BARBELITH underground
 

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


Moderation requests & discussion thereof

 
  

Page: 1 ... 7778798081(82)8384858687... 95

 
 
Glenn Close But No Cigar
14:59 / 03.12.07
I'd argue for unlocking it, and also for those who might usually scoff to go easy on anybody who posts passionate, reading-Sebastian-O-changed-my-life type stuff in it. While it's tempting to poke fun at overenthusiastic fans, it might also be a bit alienating to younger / newer members of the board. Barbelith's surely a big enough place to host one gentle-on-the-swingball-set thread?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:20 / 03.12.07
Anybody not following this diktat to be reprimanded thus:

The man who is directly responsible for the existence of this place... This is supposed to be a place of intellectual discussion, not a cesspool of slander...And to challenge Grant Morrison...to say that perhaps he misspoke...The man is a writer. He uses words to make his living. When he wants to make a point, he does NOT misspeak.

Grant Morrison is my favorite writer, and has been a huge influence on me, and I someday hope to become a peer to him...

Barbelith is not about trash-talking our idols, it's about embracing and celebrating and discussing their intellectual products.


I know, don't feed etc. But it's a classic moment in the annals, really, and deserves commemoration.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
15:22 / 03.12.07
Epic fucking lulz.

What a div.
 
 
Shiny: Well Over Thirty
15:22 / 03.12.07
I'd say locking it seems to be the right decision. If someone wanted to start a thread around the same concept with a much better opening post I'd probably feel a lot differently about it, but it wasn't at all well started, so lock and sink seems perfectly reasonable. Lock and sink seems a perfectly good response to very badly started, but not actively offensive threads whatever the topic to me.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
15:37 / 03.12.07
Lock and sink seems a perfectly good response to very badly started, but not actively offensive threads whatever the topic to me.

Okay. As has been said before, this is a) not agreed Barbelith moderator policy to the extent that such a thing exists, b) so subjective that if all moderators start doing it, more disagreement may be had than distributed moderation can support, and c) bound to be the kiss of death for a board as relatively slow as Barbelith currently is.
 
 
Hallo, Paper Spaceboy
15:39 / 03.12.07
The snarky responses in-thread was pretty much my reason for the mod request -- 1, because almost right off the bat it was building up that briny crust of fresh snark and I foresaw possibly toxic contamination (yez, this would be melodrama). 2, frankly we've got enough threads that talk about GM's contributions to the canon, and you can probably find a roughly identical thread in the meat and guts of the Comics, with the search function. 3, as Spaceknight says -- bit of a splat as far as opening posts go, isn't it? Which I probably would have ignored outright if it weren't for the snark.

Sorry I wasn't around earlier to discuss this action, it's been a pretty busy work-weekend.
 
 
Shiny: Well Over Thirty
15:58 / 03.12.07
Okay. As has been said before, this is a) not agreed Barbelith moderator policy to the extent that such a thing exists, b) so subjective that if all moderators start doing it, more disagreement may be had than distributed moderation can support, and c) bound to be the kiss of death for a board as relatively slow as Barbelith currently is.

Well I can't disagree with any of that. And I'd certainly say I don't think Lock and Sink should necessarily be a hard and fast policy for these things. Just that it is in my opinion a valid response, and not one I have a problem with in this case. I'd also agree with you that it probably wasn't well enough discussed in advance, and I'm glad you've bought it up here, regardless of the fact I don't have a problem with the decision itself.
 
 
grant
15:58 / 03.12.07
Maybe edit one of the later posts with links to those prior threads? I don't recall seeing one of those in there (but may have been blinded by the glow from my chickens).
 
 
Glenn Close But No Cigar
16:07 / 03.12.07
C'mon Haus, you're clever enough to know that when my post is sprigged with modifiers such as I'd argue or it might also be, I'm hardly issuing a diktat.

I do agree with you that the post you quoted above in bold (from, IIRC, the wifegate thread, and not written by me, as your post might suggest to some careless readers) is comedy gold, though. Thanks for reminding me of it.

Flyboy does seem to be on the money here with his a), b) and c).

While Loaded Sentence points out that there are already many, many GM related threads, this one does seem to have a particular focus - that being how reading GM's work has impacted on one's life. This impact could, conceivably, be anything from 'it gave me a headache', to 'it got me into William Burroughs / DaDa / Jung', to the rather more unfortunate type of fan worship Haus bolded above. Deviant's thread isn't necessarily an open-door for the swingball set. In fact, the best way of minimising the chance of them rushing in en masse might be for those with a more considered approach to GM and his work to discuss what impact he / it has had on their lives. It's one thing to predict how rubbish a thread will be. It's another to help improve it.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
16:47 / 03.12.07
Forgive my imprecision, Glenn. For "diktat", please feel free to substitute "suggestion", "imploration" or other noun of gentle persuasion according to your desire.

However, we will now have to add:

(from, IIRC, the wifegate thread, and not written by me, as your post might suggest to some careless readers)

to

You wouldn't like it, I suspect, if I were to claim that your response to my post was motivated less by a concern for the problem of misogyny than by a desire for you to feel like the biggest boy in the school yard.

and:

Now, it seems to me that your words for whatever reason might be read as an attempt by you to paint me as a troll apologist, a reading that's perhaps compounded by the rather selective quotation you make from the beginning of the banning thread I started on DeDI.

I sincerely hope that you have more respect for the readers here, or indeed for your own abilities as a writer, than is indicated by your suggestion that even at their least careful they would be unable to distinguish your prose from the ellipsis-heavy ravings of a disturbed teenager.

Notwithstanding, such attempts to impart intimations of sinister motivation through NLP mentalism are a bit dull - see also the still-wonderful claim that I was seeking somehow to attack you by using a previous username of yours, which was at least eventually tempered by a reassuringly graceless apology, here, but unfortunately one which was immediately followed by a lengthy attempt, sadly undermined by innocence of the meaning of the word "douche", to paint me as some form of misogynist bitshater. If you want to roll up an apology for that here - since haply at the time you had to go back to the rustic barn with real live tiger that had prevented you from accepting that you were at fault previously - that would be fine, and hopefully acknowledging the bootlessness of this tactic will help you to continue an improvement in your posts that should over time predispose more people to extend the benefit of the dickish doubt, as discussed over the page.

So, back ontopic, the moderation request that is being made here is the unlocking of that thread, yes? Comic Books moderators reading here should, I think, consider themselves invited to consider whether they'd like to do that.
 
 
Char Aina
16:58 / 03.12.07

I would respectfully suggest that you are heroically opposing a totally imaginary greyface offensive
.....
Right now, nobody seems to want to discuss the Invisibles - not even the people who are seeking to join because it totally blew their minds when they read it last week and want to join so they can discuss it, funnily enough. If they do want to, they can start a thread, or bump a thread.


haus, 19:39 / 12.09.07

I'm not sure I would use the word 'greyface', but then I didn't.
 
 
Hallo, Paper Spaceboy
17:07 / 03.12.07
It should be noted -- and I've invited deviant here via PM, so hopefully ze will see this -- that by locking the one thread, deviant is in no way prevented from starting a new thread, possibly spending a bit more time or hir opening post to make it distinctive from other GM-specific threads, as well as encouraging discussion. I'd tend to advocate that if ze wants to continue the thread, a new one might be advisable.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
17:14 / 03.12.07
Well, the Invisibles is not actually mentioned once in deviant's opening post in that thread, and the response that decides that the "grant" being discussed is Grant Morrison, that of Ziparrow, talks about his work on Superman and Batman - the All-Star Superman, current Batman and possibly his JLA/ JLA Classified work. This seems to me perfedctly sensible - it's more contemporary, more interesting and arguably better than "The Invisibles". However, there seems to be a feeling here that if the opening of the thread had been better constructed the question of locking would never have come up.

As it is, there seems to be a reasonable amount of doubt that locking was the right thing to do, despite the limitations of the opening post.

On preview - Papers speaks reasonable sense for a greyface Invisihater. One of the rules of message boards in general and Barbelith in particular is that threads usually stay at about the level of their opening post. Working on that principle, a new thread in which deviant talks to his own question somewhat might be a better idea, but we could always just unlock this one. It doesn't make a huge amount of difference either way.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
18:07 / 03.12.07
Okay, having read the contributions here, which seem by and large to be about the restraint and the not shouting at enthusiastic but possibly misguided OPs, I'm going to put in for an unlock. Doesn't seem like a major snark offensive is brewing and if no-one really wants to work on their swingball serve the topic'll just sink anyway.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
18:46 / 03.12.07
Whatever, does deviant, who presumably started hir thread in good faith, honestly deserve to find hirself at the jumping-off point, at least, for this sort of discussion?

I'm guessing it was about the last thing on his mind.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
19:16 / 03.12.07
Yes, it might be quite distressing. That was definately at the forefront of my mind. However, when I personally have inadvertantly trodden on the recently replanted grass-seed at other fora and found myself on the recieving end of some well-worn moderator's, well, well-wornness, I've found I was able to see things their way and the issue got smoothed over. I was hoping that since the final two posts before the lock are quite tactful, this might assuage any discomfort.

deviant, if you're reading this--it's not you, it's us.
 
 
Mark Parsons
21:59 / 03.12.07
I agree that the thread might be interesting to newer members or those who have missed older, similar threads. If folks want to talk, then the thread lives. if not, then it drops off the grid.
 
 
Shiny: Well Over Thirty
05:25 / 04.12.07
Whatever, does deviant, who presumably started hir thread in good faith, honestly deserve to find hirself at the jumping-off point, at least, for this sort of discussion?

I agree. On reflection I was probably being a bit of dick to deviant in my contributions to this thread yesterday, and I apologize for any distress caused.
 
 
Glenn Close But No Cigar
11:32 / 04.12.07
Not quite sure it was necessary or useful for Haus to pen a (partial, and indeed partisan) potted history of my interaction with him on Barbelith, here, but neither am I terribly surprised that he did so. It seems to be something he feels compelled to do every now and then, whenever he forgets his latest claim to have me on ignore. Nevermind - it's water off a duck's back, or at least the sweet, sweet dregs of the summer wine.

Back on topic, it's nice to see that Deviant's thread has been unlocked.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:46 / 04.12.07
whenever he forgets his latest claim to have me on ignore.

As I have already said, Glenn, I don't feel able to keep people on ignore in the Policy, because it is a place where trolling is particularly damaging, and so I read posts using the "edit post" function. Possibly you are yourself suffering from forgetfulness - you also appeared not to be able to recall what a douche is for, and possibly have also forgotten the laughably shit attempt by you to paint me as a misogynist I linked to above, which when revealed to be delusory you stepped smartly away from, perhaps to that lovely rustic tiger farm, much as you did the last time your insinuation against me was proven not only baseless but laughably baseless.

It's a shame, really - you're clearly and commendably trying to improve your reputation on Barbelith, but lengthy strings of links to all the posts you have made which are not textbook only serve to associate them with your less productive behaviours, and dissuade the common reader, like what I am, from participating. As I said earlier in this thread:

It's pretty clear what Glenn has to do here to limit the amount of time post-dickish action that he receives treatment as if on the balance of probability about to indulge in dickish action again at any moment, isn't it? The clue, surely, is in the question?

A simple, no-insult-attached "sorry" would, perhaps, go some way to helping you out with this dilemma, and everyone could start fresh.
 
 
Glenn Close But No Cigar
15:12 / 04.12.07
Thing is, Haus, nobody else here felt compelled to describe my following, entirely sensible post in Policy:

I'd argue for unlocking it [Deviant's thread], and also for those who might usually scoff to go easy on anybody who posts passionate, reading-Sebastian-O-changed-my-life type stuff in it. While it's tempting to poke fun at overenthusiastic fans, it might also be a bit alienating to younger / newer members of the board. Barbelith's surely a big enough place to host one gentle-on-the-swingball-set thread?

as a diktat, probably because it, erm, wasn't. When I pointed out, again entirely sensibly and without rancour, that what I posted wasn't a diktat, and that the unattributed, bolded quote from the wifegate thread was not my words, nobody else felt compelled to dredge up a partial and partisan history of my interaction with board. There are of course many possible reasons for you doing this, and only you know your own motivation. Maybe you felt angry because I pointed out (quite pleasantly at that - I even called you clever) that you misused the word diktat, and your reaction should be read through this lens? Who knows? Thing is, it's only human to misuse words like diktat from time to time, or to only use words like, say, douche in their limited, vaginal sense. All of us do it, even - as that wifegate chappy so hilariously denied - Grant Morrison.

I'm really not sure that any effort I might be making to improve what you call my reputation on Barbelith necessarily involves making an apology to you. You'd be the first to agree, I imagine, that Barbelith and Haus are not the same thing at all. Barbelith, for example, didn't misuse the word diktat, Barbelith didn't react to me gently pointing out that misuse by selectively quoting my contributions to past threads to paint me in a particularly unflattering light, and Barbelith doesn't, in general, appear to have a habit of following me from thread to thread and banging on about name-changes, douches, and real live tigers, whether warranted or not.

It's of course your call use the 'edit post' function to read my posts in Policy, fearful as you appear to be that I am a troll, and that Policy it is a place where trolling is particularly damaging. However, the post of mine to which you responded, and which I bolded at the beginning of this post, was in no way trollsome. You, though, either a) purposefully decided to mislabel it as a diktat, in which case you were trolling me, and owe me an apology, or b) you don't really know what a diktat is.

Doubtless, you are glad you have me on permanent ignore in all forums apart from Policy. When you do use the 'edit post' function to read my posts here (heavy lies the crown, and all that), it might be better for all concerned if you ignored me when I'm being sensible. Note that I wrote 'might be' - the last thing I'd want is for you to accuse me of being a diktator.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
15:28 / 04.12.07
You do realise that nobody else gives a shit, don't you?

Stop clogging this thread.
 
 
Char Aina
15:35 / 04.12.07
I think if Haus is going to us a loaded term like 'diktat' then Glenn's entitled to respond. I think the thread can continue without much issue despite their conversation. If you don't feel you can continue with his posts in the thread you could always put Glenn on ignore.

Also, 'nobody else gives a shit' is not something I think you can say with authority. It may be true, but you can't be certain. Please speak for yourself, not for the board.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
15:44 / 04.12.07
Regardless, this isn't the thread for it. Why the hell should I - or anyone - have to put anybody on ignore because they're misusing a Policy thread?

So, y'know, still give it a rest. Take it to PM or whatever, but if this continues I'll be proposing deletion of the posts.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
15:46 / 04.12.07
Why d'you say that, man?

How do you know that we are tired? Perhaps we do not want to rest?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:46 / 04.12.07
Yeah, sorry. It's pretty clear that Glenn doesn't understand why his weird disquisition on vaginas and how I fear them and by extension hate women is not the same as misusing, in his opinion, the word diktat, and is unlikely to get the hang of it in the future. I suppose I'll just have to live with it until and unless he becomes actually banworthy.
 
 
Char Aina
15:47 / 04.12.07
Haus said 'diktat' here. Glenn is responding here. Why isn't that acceptable?
 
 
Char Aina
15:51 / 04.12.07
if this continues I'll be proposing deletion of the posts.

You could propse we hide them behind spoiler-style tags rather than delete them.
That way the reponses are still there if they need to be referred to, but you don't have to use the ignore function and you aren't forced to scroll past the post you don't want to read to read the ones you do.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:53 / 04.12.07
I'm taking this to Barbannoy, I think. Much more appropriate.
 
 
Glenn Close But No Cigar
16:08 / 04.12.07
Randy, it wasn't me that started with the whole diktat thing. If anyone's been clogging the thread, it's Haus. I guess that's because, having undertaken to ignore me in every forum but Policy, he's got no other public part of the board in which to troll me. Now that he's agreed that Policy isn't the place for this, I look forward to him doing so via, I guess, PM.

Apologies though, to anybody who's found this whole thing a bit of a bore. I shouldn't have fed the Haus-troll.
 
 
Ron Stoppable
10:42 / 07.12.07
Convo mods - no real eed to action my mod request in the 'Oh dear, things that tick you off thread' - it's just a small thing and I thought I'd caught it in the 5-minute self-moderate window..

cheers!
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
11:16 / 07.12.07
If moderators don't action something, it just hangs there waiting, so they may as well.
 
 
Ron Stoppable
14:30 / 07.12.07
ah ok - thanks. Won't sweat the small things in future.
 
 
Tsuga
00:09 / 08.12.07
I'm unsure whether this warrants any action, but there are a few spoilers being thrown around here (don't look unless you want to see spoilers for No Country for Old Men). I've seen the movie, it doesn't matter to me, but maybe there should be something put in the thread title?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:59 / 12.12.07
Could somebody with a login to the wiki remove the section about Grant Morrison's wife, here? It is irksome on several levels without being useful.
 
  

Page: 1 ... 7778798081(82)8384858687... 95

 
  
Add Your Reply