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

Underground > Policy & Help >

Policy Miscellany

Page: 1 2 3(4)5 6

10:24 / 27.05.06

Then again I might be wrong as I see a bunch of torrent links for the JLU cartoon in that thread. I'd say not a good idea, but what's everyone else think?

13:38 / 27.05.06

Same as I've said before: not something that we should be promoting. Especially with the board having become as visible as it is now.

16:56 / 27.05.06

Are BT links more problematic than YouSendIt links?

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

18:41 / 27.05.06

I did raise this in the Morrissey thread when someone posted a link to the (then-unreleased) album, but nobody seemed to care.

00:41 / 28.05.06

I was a bit unsure about it at the time, Stoatie, but vaguely decided not to talk about it until the album had been released.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

11:35 / 28.05.06

Likewise, I didn't want to make too big a deal of it and draw even more attention. Probably true for a lot of people, in hindsight.

12:04 / 28.05.06

I have a not very well formulated question about posting You Send It links (i.e., links to songs available for download with arguably questionably copyright status). Like, in a thread in the music somebody just asked generally for recommendations for southern rap, and I am pretty inclined to post a bunch of links to relevant downloads. But I am not sure what the Barbe-ettiquette is, if there would be potential problems, or any other reason not to, or if I should just go the hack. Possibly I could just post in the thread saying if people want the downloads to PM me, if that would be better?

09:48 / 02.06.06

S'not massively important, but anyone know where the thread for Big Brother 5's gone? I'm a bored little scientist in the lab today and wish to wallow in pointless BB-orientated nostalgia rather than do paperwork.

Tried "Big Brother" on the search engine but didn't turn anything up.

10:51 / 02.06.06

Cyberman, perhaps a search for Big Brother 2004 rather than 'Big Brother 5' would help.

10:57 / 02.06.06

Cheers jamesPD, you are a scholar, a gentleman, and (possibly) an acrobat.

foolish fat finger

16:29 / 05.06.06

I got into a bit of a spat with a chappie on another part of the board, not really intentionally on my part. suddenly, he says 'I'm a moderator' or something, which I guess I saw as a threat, like 'do things my way, or I'll delete yr post/ thread/ whatever'

so my question is- can one moderator delete a post, or does it take 3, like in edits. and do you guys all tend bunch together anyway?!

I felt the guy was quite aggressive to me, and I want to mention to him that I didn't like his tactics. but I don't want to cause more trouble, or get my thread deleted just like that. I feel a bit bashed about, and a bit miffed. I feel I should be able to speak without being censored, and that I have the right to not answer (what I perceived as) aggressive questions.

cheers all!

17:02 / 05.06.06

Waggling Naughty Finger, it is difficult for others to tell whether your post was offensive and whether the moderator overreacted without a link to the thread in question. Perhaps you could provide a URL?

17:11 / 05.06.06

Yeah, moderators can propose actions and then other moderators agree or disagree the proposal. Different actions require different numbers of agreements to go through (thread deletions require 3 I think), but just one disagreement vetos any action.
And no, mods certainly don't tend to bunch together, as various threads in this forum attest.

Moderators have a responsibility to keep the forums they moderate in good order, but if you have a grievance you should feel free to PM the mod in question, another moderator, or state your case here. We take this stuff pretty seriously, so you should feel confident you'll be given a fair hearing.

foolish fat finger

20:50 / 05.06.06

thanks for your help, guys. I feel supported, that's good. I will let you know if I feel things are getting out of hand...

Regrettable Juvenilia

21:12 / 05.06.06

Oh dear. waggling naughty finger is refering to this thread in the Music. I've tried to explain things further in my most recent post in that thread.

ONLY NICE THINGS

23:06 / 05.06.06

Could one not just post a link to the Girls Aloud thread, since everything likely to be said in this thread has already been said in that one?

Also, can we set up a censorship swear box?

Regrettable Juvenilia

08:32 / 06.06.06

A censorship swear box seems a very good idea. We certainly need some way of dealing with this kind of nonsense from furioso in the Seaguy thread, especially when attempts to correct it are met with abuse.

18:22 / 06.06.06

Well, in fairness, said abuse, such as it is, is only a response to my telling clownshoes to 'get a grip' -> 'loosen up'. (And my ass is seriously tight, as in firm, not like that.)

Nonsense bit of complaining in the first place, mind, but I'm not affronted.

14:15 / 13.06.06

Is there a policy in place regarding the posting of direct-download links? I couldn't find anything in the wiki.

15:15 / 14.06.06

No, there's not.

It might be worth considering that all the graphics that get posted to various Conversation (and other) threads could be considered direct downloads.

16:25 / 14.06.06

Wot started me wondering.

You make a good point. My feeling is that, if a DOC file or somesuch is going to pop up on my desktop as a result of clicking something here, I'd like a disclaimer or warning or something so I can make the choice to let it in or not.

If this is just me, that's fine and I'm happy to let it drop.

17:32 / 14.06.06

As a matter of courtesy, I always try to label .pdfs as such, just because the link could be anything and Acrobat (or whatever you're using to read pdfs) usually takes a while to load up.

Someday, links are going to be flagged somehow to show the manner of file (color codes or tabs or something) underneath.

Tabitha Tickletooth

10:24 / 30.06.06

Where do I put it and have I missed something? I’d like to start a thread on lads mags – in particular, the debate around proposals to place restrictions on the sale and display of such. I’ve had a look around and found only two relevant threads (which really surprised me): this from a while ago about ‘men’s mags’ more generally and this slightly more recent and entirely justified rant about an advertisement relating to a particular lads mag.

Obviously the subject has a Switchboard-y dimension in that a piece of legislation is being proposed, issues of misogyny and gender politics/identity abound around these publications and the debate raises questions of censorship, pornography and so on. It is, however, a thread primarily about a type of printed media (and many aspects of this particular genre (?)) so I can’t help but wonder if it shouldn’t go in the Books, Criticism and Writing forum.

Where do people think this sits best? Is it appropriate to use the BCW forum to discuss printed media issues (I note it mentions journals but not newspapers/magazines)?

Also, I’m quite surprised that there hasn’t been more discussion of these publications elsewhere. I’ve searched on a few different terms but turned up nothing else significant. Does anyone know of any other threads that I should take a look at and reference for this discussion?

As always, thanks in advance.

12:55 / 30.06.06

The topic, as you've described it, could pretty much go in either forum, Tabitha. Well as far as I am concerned the decision is your own. Sometimes topics do appear to have cross forum appeal and if the direction of conversation drastically changes toward another forum's remit it can always be moved. I hope that helps. It sounds to be an interesting debate, have fun with it.

Btw Books, Writing and Criticism has had one or two threads on magazines, I think. Definitely a thread on Bizarre magazine.

12:56 / 30.06.06

Also: not aware of any similar thread other than the ones you have found.

14:00 / 01.07.06

Part of the reason the Books forum got its title tweaked a little while ago was to accommodate discussion of newspapers and magazines (although we don't seem to have had many threads on those things since), so I think there's an argument for putting it there.

But I think it largely depends on what kind of discussion you want to have, Tabitha. If you primarily want to start a discussion of censorship legislation and/or gender, identity, pornography etc, referring the position of lads' mags as a kicking off point, then probably Switchboard, Headshop or Conversation. But if you want to talk specifically about lads' mags, with reference to issues of censorship, gender, identity, pornography etc, then probably BCW.

Saying that, I'm not a BCW mod (or much of a player in the forum) and they might feel differently.

22:35 / 09.07.06

I would like to comment on the "A Crazy World" thread in headshop.
It is biased of Haus to give me 'warnings' about what belongs in a Headshop thread and what doesn't, without giving similar warnings to other users who make ad hominem attacks, or who refuse to answer to points which I consider to be well thought out. I take it as a personal bias against me from Haus.

Haus has even failed to follow the very simple argument that:
if one is a socialist within a context where most people think socialism is wrong, and yet the socialist believes that socialism is best for everyone, then the socialist is necessarily elitist.
I think this might stem from the difficulty for Haus to accept that he is an elitist in some ways.
I have never said being an elitist is necessarily bad.

I am in the difficult position of arguing from a position with which very few users agree. I accept that my way of phrasing things is not very good at times and I am willing to accept advice on how to write better.
I am quite capable of being friendly with posters who are also friendly even if we disagree.

22:46 / 09.07.06

Thread has been deleted, presumably by Haus and Flyboy.
PM me if you want a copy.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

22:50 / 09.07.06

It's not been deleted, by Haus OR Flyboy. It's been moved to the Conversation.

Tom Paine's Bones

22:54 / 09.07.06

I am quite capable of being friendly with posters who are also friendly even if we disagree.

Bruno, that simply isn't true. I was actually one of the posters being the most civil with you on that thread and you still launched a personal attack at me. So, I can't be arsed playing nice anymore. And from what I've seen in our interactions, I suspect that other posters have reached that point with you for very similar reasons.

23:33 / 09.07.06

The personal attack you mention was calling your arguments "ill thought out" and "paradoxical"; also "I replied to the point about vanguardism but you seem to have ignored it, maybe you don't want to look at your own contradictions do you"

I said that because you failed to respond to the questions in my post.

*

00:04 / 10.07.06

Sounds attacking to me. If you were interested in having a discussion instead of an argument, you could have said "It seems your argument contradicts itself in these ways" instead of "paradoxical." "Ill-thought-out" is a poorly disguised judgment on the arguer, not the argument. "maybe you don't want to look at your own contradictions do you" is an attack with no attempt to disguise it. So yes, you've proven LoJ's point, in my opinion.

00:22 / 10.07.06

id:

"It seems your argument contradicts itself in these ways" instead of "paradoxical." "Ill-thought-out" is a poorly disguised judgment on the arguer, not the argument. "maybe you don't want to look at your own contradictions do you" is an attack with no attempt to disguise it. So yes, you've proven LoJ's point, in my opinion.

You're right they could have been phrased in a more friendly way.
But his original post was fairly offensive, he said i act like "some kind of leader, leading the unenlightened proletariat to the glorious dawn", said "it's disingenuous of you to claim Marx as inspiration for a worldview diametrically opposed to what he actually believed".

I responded with a point by point refutation of his arguments, backed up with quotations.
The most offensive things I replied with were
"I think you are flat out wrong there." followed by a quotation to refute his claims about Marx.
And my final sentence "Your position is paradoxical." which was preceded by arguments to demonstrate this.

In his reply, he failed to reply to my questions and textual evidence. So I responded as I did.

Do you still think I am to blame in this specific instance?
(thread is here)

Tom Paine's Bones

00:33 / 10.07.06

he said i act like "some kind of leader, leading the unenlightened proletariat to the glorious dawn"

No, actually I said that I thought that was the logical conclusion of your view that you had an ability to transcend the boundries of society that was not the case with most people in society. It was possibly flowery, but it was still very much an attack on your views rather than an attack on you. If I wanted to insult you, I really wouldn't leave much room for interpretation (as I suspect my recent PM to you has shown).

And, believe it or not, I thought that your post was an exposition of your views and hence was treating the questions as largely rhetorical. Therefore my post was an attempt to do the same and move the debate along further. If that wasn't the case, I happily concede that I mistook what you were after. Which is why I asked specifically what you wanted answering. Believe it or not, not everything is some kind of conspiracy to make you feel bad.

*

02:48 / 10.07.06

Do you still think I am to blame in this specific instance?

I don't really care who is "to blame." I'm not framing this as something bad that has happened that someone is to blame for. I'm framing this as at least two people not communicating with each other very well, and being petulant about it, exposure to which triggers in me a feeling of slight nausea and biliousness. However, I also blame neither of you for my mild but persistently irritating symptoms.

Page: 1 2 3(4)5 6