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

Underground > Policy & Help >

Moderation requests & discussion thereof

Page: 1 ... 29 30 31 32 33(34)35 36 37 38 39... 95

20:51 / 27.03.06

You wouldn't just take the title into account, though, but the initial post. "Stump Fuckin'" could be the title of a promising thread, I suppose: could be the name of a band, a book.

But when the author gives you no more than

"Who's done it? What did it feel like? Where can I get some?"

then you're not just going on the fact that the title seems unpromising. I don't see that the original poster wanted this thread to go anywhere worthwhile. Again, most generously, ze wanted it to be some kind of funny gross-out storytelling session.

"Anywhere worthwhile" is something of a moveable feast where Conversation's concerned; personally, I'm not sure I'd consider more than 5-10% of it "worthwhile". I'm aware, however, that my subjective opinion is just that. Also, you're intuiting the poster's intention from the first post - which, I agree, appears lazy, somewhat look-at-me and quite possibly crass. It's also rather opaque: is he talking about fucking amputees, fucking the stumps of severed heads, or what? Tree stumps? Cricket stumps?

If he is talking about amputee sex or necrophilia - and it's by no means certain as yet that he is - why does this constitute moderator action? I could buy the 'some amputees might be offended' argument to a certain extent, but then we've recently had a thread defending our rights to joke about violence toward children. We've also discussed paedophilia in the past (ad nauseum), scatophilia and various other (Googleable) topics which might be highly distasteful to some. We've used the word "fucking" countless times.

Potentially being other than "worthwhile" in one's intentions is not grounds for moderator action in the Conversation, IMHO, and neither is discussion of distasteful subject matter. I haven't yet seen a powerful argument for locking that thread, let alone deleting it, on subject matter or wording alone. 'Possible troll', maybe, but there are other ways of addressing that particular issue.

miss wonderstarr

21:02 / 27.03.06

As I think Lady was implying (with the comment about Barbelith being like the rest of the internet, but worse) there might be some grounds for locking a thread because of quality control -- I know that's problematic, especially on Conversation -- and the issue of how Barbelith presents itself.

From the Wiki: "The aim of Barbelith is to create an online space where the standard of conversation, discussion and debate is higher than anywhere else online."

Interesting that this initial proud statement does include "conversation", though the forum of that name seems to have become an almost-anything-goes zone.

I suppose there could be some feeling that Stump Fuckin' doesn't live up to that central Barbelith aim. But then, as you say Ganesh, perhaps not much of Conversation does.

21:02 / 27.03.06

Sauron, unless I'm much msitaken, has always been an attention-seeking idiot who gets away with it because he's friends with the Brighton posse. The suit's not been taken over by anybody else - it's acting no differently now than it ever has in the past.

21:09 / 27.03.06

As I think Lady was implying (with the comment about Barbelith being like the rest of the internet, but worse) there might be some grounds for locking a thread because of quality control

I broadly disagree, at least where the Conversation's concerned - or, at the very least, I think that if a particular thread is to be singled out for locking because it's of poor quality, then a pretty good argument has to be advanced to counter the obvious inconsistency of approach. That hasn't happened here.

Jawsus-son Starship

21:13 / 27.03.06

Isn't the whole stump fucking thing just a reference to the boosh?

Sometimes I think we need more holocaust denial shit on the board so the moderators have something to really talk about, other wise we get nonsense like this, arguing about what is really a pretty nothing thread.

DISCLAIMER: I am in no way saying that people should deny the holocaust anything. It's to needy, it'll just throw a temper tantrum.

21:16 / 27.03.06

Math, shhhhh.

Thing is, Wonderstarr, that even if a moderator thinks a Conversation thread is sub-standard or doing nothing to further the aims of Barbelith, a moderator does not - as it stands - have a mandate to propose the deletion of a thread on those grounds.

If that should be within the Convo moderators' remit, then we should talk about that. I might be pursuaded myself. But that hasn't happened, which I why I think that proposal was bad moderation and disagreed it. And given that it was one vote away from being passed, I'm still keen to know Stoatie's "obvious reasons" for agreeing it.

miss wonderstarr

21:21 / 27.03.06

other wise we get nonsense like this, arguing about what is really a pretty nothing thread.

O I dunno... I thought the discussion had developed from this one thread to wider-ranging ideas about how mod decisions are made, and what the Conversation should be about.

21:22 / 27.03.06

Sauron, unless I'm much msitaken, has always been an attention-seeking idiot who gets away with it because he's friends with the Brighton posse. The suit's not been taken over by anybody else - it's acting no differently now than it ever has in the past.

I don't think that's wholly accurate; looking back at early '02 threads to see if the convo had indeed lost some quality, I found this and this, both of which are perfectly pleasant convo type stuff. I do personally think it's got worse, although threads do seem quite a bit more popular than back then, where most struggle to get into double figures posts and occasionally one takes off and makes triple. If it's a boosh reference(?), I think everyone can probably climb down off their chairs re: suit-hack, although historically this - my suggestion it is not el planko - automatically means that it certainly is.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

21:47 / 27.03.06

I'm still keen to know Stoatie's "obvious reasons" for agreeing it.

Umm... full disclosure here...

I'm not entirely sure. I think I was at the time. I honestly don't remember. (I finished a nightshift this morning, then went to the movies, then went to the pub). The whole of today is something of a blur. I THINK my "obvious reasons" were the title, on a brief check. Umm...

...I'm a bit shit, really.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

21:56 / 27.03.06

No, I DEFINITELY put more thought into it than that...

(note to self... shut the fuck up)

Our Lady Has Left the Building

07:56 / 28.03.06

Looking back on it when I woke up this morning I realised I probably went too far in asking to delete it as well as lock it, the latter was fine, the former probably too much against the grain of Barbelith.

I've felt icky about this thread since it first appeared. I remember thinking about what should be done about it last week and in the end leaving it, it appeared to have died and I would just let it slip down the board. Unfortunately it took on a second lease of life, which didn't appear to be any more intelligent and well thought out than the first. In light of Nina asking for it to go, and the discussions in the 'Feminism 101' about Barbelith's sometime frat-boy/locker-room mentality, I thought that was reasonable.

Ganesh Pointless, worthless, crass, lazy - now grounds for summary thread deletion? In Conversation?

Why not in the Conversation? I accept that I was perhaps wrong to delete it, but why do people seem to think we need a seepage channel on Barbelith for the worst elements of some people's personalities to be given space? Is this one of those Qlippoth things that some of the magicians bring up when they go to the comics forum?

Math Says: Greek = Chic Maybe we could give Lady her own fora, or she could vet all our posts for us? Because I'm writing some shit at the moment, it'd be nice to get some help with my thoughts.

What's that you say? 'Shit-fucking'? Quick Sancho, we must ride to the defense of Barbelith!

Haus I am also confused as to why Flowers and Nina, both moderators _in_ the conversation, are using this thread to talk about moderation actions that they will both be able to view and vote on in their capacities as moderators - is this in the interests of transparency?

Well, maybe Nina wasn't sure whether something should be done about it. If I wasn't a moderator my reply would have been 'I agree'. It's like any number of other discussions in this thread.

ONLY NICE THINGS

08:29 / 28.03.06

Arguably, but I don't see a lack of certainty here- you and Nina both talk about the desirability of getting rid of it, but at no point is a reason actually given, except that it is "puke" or "cretinous shit" - see here. As discussed before in this thread before - see here as an example - we need a higher standard of argument for deletion than that - you can probably rely on their being a fair chance that you'll get somebody who will agree a move without thinking about it or without understanding the issues or because you're a chum, but that doesn't make it a good practice to encourage.

We're doing a bit better now with the "Feminism 101/Frat boy" citation, but again there's nothing at present to say that locker roominess is a deletable or indeed a lockable offense. I'd like to see where we go with that one, because I have a list of stuff that would result in immediate deletion in my dream Barbelith - people mooning about unattainable women, Monty Python quotes, any discussion of Geoff Johns not involving pikes - which at the moment I am assuming have to be tolerated. If this thread is being used to assemble thread-lynching parties, then we need to think about retitling it.

Tryphena Absent

09:45 / 28.03.06

I didn't move toward it because I wasn't sure anyone would agree it and I thought asking would be preferable to steaming ahead as sometimes people just don't look at requests properly. I wanted to get rid of it because I thought the thread was offensive, if I were an amputee I assume that I wouldn't be happy to lose a limb and having that loss mocked would be pretty fucking upsetting. I don't think it being a reference to a comedy show is acceptable in an international forum and frankly the following conversation could be reconstructed in around 5 minutes and was of no consequence to anyone. That's why I agreed both moderation requests.

Tryphena Absent

10:09 / 28.03.06

Incidentally if anyone had addressed the issue, if Sauron answered questions, if anyone had even tried to get to the heart of the problem I wouldn't have locked it. As it is the thread is basically rot and has become a potential shitstorm because of that rot. This is distributed moderation.

11:39 / 28.03.06

Although I’m normally one to emphasise the limitations on moderator power to (generally new) members who are under the impression that we are an authoritarian clique of facist snobtrolls, I think the ‘moderation is distributed’ defence can be overplayed, and is being here.
Just because moderation proposals require ratification from other mods, doesn’t mean that every proposal and every agreement is a responsible one. The checks and balances are not that robust.

There are loads of threads that I don’t like, and in many cases I’m pretty confident that I could find 3 other mods who dislike them too. It wouldn’t be difficult to form a posse, rendezvous when the coast is clear and go to work deleting the stuff that bores us. Several people acting irresponsibility in concert doesn’t make that action any less irresponsible. Moderation powers aren’t easy to abuse, but it’s not impossible.

Makes me wonder if we need more moderators and proportionately more agreements to pass an action. Alternatively, I’d suggest that actions that aren’t easily undone (ie. deletions) require one or two more votes in favour.

At the moment, my faith in the system is distinctly shaken.

12:13 / 28.03.06

I wanted to get rid of it because I thought the thread was offensive, if I were an amputee I assume that I wouldn't be happy to lose a limb and having that loss mocked would be pretty fucking upsetting. I don't think it being a reference to a comedy show is acceptable in an international forum and frankly the following conversation could be reconstructed in around 5 minutes and was of no consequence to anyone.

A few things - first, why was that not the given reason? Neither you nor Flowers are particularly prone to glee when righteous anger is another option. So I don't think that's actually true. I think it's glommed from kovacs/ms.w-s. Second, within five posts we are given the Mighty Boosh definition. The lock was proposed after, what, 28 posts?

Now, obviously, were I a severed head, I'd not want my loss of body mocked not to mention said acts performed, but then I'd probably not be writing this, or it'd've taken longer using my nose only. Alternatively, someone here may well have had a relative or friend decapitated, so I guess that must be right out as far as conversation goes? Is 'stump fuckin' now subject to another rorschach test of offensiveness? Inarguably, it could be offensive, as could a great many other things. No-one who proposed or agreed a lock or delete made any attempt to contact Sauron though, I'm betting. That'd've maybe been a step to clarity.

Lastly, your final criticism quoted above is one which could, as adjudged here, probably be applied to - depending on perspective - 50-95% of that forum. Also: see all Ganesh's posts.

This absolutely need not become a shitstorm, and I and others have already offered several remedies that don't involve interceding in the frankly, overpleased manner done.

13:14 / 28.03.06

(DF) No-one who proposed or agreed a lock or delete made any attempt to contact Sauron though, I'm betting.

Weren't attempts to contact Sauron strongly implied by

(NS) if Sauron answered questions

here? I read it that way.

Our Lady Has Left the Building

13:36 / 28.03.06

Smoothnly Weaving Makes me wonder if we need more moderators and proportionately more agreements to pass an action. Alternatively, I’d suggest that actions that aren’t easily undone (ie. deletions) require one or two more votes in favour.

Better still, everyone becomes a moderator than every single change requires a 51% of Barbelith in favour. True democracy!

And could one of you who so desperately want to keep it, please give it a summary? Thx.

13:43 / 28.03.06

Discus-Discuss in the "Too Many Agent Smiths" thread abstract.
Please and Thank you.

Tryphena Absent

13:44 / 28.03.06

It's overpleased to rot threads in the most flippant manner available, discussing animals in an attempt to divert an issue instead of tackle it head on. As to the criticisms- one criticism never justifies locking anything and that's fine but we let things just carry on all the time instead of dealing with anything pre-emptively. I haven't given you one reason, I've given three and I think those three things should be taken as a set rather than individually.

I was gleeful because I thought we might actually get rid of a thread JUST ONCE that fucking deserved it.

ONLY NICE THINGS

13:57 / 28.03.06

Stop shouting and stop snarking, people.

14:05 / 28.03.06

It's overpleased to rot threads in the most flippant manner available, discussing animals in an attempt to divert an issue instead of tackle it head on.

Clarify, if you would?

14:17 / 28.03.06

Why not in the Conversation? I accept that I was perhaps wrong to delete it, but why do people seem to think we need a seepage channel on Barbelith for the worst elements of some people's personalities to be given space?

Yes, because that's obviously how I phrased it. The time may well be ripe for a discussion of what ought to go in Conversation: I'm sure we'd all have highly personal, highly subjective, highly idiosyncratic ideas of what constitutes "lazy", "crass", etc., etc. The point that's being repeatedly made here, however, is that you gave no reason for your moderator proposal other than a statement of personal distaste - and when I sought clarification from you, I got nowt but snark. By all means, have a discussion about quality control in the Conversation; that's an altogether different proposition from locking and deleting threads without feeling any need to explain why they're beyond the pale.

14:23 / 28.03.06

I wanted to get rid of it because I thought the thread was offensive, if I were an amputee I assume that I wouldn't be happy to lose a limb and having that loss mocked would be pretty fucking upsetting.

I suppose you're to be congratulated for finally giving some sort of reason other than "puke". Perhaps we ought to delete the various threads which allude to comedic violence against children, then, in case bereaved parents or survivors of childhood abuse are finding those fucking upsetting. Or any humorous reference to violence, come to that, in case anyone who's been assaulted (me and Xoc would be included in that demographic) feels mocked.

I find your reasoning problematic, but at least you're now giving reasoning beyond your own personal dislike of a thread's perceived subject matter.

Like Smoothly, I'm feeling slightly disappointed in the spread moderation system right now. At least it's encouraged me to get involved again, though - and that can only be a Good Thing, rrright?

14:27 / 28.03.06

well nina, i think a large part of the problem here is your own certainty over what does 'deserve' to be deleted. you're asuming an authority that I'm not sure you really have a right to. what i think i find most disconcerting is the fact that it took so long before we even got a barbelith-acceptable justification for this action - I wanted to get rid of it because I thought the thread was offensive, if I were an amputee I assume that I wouldn't be happy to lose a limb and having that loss mocked would be pretty fucking upsetting.

now, i find that sentence hilarious and would probably barbequote it if i thought the wind was blowing that way, however i understand that presently the local convention is to give credence to that kind of position. (personally, i don't think it's ultimately constructive to ensure that no offense to any imaginable [non-nazi] human being could be made in any post on this participation-voluntary message board.) the fact that before we even got that justification we got repeated assertions of, basically, 'because i say so', is what i perceive to be the problem here.

i think there's been a shift in tone that has been gathering for a very long time but has really built up pace in the past few weeks - i get the feeling that shitstorms like this, which once would have been discussed from all sides and dropped once boring, will turn more and more frequently into deliberate and poorly-debated censorious action such as we've seen here. which i think will be a shame. (sorry i can't clarify my thoughts better on this one though, it's a bit of a lumbago type feeling.)

as for sauron, to set the record straight and perhaps clean-off some of the wank that was spat over him upthread, i'm pretty sure he was introduced to the barbelith by his friend and one-time colleague who had the shoelacey names. none of 'the brighton posse' (luv that - it's like steve wright said it or something) has as far as i'm aware seen him since his sister's wedding, which was a couple of years ago now. i am however lucky to receive not-infrequent updates on his health and status, and thus can say with certainty that he is a big big fan of the mighty boosh, as was correctly identified by someone very shortly after the beginning of the thread in question.

14:32 / 28.03.06

oops, soz, dint see the intervening posts there.

14:47 / 28.03.06

I haven't given you one reason, I've given three and I think those three things should be taken as a set rather than individually.

So those reasons were:

a) "puke",

b) possibly offensive to amputees

and

c) "of no consequence to anyone"?

Are those the reasons you meant? If so, b) is debatable on a number of counts, and a) and c) would appear to be variants of your personal opinion as to the quality of the thread concerned.

If we're now locking/deleting on grounds of perceived quality, then we'd best aim for some halfway-objective definitions of quality, hadn't we? That and a little consistency.

18:07 / 28.03.06

Reread the thread, and wondered whether this was your third reason, Nina:

I don't think it being a reference to a comedy show is acceptable in an international forum

I missed this the first time around and am still not quite understanding your point. Are you saying that, where there's a possibility that something might be perceived as offensive by a notional third party, it's unacceptable for that something to be a comedy reference? Or unacceptable for it to be an insufficiently "international" comedy reference? What are the implications of this for future threads? Could I, for example, quote the Brass Eye paedophile special (which, after all, might be viewed as 'mocking' those with an abuse history) without knowing where the programme has and hasn't been aired? Does it have to have appeared onscreen in every nation in the world in order to be suitably "international"?

18:54 / 28.03.06

Concerning the Stanislaw Lem thread in books, I'd like to suggest you moderators delete the last two irrelevant posts and either ban me now or stay out of my way in future. I don't need your help to decide what I want to say, don't offer it.

19:06 / 28.03.06

I didn't mean to raise your ire, elene. Perhaps I should've left well enough alone. Nor was I trying to police what you posted, I just thought an articulate poster like yourself with a knowledge of the author's work might lead the conversation in an interesting direction which would be of help to the threadstarter. I've mentioned in my reply that if he'd wanted to read the amazon reviews he may as well have logged onto Amazon rather than Barbelith. But, as I say, perhaps I overstepped the mark?

miss wonderstarr

07:02 / 30.03.06

I wonder if the thread about someone's best mate's uncle having once slept with his mother is another case for discussion, like "Stump Fuckin'".

I can't see that it's intended to, or destined to (without concerted derailment of the original intention) go anywhere that doesn't involve retro ideas of male pride, smackdowns verbal and physical, silly boasts and unpleasant ideas about female sexuality (that having once 'fucked' a woman can be used years later as a taunt; that a woman's sexuality is a matter for duelling between men; that for a mother to have a sex life in the past is hard to contemplate).

I'm not asking anyone to lock or delete it. I think it might be another case for discussion about whether some threads go against the stated ethos of Barbelith, and threaten to make it a different type of place from the place most people in the community seem to want -- that is, make it a place like many others online, rather than somewhere unusual in a good way.

ONLY NICE THINGS

07:17 / 30.03.06

I think this actually deserves another thread in Policy, Miss W - would you like to start it?

miss wonderstarr

07:20 / 30.03.06

OK, if you think so.

Jawsus-son Starship

07:34 / 30.03.06

Ok, is this a joke, or is barbelith under the power of the psychoanalysits? That thread was a way in which I can stiffle a friend from always bringing up the fact that his uncle fucked my mother, which is not something that bothers me in the act, just the constant repetition of the story. So if I've offended anyone with my ladish attitude, then why are you upset? I honestly can't understand the problem here? I'm not saying that women can't be sexual creatures, much less making out my mother should be a nun, I am only looking for a comeback the is clever enough to reduce a 22 year old boy to tears, becuase I'm obviously not clever enough to think of one of my own.

Is this against the 'lither ethos? Asking for help? Or is the world just such a great place that we can offended over nothing?

miss wonderstarr

07:39 / 30.03.06

So if I've offended anyone with my ladish attitude, then why are you upset? I honestly can't understand the problem here?

I honestly can't understand your logic here. You're saying "if I've offended anyone, why is anyone upset?" I would have thought the connection would be obvious.

Anyway, you have a nice new thread for this now!

Page: 1 ... 29 30 31 32 33(34)35 36 37 38 39... 95