mr disco writes: "why the idea of Barbelith being a coherent, peaceful, regulated community is so important to some people."
I'm a person who thinks Barbelith has far too little regulation. I don't think the comparison to real-world regulation is apt in this case, because people do not have the option of turning off the real world, or moving to another part of the real world with a click. I am in Singapore at the moment, and while I don't think caning is a suitable punishment for graffiti, it's really clean and nice here. If we can have a clean and pleasant Barbelith without having to cane anybody, why shouldn't we? It's important to me to have it here rather than someplace else because I think Barbelith has a chance. Lots of people have put in the lots of hard work you've described, and I am still not clear what benefit people think they're gaining from rehashing the same arguments with new people.
What do you think would happen if there were in fact much tighter restrictions placed on what was written here? What is the content that you think we'd lose? I can tell you why I think crappy threads should be locked or deleted rather than simply ignored -- because as has been pointed out elsewhere, they rarely are merely ignored. If they're offensive enough, people will feel compelled to argue against them so that their silence is not taken for tacit acceptance. If they're only mildly offensive, there will almost always be somebody who is willing to play along. How do we profit from that? Why shouldn't we seek some kind of profit from Barbelith?
math writes: "Sauron has just posted an apology and explanation for his Stump Fucker thread."
The apology to which you refer has this in it: "To my mind, this is a prime example of over sensitivity- no one who posted to the thread appeared to be offended- and most people got the Boosh reference."
That's not an apology at all, it's an explanation of the fact that the thread title refers to a performance or act. There's an assumption in there -- that the people who get the reference and are offended because there's something wrong with them (oversensitivity) and that the people who are offended don't count because there are so few of them, or because they must've been offended by the word fucking. I didn't get the fucking reference and having it explained doesn't make it any fucking better: it's still a thread that seems to me to have been made in order to get a rise out of people, and the explanation being passed off as an apology came only after the rise that was gotten turned out to take the form of an attack on the thread starter.
e.r9 writes: "On any recent increase in moderation: what tends to happen in Policy is lots of possible moderation actions are discussed, but few of those discussions ever carried through and acted upon. As far as I'm aware, all that's happened recently is we've been talking about potential actions a lot more, not actually performing them."
If somebody can provide examples of long discussions leading to action I would appreciate a link, as I agree with the point being made and am not sure if my perception is skewed in this case.
am464 writes: "I don't see how a public space like this can be a safe space. "
Moderation, discussion, and in my opinion, less hesitance about locking or deleting threads. I would like to make it clear that I am not arguing in favor of rapidly banning people entirely, and in fact except in cases where a person makes threats or otherwise takes things into people's offline or non-ficsuit lives, I am talking about controlling content. There has been some talk of alternative schemes such as 24-hour locks to provide a cooling rather than freezing effect, and these have merit, I think.
mr disco writes: "The only answer that's worked, in every case, is what someone told me the first time I questioned politics on Barbelith: start a thread. Make your argument. Start more threads. Talk about what you want to talk about. People will come to the party."
I don't see why it has to be one or the other. As I said above, silence or ignoring a thread can be interpreted in more ways than vocal disagreement with it can, for one thing. It is not equally easy for everyone to have the patience of alas, for another. People get tired of repeating themselves, or find certain things hotly offensive, and I don't think it's entirely fair to ask them to merely bite their tongues and look elsewhere -- it's hard to pour creative, positive energy into something good when it feels like there's so much trash on the curb needing to be taken out.
shadowsax writes: "if you want a progressive and constantly evolving community, you need to embrace new people, because they will help bring change."
Which new people? What kind of change? I am one voice in this community and I am saying that I do not want to hear any new and exciting posts about what evil bastards women are, or what brilliantly funny stumps were fucked, or whether the jews really just made the whole thing up. That is what I, personally, want.
shadowsax writes: ". but be clear about this: good writing is not a definition of valuable expression. "
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. What do you mean by "good writing"? I would include in "good writing" not only things like decent spelling, but also (and more so) an ability to make a sound point clearly. Perhaps you meant to say that it's possible to have a good idea but not be able to phrase it well? As somebody who considers herself a mediocre writer with a fragmented style, I am inclined to agree, but I suspect this may be vanity on my part.
Last -- I'm sorry for what may prove to be a hit and run post -- I am travelling and have only intermittent web access. |
