to move her bag, but I thought I'd look crazy. Sometimes I do tell people about sounds and things that bother me but it's not always a good idea becuase for every person who goes Oh, really? I'll stop then, there's about a dozen who'll smirk and do the noise thing a lot of times more going You mean this bothers you, what, this bothers you, no, really, this bothers you, all I did was this, come on, you can't tell me that this bothers you hey where are you going. And it's really funny, I guess, because it happens a lot.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:58 / 28.02.08
Your ears are just too sensitive.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
10:23 / 29.02.08
Can we change the topic abstract to read "almost certainly soon to become yet another identikit puddle of sigil-charjin, Matrix wannabes, blurry photos of people's camera straps and sundry unexamined wank, all served with a hefty side-order of uncritical back-slapping and any kind of reasoned enquiry being treated as an unwarranted personal attack sauce, this being, for reasons which escape me entirely, what people seem to want"?
 
 
grant
13:48 / 29.02.08
There's no way, realistically, to shut anybody on Barbelith up any more

There are still enough mods around to delete posts.

Just sayin'.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:14 / 29.02.08
Yes there are. That's highly effective.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:14 / 29.02.08
Yes there are. That's highly effective.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:14 / 29.02.08
Yes there are. That's highly effective.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:14 / 29.02.08
Yes there are. That's highly effective.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:15 / 29.02.08
Yes there are. That's highly effective.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:15 / 29.02.08
And so on.

Economy principle - it's faster to make a post than to delete one.
 
 
grant
05:21 / 01.03.08
Hmm. I'm not sure most posters would want to do that, even after a deletion. Maybe.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
11:30 / 01.03.08
Ah, so you mean "if someone is basically good-hearted and does not mind us doing so, we can given time delete posts of theirs we don't think should be there." That's certainly true.
 
 
Papess
12:28 / 01.03.08
It certainly does take more time than that to post some of the lengthier posts. Despite personal opinion on the quality of the posts, sometimes it's the sheer amount of cut and paste of the many points already made, or thought that might go into defense, or wordsmithing,..etc, these things take time. This isn't always the case but more often than not people don't post at such an exaggerated speed.

I think these posts which are disruptive and rabble-rousing should be put up for "removal" and then taken to a dump thread, (possibly, here in Policy). That could be a "special" place for these posts, for all to see and discuss at length - in a companion thread to the dump thread (not in it, that's too confusing). Thus, if too many posts from any one poster ends up for "removal" and in the dump thread (for all to see and count - let's say 5 is the limit... buh-bye), then that person is up for a bannination. It is based on numbers, so therefore, a little more clear cut...at least, once it is decided what is to go up for removal. Cut the heart strings - that's just the way it is. MOst posters can work within those guidelines, I have no doubt.

At the very least, it might have the effect of making people think a little bit harder before posting in drunken states and asking for deletion (these types of posts, if they are offensive, could be placed in a thread like this.) Or, posting pointless, unhelpful, "non-serious" drivel within discussions.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
08:59 / 03.03.08
At this point, why not? There have been about two posts to the Temple in the last week, although one of those was admittedly asking about whether there is a replacement yet. Once an offensive one turns up, you guys go wild.
 
 
Papess
11:01 / 03.03.08
And to keep a sense of the context from the original thread, (if that is even relevant), linking to the post previous to the drivel could be used as a marker.
 
 
My Mom Thinks I'm Cool
12:53 / 03.03.08
this may be a stupid question, but...why are you still here, Haus? you don't seem to be enjoying it very much.

it almost feels in places like you're just popping up in threads to remind us all just exactly how badly Barbelith is dying right now, in case someone forgot and started to have a good time.
 
 
Papess
13:41 / 03.03.08
King, I wonder the same thing myself sometimes. He does seem a tad unhappy.

However, I don't want to change the topic just yet, as I am hoping to gather some support or at least more of a response for the idea I have proposed in relationship to Temple and possibly the r4est of Barbelith. I would like to figure a way of dealing with borderline trollism as it is quite bothersome but there is little recourse.

Maybe we could have a thread about Haus's obvious unhappiness. Maybe we could cheer him up somehow?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:57 / 03.03.08
Well, that's an interesting question. Forgive me if I answer it, however, with a question of my own. What _precisely_ did you get out of asking that question?

Motivation's a complex issue - at least, it is a complex issue if you are not a simple organism.

In truth, this has nothing to do with my sadness or otherwise. In many ways, the Temple grinding to a halt as the worthwhile users migrate to Liminal Nation is, from the point of view of Barbelith, quite a good thing, and certainly not something that makes me particularly unhappy.

It is a matter of some concern if eccentric governance practices hammered out in the Temple are applied more broadly, but since there is little likelihood that those now living on the board are going to have moderator status conferred upon them, where's the harm? If people feel like trying to induce moderators to delete posts that they feel are pointless, unhelpful or non-serious, they're welcome, I imagine, to shoot for it. I hope that the moderators will be sensible enough to treat frivolous exercises of this already-existent power to request moderator actions as they should, but putting in place a process that is not only far more laborious than ignoring personally annoying posts but also far more likely to lead to threadrot, recriminations and flame-outs by people who cannot be banned is ultimately a decision for the existing moderators to consider on its merits.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:15 / 03.03.08
Having said which - if this is basically about Alex's Grandma, why not just get an agreement to move to delete anything he posts in Temple? It would lack a degree of drama, but the effect would be much the same, and since he is better-behaved than your average Temple troll, would probably have relatively few consequences.
 
 
Papess
14:27 / 03.03.08
Do as you wish, it was just a suggestion to be able to lead to a situation where banning was possible for borderline behaviour.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:33 / 03.03.08
Right. In which case, I have one tiny questionette, leaving aside what constitutes rabble-rousing or indeed when rabble-rousing became necessarily a bad thing (a rabble might be quite nice around here at presence, qua brightening the place up). Banning how, exactly? What did you have in mind?
 
 
Papess
14:58 / 03.03.08
A ban would be based on the number of offenses. As I posted upthread:

Thus, if too many posts from any one poster ends up for "removal" and in the dump thread (for all to see and count - let's say 5 is the limit... buh-bye), then that person is up for a bannination.

Maybe "rabble-rousing" doen't define the issue. It's not just AG, either. I am fed up of GM and his non-serious insulty posts. I understand criticism and also humour. I am really not comfortable at all with GM's style of posting "below the belt", so to speak. This style of trolling is hard to be rid of. There are always arguments of how they are not always trolls, or some other rationalization.

What I think is helpful in these cases is to define this type of difficult behaviour, and draw a very clear line in the sand. This is the problem, as I see it. There is not enough definition and therefore no line is defined which can be readily pointed out for evidence in the case of banning. By creating an "artificial" line that can be crossed (based on the definitions we develop) can reign in this type of behaviour. Everyone knows where they stand

The point is not to continually sweep this subtler type of trolling under the barbe-rug through deletions or ignore fuction, but be able to put an end to it one troll at a time.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:03 / 03.03.08
Sorry, I didn't mean "How do you intend to determine how to ban?" - I can see that you feel that five deleted posts is grounds enough for that in your original post. I meant "how do you feel that banning would work?" What would the process be between whatever trigger for banning one settles on being tripped and a person no longer being able to access their suit? How do you imagine that would work, technically?
 
 
Papess
15:16 / 03.03.08
I can see that you feel that five deleted posts is grounds enough..

That is not what I said, exactly. There are no deleted posts in my suggestion.

I have no idea about the technical aspect of things and I am beginning to regret making a suggestion.
 
 
Papess
15:28 / 03.03.08
Sorry Haus, that was a bit snippy.

I have a lot to deal with in my own personal affairs that involve maneuvering within bureaucracies. I am trying to make a suggestion to help the climate here and it is a bit much for me to deal with the questions you are asking without understanding the problems that you seem to see which might arise from this. If you could explain that to me I might be able to answer you.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:34 / 03.03.08
I don't think making a suggestion is a terrible thing. However, coming up with solutions to the functional issues besetting Barbelith requires a fair bit of plate-spinning, and one of the elements that helps that spinning is an understanding of where, technically speaking, we are. If one has that, the thirtieth time somebody says "yeah, but why don't we just let moderators ban people?", for example, becomes quite wearing.

There is clearly a distinction between remove and delete that I am not getting here - possibly it is only the suggestion that a post be removed that counts towards the five, rather than a successful removal. However, without a means to ban at the end of the process, this process of removal, thread in Policy for removed posts, thread in Policy to discuss removed posts seems to lack a sharp end.

Assuming we have any sort of even semi-operative method of banning, I think I suggested how one might use our existing setup and philosophy to bring it even unto Alex and Glenn, if it's that important. However, there is a fair amount of prior art on the topic of banning and whether and how it is possible.
 
  

Page: 1 ... 2627282930(31)32333435

 
  
Add Your Reply