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 >

Moderation requests & discussion thereof

  
  

Page: 1 ... 4748495051(52)5354555657... 95

 
 
Ganesh
14:20 / 03.09.06
If anyone's seriously calling for anyone to be banned, then I agree that that's very silly indeed.

On the subject of PM dialogue, I've gone down this route in the past and it's proved constructive in terms of decreasing the level of animosity between me and other posters, and also altering their (or my) on-board behaviour. When DM and I clashed over the discussion of gay men kissing in his local mall, we resolved that issue, at least in part, via PM. I think I communicated the reasons for my irritation around that plus the "which of the planets is the gayest" japery. He seemed to understand my ire, apologised and hasn't - to my current knowledge - posted anything that 'unexamined/homophobic' since. At the very least, I'm confident that if he did post something borderline-homophobic and I contacted him about it, I would be listened to.

(Our PM dialogue also helped me appreciate some of the backdrop to his coming out with that stuff in the first place - which also diminished my irritation with him.)

The fact that DM apologised and modified his posting behaviour accordingly means rather a lot to me in terms of factoring his overall 'worth' (in any such discussion of same). I view the ability to apologise unreservedly, learn and change as relatively rare traits on message boards, and not to be undervalued.
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
14:29 / 03.09.06
Yeah, I suppose in a way you're right, Haus. I mean why bother apologising when someone completely ignores the fact that you have apologised and then brings up your mistake and throws it back in your face when you're actually talking about new events and when you'd actually thought old events had already been dealt with?

And I've read the threads in question (including this one) carefully, I was reading them all when all the nasty comments started surfacing yesterday, so it was maybe easier for me to see how these particular events unfolded. Also, I don't think anyone's actually called for a ban; they were suggesting it as a possible course of action, maybe, but I think they were possibly being ironic? (I may be wrong, of course)

I am telling you that you are apparently not reading what I or other people are writing, and assuming that this is because you _are_ emotional. If there is another reason for it, please address that instead.

Ditto. Actualy, no. Haus, are you being emotional?

And I'm sorry about me saying you were "trying" to take the blame away. That was wrong of me. What I meant to say was it appears to me that whether you intend to or not, your posts read as though you are taking the blame away from those who started this particular debacle. The reason I think this is that you seem to be focusing less on what Flyboy and Triplets said and did, and more on what DM has said and done previously (i.e. before the vents of yesterday), and also what I have said and done months and months ago.

I'm also very sorry if this is "off-topic" but the thought of starting a new thread just to get Flyboy and Triplets to apologise for being out of order? Well, that would be making this more personal that I feel any of it needs to be. A simple, sincere, apology, some forgiveness on DM's part, and a continued mutual effort to get along; that's what I think is needed here. Do you agree with this simple solution?
 
 
Char Aina
14:31 / 03.09.06
to be clear about banning;
i do not feel that we should start a banning thread unless there is continued harrasment.
i think perhaps folks missed the 'if' in my post before, possibly because banning is such an emotive issue.

clearly not as emotive as rape, but then i'm not sure why i am even making that comparison.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:41 / 03.09.06
there would only be a need to start a banning thread(something i didnt mention doing, incidentally) if it continued.

***

i would expect an apology that showed they understood what was wrong with their bahaviour, and gave us some idea that it wouldnt continue to be a problem.

if not, can we just call it harrasment and ban them?

I think we're done here.
 
 
Char Aina
14:41 / 03.09.06
dude, are you high?
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
14:43 / 03.09.06
toksik, forgive me, but was that a cross-post? I can't tell who you're asking.
 
 
Char Aina
14:47 / 03.09.06
sorry, that was flip.
i didnt suggest a thread, i suggested we 'just call it harrasment and ban them'.

not the same thing.

i also said so with an 'if', and i think that 'if' is important.

with an 'if', there are criteria to be met before ot becomes active, none of which have been met.
my 'if' clause is therefore inactive at this point, maning i am not calling for a ban, nor a banning thread(which i didnt ask for in the first place).
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:50 / 03.09.06
i do not feel that we should start a banning thread unless there is continued harrasment.

No, toksik, I'm not high. I am pointing out that what you _said_ was that you felt they should offer an apology that showed they understood what was wrong with their bahaviour, and gave us some idea that it wouldnt continue to be a problem. If they did not do that, then you said if not, can we just call it harrasment and ban them?

What that means is that if the apology that etc was not given, then it should be called harrassment and then they should be banned. That may not have been what you wanted to say, but it is what you actually said. It's not about missing the "if" - it's about what the "if" refers to.

Now, if you would like to accept that and try harder to put your sentences together to reflect more accurately what you actually want them to say, we can avoid this confusion in future. I'd thank you not to suggest that I am at fault for your ambiguous (or rather, unambiguous but not apparently communicating what you wanted to communicate) writing.

I admit I assumed that you meant start a banning thread rather than simply ban them, because I had no idea anyone would suggest banning two long-standing members of the community without a thread discussing it. I son't quite understand the relevance of this, but I'll happily admit it.
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
14:53 / 03.09.06
Sorry all. Sincerely. I'm obviously not helping matters, and I believe there's a fair amount of confusion all round at the mo'. However, I'm backing away and will try to regain perspective on all this.

Haus, Flyboy, Triplets, DM, and everyone else: I have no personal problems with any of you (on my Mum's life). I just wanted us all to play nice, and then got annoyed when I shouldn't have. Apologies to you all.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:57 / 03.09.06
And I'm sorry about me saying you were "trying" to take the blame away. That was wrong of me. What I meant to say was it appears to me that whether you intend to or not, your posts read as though you are taking the blame away from those who started this particular debacle.

Quotes, please. Quote what makes you believe that and why. Otherwise, how can I respond? This is pretty basic, PW.

For example, the claim that DM was clearly trying to invite people over for a love-in. I have explained to anti-yeti league here why I do not find Dead Megatron's gloss on this convincing - that is, either that that was not what was meant or that the gulf between what was meant and what was said is so vast that it is unfair to hold anyone responsible for not getting it. So far, A-Y-L has not actually responded to that, except with an ad hominem here (you are the kind of person who does this - therefore you are doing this - therefore your contention is not to be considered). As such, nothing more can be said, becuase he is no longer talking about what was written, but about me - a more interesting but less relevant topic.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:04 / 03.09.06
Ah - interpost. OK, PW, let's leave it there. Have a manly shoulder-squeeze.
 
 
Char Aina
15:22 / 03.09.06
i am not confused.
the 'if' referred to the apology, an important part of which was designed to ensure, as far as is possible, that the attacks not continue.
(i have gone on to say quite explicitly that i dont think that there will be any need)

i dont think we need a banning discussion now, which seems to be what you are implying when you say If you wasnt to start a banning thread, that's your right.

can we keep the misunderstandings and explanations to PM from now on? i fear some of the audience may be bored.
 
 
pony
15:23 / 03.09.06
ok, haus. i apologize for making thing about you, perhaps in the future i'll have the manners to take things over to the "burning down.." thread and make a fool of myself for everyone's amusement.

I have explained to anti-yeti league here why I do not find Dead Megatron's gloss on this convincing - that is, either that that was not what was meant or that the gulf between what was meant and what was said is so vast that it is unfair to hold anyone responsible for not getting it.

my problem with your statement is that DM hasn't put his gloss on anything... in all likelihood, he's currently sleeping off a good party. what you seem to be calling his 'gloss' is in fact my interpretation, and one that other posters (and other witnesses to yesterday's shitshow) have agreed with. you, on the other hand, have you own interpretation, but this seems to've transcended mere gloss and somehow become 'objective proof' despite the fact that your only argument has been, "i'm reading this right, you're reading it wrong". is there something i'm missing?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:27 / 03.09.06
I think you're missing this post, AYL.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:48 / 03.09.06
the 'if' referred to the apology

Right. That's what I said. Which is my point. You may not be confused, but what you said clearly is.
 
 
pony
15:50 / 03.09.06
alright, that gloss... i'd forgotten that DM joined in on the post-mess-mess before going off to party. i hate to seem thick, but i still don't see how that lends any credence to your interpretation of the birthday thread.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:55 / 03.09.06
Well, AYL, I wouldn't know, because you haven't posted about that - only about me. I quoted the section that gloss appeared to refer to, and explained why it did not appear that the content matched the gloss. You have not subsequently responded to that. You have used an ad hominem. You then started claiming that I was saying that my reading was unassailable, which I have not. You are now putting things that I have not said in quotation marks, suggesting that I have said them.

Now, if you'd like to respond to my reading, now you are no longer going to attack me for you not having read the thread, feel free. However, i would very much appreciate it if you did it with reference to what I have said, not a) what I am like or b) the very unreasonable things you would like me to have said.
 
 
Char Aina
15:58 / 03.09.06
haus, PM or not at all.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
16:07 / 03.09.06
Fair enough, toksik. If you are not actually now claiming that if an apology that etc is not forthcoming then Triplets and Flyboy should be banned for harrassment, then I don't see a lot of profit in analysing the grammar of the post in which the claim was or was not made, but feel free to PM me about it if you like.
 
 
pony
16:16 / 03.09.06
me: "but i'm pretty sure most people would agree that DM's "goading" in his birthday thread really seemed a lot more like playful extension of the olive branch, a "come on in and lets set our differences aside, it's a party", than anything mean-spirited."

haus: "Interesting. Why is that? Would it be because that's what you think? What Dead Megatron has subsequently said? Because you weren't mentioned by him? In fact, aren't you blaming the victims here? What makes you see that in the line: WHERE'S HAUS GOD DAMNIT!"

so, this seems to be where things started. i had an opinion, partially from the text after the fact, partially from seeing the text play out in realtime, partially from DMs gloss (which i'd forgotten about). as was evidenced in this thread, i wasn't the only one that reached a charitable conclusion about DM's intentions. you had an opinion, which ironically enough seemed to stem largely from feeling of victimhood and "emotion".

the problem i have is seeing where in your argument you actually make a case for your opinion being more valid/likely-to-be-truthful than mine, aside from a general air of it being self-evident. please elucidate, seriously...

p.s. sorry about the ad hominem bit, i've been a bit frustrated by this situation and your general demeanor can be a bit difficult once you're in a correct/not-correct situation, but i'm sorry for bring my personal feelings into this.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
16:39 / 03.09.06
the problem i have is seeing where in your argument you actually make a case for your opinion being more valid/likely-to-be-truthful than mine, aside from a general air of it being self-evident. please elucidate, seriously...

OK. Let's go back to the post you just quoted. In it, I quote what Dead Megatron actually said. He said that Flyboy was his puppet, and commanded him to dance for his amusement. He then demanded to know where I was. I explained why I did not feel that that supported the reading that Dead Megatron subsequently claimed - that it was an invitation in good faith to put aside the "hatred" just for one day. I explained why. You have not yet at any point actually addressed what he actually wrote - instead you started attacking me as a person and then started, as I said, putting things in quotation marks that I did not actually say.

So, I do not believe that my analysis of Dead Megatron's post is the only possible one. It is the only one that currently exists which actually attempts to tie in to what he actually wrote, which, as I have said, does not seem to support the reading that you think "most people" would agree is the correct one. It is the reading that you and Paranoidwriter have adopted, but apparently without looking at what he actually said, rather than what he said about what he said, even after I had quoted it. If you would like to address what he actually said, then there will be two readings available for discussion.

So, that, really. As for victimhood - that was (and yes, I'm going to admit it) rhetoric. The intention was to make people think about how uncritically they were accepting glosses placed on statements by people on the grounds that they felt that they were the injured party. In this case, since I was the "victim", or at least very clearly the subject rather than the object - I had not appeared in that thread in any context before Dead Megatron decided to pull me into it for reasons of his own, which may or may not have been as he descibes them but were not, for my money and with reference to the actual text, made at all redolent of the reasons as he has subsequently described them (and I'm still waiting for a recantation or readdressing of that "hatred" line, of course...) - I intended to highlight the unsafeness of this formulation. I hadn't realised that this would not be clear, but I live and learn.
 
 
Char Aina
16:49 / 03.09.06
If you are not actually now claiming that if an apology that etc is not forthcoming then Triplets and Flyboy should be banned for harrassment, then I don't see a lot of profit in analysing the grammar of the post in which the claim was or was not made, but feel free to PM me about it if you like.

i'm fairly sure you arent that stupid, haus.
please, if you need to discuss this further, approach me via PM. if you continue to discuss it here, i will be unlikely to engage with you further.
 
 
pony
16:54 / 03.09.06
in terms of your rhetorical "point", it was perfectly clear. you're a seriously frustrating debater (with both good and bad qualities; i cringe when people get into these sort of arguments with you, but can't look away...), but you're certainly not dumb. i'd just like any more debate to be a little more honest/transparent and less rhetoric-y.

that said, i totally understand your interpretation of the "dance, puppet" comment, but that same comment was also part of my interpretation (honestly, dude, neither of us is working with much more than some ambiguous statements and a gut feeling right now...). i saw that as it played out, and i had to give DM props for trying to make the best of a difficult situation... to me, he acted as best as a hospitable party host could with a totally random and malevolent variable thrown in. obviously hindsight is 20/20 and he could have conducted things a bit better, but i still think he handled what was thrown at him with aplomb. but to each their own...

i'm going to go enjoy the sunshine.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
17:06 / 03.09.06
i'm fairly sure you arent that stupid, haus.

Clearly I am. In my stupidity, I thought that what you originally said was:

I would expect an apology that showed they understood what was wrong with their bahaviour, and gave us some idea that it wouldnt continue to be a problem.

if not, can we just call it harrasment and ban them?

And then, also stupidly, I thought you then said:

in my opinion triplets doesnt require banning at this point. neither does flyboy.

Now, I have already explained why your first statement does not mean what you think it means, but we have worked out what it does mean, I think - that you see the apology as metonymic of a future in which Triplets and Flyboy are not meanies again. As such, you are not calling for a ban now, but delaying that decision pending the arrival or not of a suitably convincing apology. I still don't understand whether you think that Flyboy and Triplets should be banned if they do not produce such a convincingly metonymic apology, which so far they have not (therefore meaning that right now, according to your first statement, we should be thinking about banning them - with or without a thread discussing that banning - which is to say that actually at this point you do by your first statement want to know whether "we" can ban them for harassment. But never mind). However, whether or not you end up calling for a ban we will see, and in the meantime I don't see a lot of point in discussing it further, and as such, whilst you are welcome to PM me, see little profit in PMing you right at this moment. As such, having your promise not to continue the discussion inthread is not a huge problem, I don't think - you are aware of what you meant, even if I remain confused, and will no doubt act accordingly at a later date.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
17:15 / 03.09.06
i'd just like any more debate to be a little more honest/transparent and less rhetoric-y.

I just waded through about five posts in which you consistently refused to address what I said, and in doing so made personal attacks and then started making up quotes. I have no idea what your idea of transparency or honesty is. As it is, I asked again here for an explanation referencing what Dead Megatron actually said, and have at least got that, but all you've said now is:

i saw that as it played out, and i had to give DM props for trying to make the best of a difficult situation... to me, he acted as best as a hospitable party host could with a totally random and malevolent variable thrown in. obviously hindsight is 20/20 and he could have conducted things a bit better, but i still think he handled what was thrown at him with aplomb.

That is, you haven't actually addressed what he actually said at all. Now, if your idea of a hospitable party host behaving with aplomb is somebody who shouts out an invitation to somebody not present at the party, who has not so far said or do anything regarding the party, lumping him in with - what? a "party crasher" - and who then later claims that in doing so he was seeking to create a day-long armistice from the "hatred" he has decided to impute to that person, who did not do or say anything at or about his party, then there's not a lot more we can say, is there? We just have fundamentally different ideas of what constitutes a good host, don't we?
 
 
pony
17:19 / 03.09.06
jesus... we know what he said, it's right there, we've both read through the exchange multiple times. comments were made (the same ones you're thinking of!), i take one view of them, you take another. i guess we can just let this rest...
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
17:21 / 03.09.06
In the absence of a convincing engagement with the words of the text, we not only can but must.
 
 
pony
17:26 / 03.09.06
and lastly (for now):

"you haven't actually addressed what he actually said at all."

i honestly don't think what he said really all that out of line. there, it's been adressed.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
17:37 / 03.09.06
The words he said, and how they can be reconciled with your revised claim that:

i saw that as it played out, and i had to give DM props for trying to make the best of a difficult situation... to me, he acted as best as a hospitable party host could with a totally random and malevolent variable thrown in. obviously hindsight is 20/20 and he could have conducted things a bit better, but i still think he handled what was thrown at him with aplomb.

What you are doing is making unsubstantiated claims without reference to what he actually said. Since I did not throw anything, I'd like to know how exactly pulling me into it, and then sadly speaking of his hope that for just one day I could put down my hatred, counts as handling that non-existent ejectum with aplomb.

Incidentally, I wouldn't complain about my use of rhetoric, and then pull stuff like that. Just sayin'.
 
 
Unconditional Love
20:11 / 03.09.06
double post of the following topic title in gathering by me, please delete one of them.

Rally against Sexual Abuse and Rape.

Thank you.
 
 
*
21:03 / 03.09.06
Look! A moderation request! Hang on, isn't there a thread for those around here somewhere?
 
 
Ganesh
21:05 / 03.09.06
Heh. Must admit I initially thought, "what's that doing in this thread?"
 
 
Dead Megatron
08:52 / 04.09.06
I just want to point out a few things:

I did not move for any post to be deleted

I did not move for any poster to be banned

I did not request anyone to apologise for anything

I made a "perhaps you should be banned" and a "dance, puppet" joke, but I did it in hope it would make the pesonnal attacks to stop (I'm sure someone will say that is not what I said or meant, though)

I have absoutely nothing to do - nor do I want to - with Haus argumentation in the past three pages or so of this thread on why Flyboy attitude towards me is uderstandable (I suppose that this was his point, if he had one at some point)

I would like, however, to move now for my birthday thread to be locked. Why? Because the party is over, and the ballroom needs be cleaned up*. Plus, it would be symbolic of my desire to bury the hatchet, as it is.

* I did intent to post a few pics of my party in it, but after yesterday, I really don't feel like sharing such a good moment of my life with Barbelith. After all, people may take offense.
 
 
Smoothly
10:51 / 04.09.06
Flowers has moved to lock and delete the Extinct Clothes thread on these grounds: Now that 33 has been kicked off I think there's a couple of threads we don't really need any more, right? Like this one, modding for lock/delete

Now, I don’t think we delete threads started by subsequently banned posters (Knodge being an exception). And not really ‘needing’ a thread has never been a criterion as far as I’m aware. But I might be wrong. Can we have a discussion please?
 
 
Olulabelle
11:20 / 04.09.06
I just disagreed that request for precisely those reasons. Maybe we should talk about this in the deleting posts thread.
 
  

Page: 1 ... 4748495051(52)5354555657... 95

 
  
Add Your Reply