BARBELITH underground
 

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


Is something wrong with Barbelith?

 
  

Page: 12345(6)7891011... 24

 
 
Char Aina
18:03 / 21.10.05
yeah.
you're assuming that PMs are all that would be used and that there would be no public face on the argument.
the PMs part is good for geting the facts teased out before it kicks off in thread.

i'm not suggesting that no mention is made in thread.
i'm suggesting that befre it is you PM the poster saying "i'm going to call you on your comments here(link)tomorrow, and thought i would give you right of rebutal before i do."

of course, this way of dealing with it wouldnt be appropriate in every case.
 
 
electric monk
19:27 / 21.10.05
toksik - "it would seem sensible to use PMs first, then public challenges if those dont satisfy."

STRONG TRUTH! And I see nothing wrong with mentioning in-thread that you've PM'd Poster X to challenge Offensive Language Y. That goes some way towards providing transparency of actions, sends the signal that these things will not go unchallenged, preserves the readability of the thread, and I imagine it'd keeps tempers on both sides at a low boil. Also, for closure's sake, maybe an OT post in-thread if PM's resolve the situation? I'm sure I've seen this done before. Doesn't seem to happen much these days.

I'm very glad we're talking about this.

Figroll - You shouldn't go, but you're free to have a hissy fit & leave any time you want...just make sure you're back before 9, 'kay?
 
 
Char Aina
19:33 / 21.10.05
i can imagine that working for most things.
in fact, the addition of the in-thread advice to all that PMs had been sent (and over what) might make it work for more obviously dodgy comments.

on leaving;
dude, you have to come back before you leave now.
i'm planning on leaving in 2012 so that i can return four years ago to make those embarrasing posts in headshop.
it will all make sense in context of the future, i promise.
 
 
Tom Paine's Bones
20:04 / 21.10.05
That strikes me as a pretty happy medium. But I can see a couple of problem arising. What happens if the PM sender feels the problem is resolved but other posters don't? I think recent threads have shown that different people may have very different views on what is and isn't offensive in the first place.
 
 
sleazenation
20:30 / 21.10.05
I think recent threads have shown that different people may have very different views on what is and isn't offensive in the first place.

This may well be, however reasonable posters will defer to the reasonable sensibilities of others - the measure of reasonableness being the opinions of our peers.
 
 
*
21:23 / 21.10.05
Reasonable posters? Do we have those? I thought we got rid of them all.

Yeah, that sounds like a really good practice and one I intend to take up. Dunno if it needs to be a matter of policy, if those of us who are the most frequent offendees agree on it.

Good job, toksik and monk.
 
 
Char Aina
22:12 / 21.10.05
i dont see the PM thing as official.
i see someone taking offence and using their initiative to contact the person concerned.
if more than one person is concerned, more than one person will send a message.
if the issues raised by one are not resolved, that one can take it further.
this would mean that satisfying one(or most, or many) but not all would not mean the matter was concluded.

it would also mean that one might be in the position of recieving forty PMs about an issue; someting that would give an indication as to the severity of said issue.
 
 
Char Aina
22:13 / 21.10.05
sorry, that to the earlier post by mr figroll.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
23:36 / 21.10.05
I think the PM issue is pretty limited - essentially, unless the person PMed responds by moving their post for moderation, it's a bit pointless, and it also relies on nobody else responding in-thread in the interim. However, I'm still putting thoughts together on dealing with offensive behaviour, so let it stand.

The fact that I saw Barbelith as somewhere where casual racism, sexism and homophobia doesn't go unchallenged, was a significant reason I wanted to join in the first place. If I didn't want that, the internet's full of places I could be.

I heart Flying Figroll.
 
 
Char Aina
00:13 / 22.10.05
it also relies on nobody else responding in-thread in the interim.

i can see where you are coming from, but i disagree.
i am suggesting that a trend for 'PMs first, guns blazing later' might make the issue less unnecessarily explosive.
it wont solve all our problems, sure.
but dont you think that as a way of approaching borderline racism or its ilk it might be less inclined to make people go back-against-the-wall mental?
 
 
lekvar
00:57 / 22.10.05
I imagine that the PM-first solution would have at least one benefit, that of potentially showing the weight of opinion against proscribed behaviors.

A hypothetical situation:
Poster A posts something off-color. Those of a mind to do so PM Poster A explaining that he might want to reconsider his wording. Poster A soon finds a metric shitload of PMs to the effect.

Poster A then clears things up, or doesn't and the hammer falls.

This doesn't guarantee anything, but it might reduce the number of Haus/Flyboy-is-beating-up-on-poor-little-defenseless-me-waaaaaaaah if it is evident that a good many 'Lithers think a line has been crossed.
 
 
*
01:24 / 22.10.05
Unless people don't bother because they assume that enough other people will to make it not worth the trouble. But if they can't be arsed then clearly it wasn't that offensive to them in the first place.
 
 
rising and revolving
03:09 / 22.10.05
Something I was discussing w/ Haus via PM was a system that had some similarities to the PM proposal. I feel strongly that it's for the best to both challenge unacceptable behaviour *and* to keep threads on topic, where possible. I also don't feel these ought be mutually exclusive - the proposal I mooted w/ Haus' assistance in hammering out some of the specifics is pretty much as follows.

I'd also like to have a thread (multiple perhaps, but one to start with) or stating (in outline)

* Racism / Sexism / Hate-speech is unacceptable on Barbelith.

* If you've been sent here, it's because you've screwed up.

* Go back and apologise, and don't do it again, and nothing more need be said.

* If you think you're being stiched up, guv, go read these threads (PC etc) then think about it again.

* If you want to appeal, do it in THIS THREAD. Keeps rot off the fruit, as it were.

* If you don't reform your behaviour then you're headed for a banning. This is your warning.

* If you were sent here unreasonably, it'd be sensible if you hung about a bit before going nuts. If it really was unreasonable, plenty of people will leap to your defence (they should do so here, also - not in thread) - if they didn't, well, you're probably wrong.

* Barbelith is hardline on these issues. Don't expect to keep fucking up and avoid a ban.

I think that would keep the talking points clear but threads clean. I also feel that even if you wished to respond in a thread where an offence hadn't occurred (for whatever reason) it could be done by linking to the thread, rather than fighting it out in another.

To clarify

Poster X says something they ought not in a thread about Turkish Delight.

Poster Y follows up to say "You really should look over here and consider moderating you post" and links to the appropriate policy thread.

Nothing more happens in the Turkish Delight thread. However, anyone looking will see the link and know (for future reference) what is and isn't acceptable.

Of course, we could do this with a page on the Wiki - but that doesn't give someone a place to take the argument to. I'd really like to see racism challenge, and the specifics thereof discussed if need be - but not in the middle of threads that are supposed to be about completely different things.

Thoughts?
 
 
lekvar
04:35 / 22.10.05
I like the idea - the link would also serve to let other posters know that it has been attended to on some level.
The analogy that comes to mind is a teacher taking an errant student out into the hall for a quiet chat vs. what has seemed at times to be a public flogging...
Both ways of dealing with the issue will either clear it up or not, depending on the original poster's attitude, but the quieter method might keep the tone of the discourse at a civil level a bit longer.
 
 
Char Aina
04:56 / 22.10.05
its not bad.
it does make me think 'battle thread' thoughts, but they pass.

would the idea be that the accuser adds a post to the bottom of the thread? it doesnt seem like that is your plan, but i worry that if you dont, it'd be like me saying to someone to go read a particular book.
if they follow the link to an old thread, the last post on which is about someone elses fight over terminology, they may fail to understand your point.

i dont think the idea of the thread is a bad one by any means. i just dont think it will solve all that many of the probems outside of threadrot and the need for precedent.

look at the wiki.
that it is there is no guarantee that it will be read.

i think you have to engage with the person and the specific issue you have with them and make it clear that their only right to reply is in that thread before they will use it.

if such a thread were to be of use, i would suggest that a post would have to be added explaining how one felt the offending post had contravened or transgressed. a link in the thread would be good to alert all to the fact that the post had in fact been challenged. perhaps a PM would be a good way to ensure the accused is aware of the challenge to their post.
if it were my challenge, i would probably send the PM first, making plain that its contents would soon to be made public, link to the thread, and then finally post the PM.

i think it would also depend on the percieved severity of the comment, and the likelyhood for misunderstanding.
both of these things are of course difficult to make rules for.


another idea that might be of merit is that of 101 threads.
mr shaftoe mentioned a feminism 101 thread, and i am certain i have talked before with others about this kind of thing.
perhaps it would be an idea to throw together some threads that exemplify the attitudes and ideas we want to see on barbelith as well as these threads to contain the arguments?

if we have something to point to that explains why we think something, it might be easier to say that we do.

not everyone arriving here has had their ideas challenged before, and it can only be good if the first people to do so do so convincingly with pages of evolving argument and counterargument to help.
 
 
Cherielabombe
11:23 / 22.10.05
Hi guys sorry it's taken me so long to weigh in on some thoughts. I have been very busy and have not had the time necessary to give this thread the thoughtful going-over it deserves.

Like 'nesh and a few others, I have had the same 'has the board changed or have I changed?' dillemma. My life has changed significantly since the days when I used to post prolifically on the board ('01 -'02 I guess). Back then, the board was a necessary intellectual outlet for me. Now, I get a lot of that intellectual outlet in my job (hard to believe TEFL can offer you that but hey). Also I have since met and become friends with a lot of the 'elders' here so that has changed my Barbeperspective as well.

I do a feel a bit guilty about not contributing more. On the other hand, when I contribute I want it to be worthwhile, and I don't want to just fill space with a response. Like Ganesh I have been here so long that I generally have a rough idea how some poters are going to respond so sometimes I think, "Why should I say X when I know poster Y is going to say essentially that?" Perhaps that's a general malaise that some of the "Elders" feel as we have been here so long.

I think having people agree to a 'code of conduct' when joining is a great idea. I would be happy to re-register and agree to such a chode.

I also think that, although we have had a lot of arguments on barbelith when a newbie joins us simply directing him to 'the thread on feminism' etc. is not necessarily the most productive way to handle it. Surely revisiting various ideas is worth our time? I realize we do this somewhat.


More when after I've thought some more.
 
 
Cherielabombe
11:23 / 22.10.05
I would be happy to re-register and agree to such a chode.

Heh. Code, even.
 
 
gridley
13:41 / 22.10.05
I strongly agree with the notion of taking in-thread arguments to an outside thread, created for just that purpose. The arguing derails the thread too much as it is, and then once everyone else starts rubbernecking and throwing their two cents in, that thread's pretty much done.

I'm also pondering if it would be possible or even wise to set up a way to temporarilly ban a particular user from a particular thread. A sort of one week cooling off period to keep someone from further derailing a thread with thier arguing or ranting. (With an appropriate amount of moderator agreement of course.)

As for going stealth, I vote no for the simple reason that I would have never discovered Barbelith if I wan't googling Grant Morrison and I wouldn't want others denied that opportunity.
 
 
Smoothly
13:54 / 22.10.05
You were here long before we were ever spidered by Google, weren't you gridley? Going stealth again wouldn't keep us off the radar altogether - we'd still be found by other online references to us. You just wouldn't get here by searching on any string found in any thread, without any context whatsoever.


A couple of things occur to me reading Kaiser John's points of view on the previous page: Firstly, if we do have an entry level concepts 101 section, we should add 'Semantics' to the list. But more importantly, it seems to me that there is a crucial quality to Barbelith that someone familiar with other message boards might not expect. That is that you're just not going to get away with stuff here that you might elsewhere.

I'm sure we all have some real life experience of advocating some ridiculous position and getting away with it. I'm not just talking about making off-colour jokes in the pub and getting a laugh; my guess is that all of us have had a pretty easy time playing devil's advocate or successfully proposed or defended some spurious position on something or other. It's been mentioned in the past - Barbelith's constituency exhibits more than its fair share of 'Smartest Kid In The Class Syndrome'. In other words, I think some of the fights here get nasty because the protagonists are used to bullshitting their way out of things in other arenas.

Earlier on in this thread rising and revolving posted to say I'm a dick. I misread Haus' writing what he meant as him having done so. Sorry about that .. and that struck me as something I don't read anything like enough on Barbelith. I don't think this is an ego thing so much as people being unused to saying that in other spheres of their lives.
And this isn't about knowing your place or accepting that other people know more about x, y or z than you do, but I think the mistake that posters who adopt the "I was joking / being playful / if you knew me you'd know I was being ironic" gambit is that the culture of Barbelith doesn't put a great deal of stock in those things, particularly outside the Conversation.
That was certainly my experience when I first came here. I thought people took themselves rather seriously and it was a bit of an epiphany when I realised that it wasn't people taking themselves seriously (later confirmed, if confirmation were needed, when I met Barbeloids in a pub environment), they just take the issues that come up here seriously, and like to use Barbelith to talk about them seriously.

To me, it's about context. You don't have to read much of Barbelith to work out what social / political / philosophical / cultural issues the community is particularly engaged with, so recognise that people take these things seriously. If you think comics are for kids, chuckle about that with your mates as you walk past Forbidden Planet; if you reckon people who think they can cast magic spells are deluded, there's nothing much to be gained by going on about that in the Temple; mocking things for being ghey might go down a storm with your buddies, but don't get pissed off if it isn't received in the same spirit here.

Sorry, a bit of a ramble, but I think some of these problems could be better addressed by being clearer about the fact that Barbelith just isn't a forum dedicated to the exchange of ideas, regardless of how un-PC or troglodytic they may be. Kaiser John must have got that from somewhere and I wonder if there is a branding issue here. Maybe the association with anarchism is causing a perception problem. Is it time to think more about changing the name?
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
13:56 / 22.10.05
i just dont think it will solve all that many of the probems

I don't think the idea is that it will solve problems straight off- more that it will give us the tools with which WE can solve them as and when they occur. Short of breaking people's fingers as soon as the idea crosses their mind to post something racist/homophopic/whatever, nothing's ever gonna safeguard against it... we just need to be able to cope with it as soon after the fact as possible. Same with the T&C- whether people actually agree with them, or even read them (do you read that whole warranty thing every time to click "agree" on a new driver?) it gives us as a board a solid grounding for explaining why such behaviour is not acceptable. It's no longer just my (or Flyboy's, or toksik's, or whoever's) opinion that such things shouldn't be tolerated- it's a policy. And one that has been at least tacitly agreed to by the poster.
 
 
Sniv
14:35 / 22.10.05
Smoothly Weaving said: I think some of these problems could be better addressed by being clearer about the fact that Barbelith just isn't a forum dedicated to the exchange of ideas, regardless of how un-PC or troglodytic they may be. Kaiser John must have got that from somewhere and I wonder if there is a branding issue here.

Excuse me? Haven't I spent a bunch of posts trying to clarify that what I said was not meant to have been offensive? What ideas of mine were troglodytic? That I can't fully relate to rap, or that I feel minorities are still not fully assimilated into our society (no judgement on that, it's just what I feel, no goods or bads)?

I've spent the last couple of days thinking more clearly about 'what is wrong with Barbelith', and I think it has to do with the 'smartest kid in the class' syndrome refered to earlier. What I can see is an elite pushing their ideas of what makes correct discourse, and it seems that you need a degree on covering-your-ass and not-pissing-people-off just to post a three-line aside. It's bewildering and unkind to newcomers (even ones that have lurked here your yonks) that many posters have absolutely no tollerance for mistakes, and are unable to grasp when somebody is sorry.

Fair enough, I would fully expect to be shot down if I said something properly offensive, and with malice. I think maybe some people could do with letting the unimportant shit slide. That's how threads get clogged up with arguments - when somebody is criticised for a relatively pointless comment, and has to spend another page digging themselves out of it (and this isn't just about me, I've seen it in plenty of threads).

As for suggesting we need to find somewhere else to post, and then insulting us with the option - very grown up.

Maybe the name should be changed, as Barbelith references the anarchy and freedom of the Invisibles. Maybe Harmony House would be more appropriate? With big letters in front saying "Here we make soldiers. Empty heads. Marching to a common beat".
 
 
Smoothly
14:49 / 22.10.05
Kaiser, I really didn't mean to resurrect that argument. I wasn't getting at you; I wasn't defending you either but your comment about what your thought Barbelith was about did make me think that - since people don't just pluck perceptions like that out of their arses - there must have been some reason that you weren't prepared for the conflict you found yourself in. The community should perhaps take some responsibility for those perceptions. It's your 'bewilderment' I think we should perhaps be addressing.

That's how threads get clogged up with arguments - when somebody is criticised for a relatively pointless comment, and has to spend another page digging themselves out of it (and this isn't just about me, I've seen it in plenty of threads).

I think this is a good point. The solution might be that people restrain themselves from posting relatively pointless comments, particularly in the more serious forums.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
15:06 / 22.10.05
As for suggesting we need to find somewhere else to post, and then insulting us with the option - very grown up.

Kaizer John, you suggested that the best way to 'settle' a disagreement was for people who disagreed not to share the same space. (Although, of course, that's not 'settling' anything.) You've also stated your dislike for "arguing semantics and the nuances of words" and "pointless clarifications". If you don't like having the meaning of the things you say analysed, challenged or discussed, and defending the things you've said if you think they are defensible, I honestly think you might be better off spending your time on one of the many, many internet forums where that will not happen.

In another thread, Legba said:

"you have to be happy to have your views and ideas challenged to take part in Barbelith... as opposed to other message boards which seem quite happy to offer a mouthing off service without any element of the participants being challenged, and being required to respond effectively to those challenges- could we not in some way make this clear, in, as it were, "big red letters" on the registration pages, and up at the top of the front page?"

I originally took the view that this should already be obvious enough, but as Smoothly says, perhaps it isn't.
 
 
Sniv
15:40 / 22.10.05
Weaving - the reason I wasn't prepared for the conflict I found myself in was that I didn't think I was saying anything particularly controversial. I was more upset that it seemed people were willfully misreading my comments, which were fairly innocent if you read them in context, and using them to infer that I hate women/blackpeople/gaypeople - which I can't stand (the word-twisting, not the poeple). I don't mind having my beliefs or ideas challenged, just let me put them forward first!

I will continue to use Barbelith, because it's the only place I've found online where people discuss the kinds of things I'm interested in, although frankly, I'm not sure if it's worth posting in the more "intellectual" forums if this is the shitstorm you get from a couple of posts about games and comics. Maybe lurking, and payng close attention to the elders is a better idea, so then I can learn what I should and should not say.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:42 / 22.10.05
Actually, I think Smoothly may have been confusing Kaiser John with Hiccups, who posted about Barbelith being a forum for the free exchange of any ideas, no matter how "un-PC or troglodytic".

On the other hand - Kaiser John makes a good point. Perhaps we should change the name of the board, as otherwise we will keep on getting people who seek to excuse their behaviour by appealing to the court of Grant. In the meantime, as Petey says, if Kaiser John is so very unhappy with Barbelith and has no wish either to change to accommodate or to engage constructively, he is probably better off on another message board. At the moment, leaving aside the particulars of either of the examples of his recent behaviour and how it was treated (for the record, I like my way best, but I don't speak for Barbelith), KJ is falling into the pretty common trap of believing that his is the final judgement on what is and is not irrelevant; that is, in effect, that if he makes a "pointless" comment, he gets to decide what the appropriate response to it is, what people should be able to understand from that comment and whether or not it should be noted at all. The idea that the writer is always successful in communicating exactly what he intends in exactly the way he intends, and therefore that not reacting to the text in exactly the expected way is a sign of failure or perversity, is a common fallacy of the young writer, but it needs to be moved through as quickly as possible.
 
 
Smoothly
15:44 / 22.10.05
To learn how you should and should not say things, probably a good idea.
 
 
Smoothly
15:47 / 22.10.05
Actually, I think Smoothly may have been confusing Kaiser John with Hiccups

God, yeah, you're right. My mistake. Sorry about that John.
 
 
The Falcon
15:51 / 22.10.05
I thought your response to KJ in Comics was exemplary, Haus.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:59 / 22.10.05
Oh, and I don't want to turn this into a thread on how to deal with criticism _on_ Barbelith, but semantics is the study of meaning in language (from the Greek semaino, I make a sign). It is not generally useful as a term to describe "discussions or topics which I think are unimportant or irrelevant". Like "PC", it's a term that gets used a lot and which has no real agreed meaning.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
16:00 / 22.10.05
Thanks, Falconer. I was actually hoping to head over and try to do something similar in the Blackalicious thread, but I think events may have overtaken it.
 
 
Sniv
16:20 / 22.10.05
I actually didn't mind Haus' reply to my comics post, because he understood what I meant and clarified it. I would've done it myself, but since I was at work and came home, there had been about 2 more pages added, and it seemed daft to clarify something that to all intents and purposes, had been dealt with.

However, I wasn't defending what I was saying on the basis of "Grant wouldn't mind", which is obviously incredibly silly, as I don't know him. I was defending what I said by clarifying what I meant. My comment on just leaving the issue alone was made because these kinds of discussions make me very... impatient (best word I can find to describe it). I have friends in RL who do it to me all the time they take something I said and spin it, just so they can watch me flip out. But they're doing it out of jest and friendship, so I have no problems in telling them to fuck off and grow up, and we laugh. However, I can't do that here, and having to make multiple posts to clarify a one-line remark (even one that's honestly held) is to me, the essence of frustration. I do wish to engage constructively (I'm doing it right now), but I'd rather save my engergies for the fights that matter, not just because somebody that doesn't know me might think I'm a racist (and then go on to tell me that I can't simply say 'I'm not racist' because of my cultural context... argh! <-- me being frustrated).

The annoying thing is, I am really trying not to be misunderstood, but that's all that's happenning is I'm being in turns criticised, patronised and misrepresented. If this is all part of the fallicies of being a young writer, then give me a break! Or were you (Haus) born an old pro, with little patience for the people learning the ropes.

As for the 'go elsewhere' comments - if anyone knows a board that's just like Barbelth but not quite as judgemental or perscriptive, then let me know! <-- half joke.
 
 
w1rebaby
16:21 / 22.10.05
Yuh. "That's just semantics" is on my list of internet hate phrases I think, along with others like "ad hominem" (almost always just meaning "you were rude to me") and of course "PC", "fascist" etc. Quite possibly, yes, there something to do with semantics going on, but if you object to people examining the meaning of what you said, I don't think we're going to get very far. Perhaps we could talk about the font size instead. In a way which avoids attributing any semantic significance to it of course.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
16:33 / 22.10.05
However, I wasn't defending what I was saying on the basis of "Grant wouldn't mind", which is obviously incredibly silly, as I don't know him.

**


Maybe the name should be changed, as Barbelith references the anarchy and freedom of the Invisibles. Maybe Harmony House would be more appropriate? With big letters in front saying "Here we make soldiers. Empty heads. Marching to a common beat".
 
 
w1rebaby
16:38 / 22.10.05
KJ: see, the thing is, people don't think they are misrepresenting you, criticism is a natural response to that, and being patronising, if that is what is happening (and I think there are some occasions of that here) is a particular type of insulting behaviour; it may not be very nice but people aren't, always. People are mean.

People are also suspicious of those they don't know since, well, they don't know them. If a regular makes a remark involving the word "bitch", say, others are going to take that in the context of their past contributions. If you have no context, and you don't have much, you have to be careful what you say. There is no way round this. If you join a new group you have to tread carefully for a bit if you don't want people misinterpreting you. Sorry. It's what I have to do whenever I join a new board, it's not that hard.

And for god's sake, if you're trying to explain what you mean to someone, don't accuse them of being PC, or a clique, or bullies. What that says is "I think your objections have no substance". If they think that they have perfectly good reasons to object, they're just going to be insulted, and what is the point of insulting somebody whom you're trying to convince of something?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
16:40 / 22.10.05
I would've done it myself.

Hmmm. Thing is, you didn't. You said "You know what I mean" - that is, you assumed that what you meant was entirely obvious, and therefore that anyone who questioned your statement was obviously just doing so to be difficult, as it was impossible that you could have failed to communicate precisely. So, when your friends question your use of terminology, say, they are doing something entirely different from what is happening here. If they _do_ know what you mean, then they are playing with that knowledge. However, on the strength of about 40 posts to Barbelith, nobody here knows you that well, and calling people facists (the bedrock of the "Harmony House" crack) for not instinctively knowing the bits about who you are that might help to inform what you mean is a bit unfair.
 
  

Page: 12345(6)7891011... 24

 
  
Add Your Reply