BARBELITH underground
 

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


Underground > Conversation >

Protect your bits: Support ORG

  
  

Page: 1(2)

 
 
Disco is My Class War
10:25 / 30.10.06
I would be really keen to have a passionate yet safe debate where we can discuss whats going on as opposed to you going out of your way to provoke me and as is obvious by your reaction me pushing all your buttons too.

Dude, I see it now. You're not addressing anyone but Haus. The ORG discussion is a just a pretext, right? Underneath the argumentative exterior you're feeling all undone -- hot, romantic, maybe a little sexual. Is it maybe the first time you've had a crush on another guy? You're not alone. Many posters have expressed their attractions through outright hostility in the past. Haus seems to get a lot of that, actually. And rest assured, you're among friends. We at Barbelith don't mind about homosexuality, not one bit.

So if you want to have a 'passionate yet safe debate' with Haus, that's lovely. All we ask is that you make sure Haus is a consenting partner. And you could definitely take it somewhere else. Like your mind.
 
 
Olulabelle
10:28 / 30.10.06
I would just like to say that, in pointing out that Triplets was not quite correct in saying that Tom pays for the site, because some members also contribute towards the cost of the site too, I was suggesting that the argument that Tom pays so Tom can do what he likes was slightly flawed.

I'm confused about why that was met with such a harsh response. I have no opinion on the ORG banner other than finding it slightly surprising that this cause should be supported above all others which may be relevant to this community.
 
 
Olulabelle
10:30 / 30.10.06
Underneath the argumentative exterior you're feeling all undone -- hot, romantic, maybe a little sexual.

Somewhere, I forget where, Flowers and Trampetunia were quite harshly pulled up about suggesting that two men fighting meant they were having sexual feelings for one another.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:39 / 30.10.06
Trampetunia in "Burning Down the Haus 2", I think, although I'd challenge "harshly", and much of the discussion took place in Barbequotes. Flowers was precisely not picked up for having suggested similarly that conflict was a sign of homoerotic passion, which was used at the time as a sign of inconsistency.
 
 
Disco is My Class War
10:42 / 30.10.06
I have no opinion on the ORG banner other than finding it slightly suprising that this cause should be supported above all others which may be relevant to this community.

Has anyone said, in this thread, that this cause should be supported above all others? Could you point it out for me, because maybe I'm missing something.
 
 
Olulabelle
10:49 / 30.10.06
Hasn't Tom said that, by dint of putting the banner up and not others?

Regarding Trampetunia and Flowers, I think Trampetunia was fairly well told it was unacceptable. Don't you think? And if that's the case it shouldn't be acceptable from anyone. Should it?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:51 / 30.10.06
Well, Lula, might I suggest that you might want to go back and have a look at the threads in question, refresh your memory of the case and then come back and see how that applies to Mister Disco's comment? Similarities, differences, why trampetunia's comment was picked up and discussed and Flowers' was not, that sort of thing?
 
 
Disco is My Class War
10:58 / 30.10.06
And I don't think I was saying two men fighting meant they had sexual feelings for one another. It does, however, seem like there may be some unrequited love flying around. In some parallel universe, that is, in which a thing called 'levity' exists. But don't fear, no danger of levity actually spreading to this universe.
 
 
Olulabelle
11:00 / 30.10.06
Is it maybe the first time you've had a crush on another guy? You're not alone. Many posters have expressed their attractions through outright hostility in the past. Haus seems to get a lot of that, actually.

So then, Glandmaster's points are invalid because he obviously fancies Haus and that's why he's posting in the way he is? Are you serious?
 
 
Olulabelle
11:02 / 30.10.06
Because even with your comments about levity, it's a pretty weird and somewhat childish thing to suggest.
 
 
Disco is My Class War
11:07 / 30.10.06
Of course I'm not serious, but c'mon, Lula, "passionate yet safe debate"? Slashpatrolgo! Childish it may be. Stopped what was developing into another long slanging match, it did. You want another slanging match to substitute for the loss of that one? I'm not playing.
 
 
Olulabelle
11:10 / 30.10.06
Of course I don't. That's very unfair. I'm just pointing out that it's inconsistent to criticize newer posters for doing something and then let other long-standing posters do the exact same thing without anyone saying anything.

I really do not want to argue with you, or with anyone.
 
 
Glandmaster
11:17 / 30.10.06
Disco - thanks for injecting a touch of humour I totally ignored you and have been entirely caught up in not-letting-Haus-have-the-last-word. Sorry! Will pick up your points later, promise.

Lula thanks for unpacking your comment a bit more, isnt it strange how easily you can focus on the topic at hand when you are not being cross...

Haus - should we get a room You have offended me with your comments but hey thats life - you are forgiven. It was not my intention to do anything more than raise how I felt your comments sounded and so if I have caused unwarranted offense I apologise.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
11:19 / 30.10.06
I see no point in taking the MDSexyDebate discussion further until anyone who wishes to do so has returned to and read the discussion around Trampetunia and Flowers.

Back on something resembling topic - Lula, could you possibly highlight where you felt that the response to you was harsh? I don't see it.

I think the chapter and verse here is:

Tom pays for the upkeep of Barbelith. Well-wishers can donate money to Tom, which he uses to offset the cost of Barbelith, in the same way that they can follow Amazon links or ads from Barbelith, which will contribute small amounts to the Barbelith coffers. These are, however, acts of personal benevolence without greater consequence. Just as giving a charity money does not entitle you automatically to have a voice in deciding how that charity should spend it - you put money in a Save the Children collection box in the belief that they will be better equipped to save children with it than you would, and do not expect, unless Lord Sainsbury, to be significantly more likely to have your opinion heard on what Save the Children should be focussing on than somebody who had not just put money in a Save the Children collection box.

However, you did not actually say:

Triplets was not quite correct in saying that Tom pays for the site, because some members also contribute towards the cost of the site too

What you said was:

Triplets, some members also pay for the site so I think some of Glandmaster's points are relevant.

It has always been understood that donating to the Barbelith Paypal account, or using Amazon links or clicking on ads, does not confer any special status on those who do so. They are all good things to do, and I for one would like to congratulate everyone who does so and invite anyone who is considering doing so and has the means to go for it, but the people who do these things do not have a more privileged relationship with Barbelith than those who do not - value to Barbelith or influence over Barbelith is not affected by ability or willingness to contribute financialy to Barbelith.

So, as it happens, I think you are incorrect in saying that because some members pay to the Paypal account (not quite the same as paying for the site), Glandmaster's points are more or less relevant. One could argue that since all members of Barbelith, whether contributing financially or not, should have a say in the structure of Barbelith, and specifically the presence of a link to the ORG on the front, then Glandmaster's points are relevant regardless of who contributes and how much is contributed by Paypal, Amazon or adclick revenue. I think that could be an argument to take further.

So, to recap:

a) I don't think that what you said on page 1 and what you said on page 2 that you said on page 1 are the same.
b) I think the key issue - whether the fact that people contribute in various ways to the cost of keeping Barbelith running makes glandmaster's points more or less relevant - is specifically missing from the restatement on page 2.
c) I think it is important and worthwhile to note that the way Tom pays for Barbelith is materially different from the way anybody else might be said to pay for Barbelith, which is why I have been encouraging people to think in terms of donation rather than paying for.
d) All that said, I'm sure that nobody intended harshness, and that everyone is now feeling concerned that harshness was felt. Certainly it was not my intention to harsh on anyone, up until the point where Glandmaster started comparing providing factual.

While we're on corrections and queries, quick one for MD:

Please do consider asking these questions in a more moderate way, addressing Tom as if he's reading (you can be sure he is) rather than behaving as if he's not in the, er, 'room', and taking into account that if not for Tom, Barbelith wouldn't exist at all.

It's worth remembering that Tom doesn't usually read the Coonversation, so he probably _isn't_ aware of this discussion right now. Hence the request to move it to the policy, although Glandmaster's rather gnomic link to the Barbapplications thread is not exactly what I had in mind.
 
 
Glandmaster
11:24 / 30.10.06
Fuck! I hardly ever post so didn't realise how quick some of you buggers type!

I took discos comments in jest - if Haus has no problems I suggest we let it be least discos clowning turn into what he was trying to avoid.
 
 
Disco is My Class War
11:25 / 30.10.06
It did seem that he had been reading this, though. And he's been posting in various forums a bit, too. So I assumed.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
11:29 / 30.10.06
It's possible, but not necessarily the case - since the introduction of the "recently updated threads" function, he's been around more. Policy is a safer bet, though.
 
 
Glandmaster
11:36 / 30.10.06
Haus my point is why do we the community have NO SAY?

My issue is that there is no discussion and my link to the applications thread was an attempt to show another side of this issue not to refactor this thread.

The fact that you and the four or five other REALLY trusted mods around here do not have access to the tools that are available (ie making you admins) that not only would benefit all of us (not to mention the new blood outside) but that we are asking for is the same issue.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
11:44 / 30.10.06
Ah, well. Say's an interesting one. In the case of the applications process, yeah - that's a pain, although I think Anna is optimistic about the efficacy of open borders and banning. However, on ORG one might decide that this is a case where Barbelith the community was not consulted about something about which Barbelith the community should have been consulted - regardless of who is donating what, which will also allow you to drop that stuff about examining the accounts. In that case, I'd repeat my suggestion of a separate thread in the Policy. I think you'll find that most people will simply not have minded very much, but I may be wrong.

Even if moderators had powers to ban, I doubt we'd have the power to add or remove decorative detail like the ORG logo- that being outside the CMS, I imagine - so it would come down to somebody contacting Tom and asking him to respond anyway...
 
 
■
11:56 / 30.10.06
Policy thread.
 
 
■
12:22 / 30.10.06
Oh, and it got it slightly wrong about the timing. Tom was on the advisory board almost immediately, I think. The graphic came later. I thought you were referring to the director's job which came up much later still.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
14:31 / 30.10.06
Glandmaster Haus my point is why do we the community have NO SAY?

Finally, a point! Presuming that you have any interest in this conversation beyond picking an entirely pointless fight with Haus, perhaps you should also consider this thread. However, arguing with Haus over something that Tom has done seems a spectacular waste of time.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
14:38 / 30.10.06
have been entirely caught up in not-letting-Haus-have-the-last-word

Am I the only person who thinks this could be part of the problem here? Even "proving Haus wrong" would be better.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:09 / 30.10.06
Ah, yeah - I hope this was clear. I mentioned it earlier - I don't have any license to speak for Tom - I've just been here a long time so I usually have a fair idea of what conversations have happened before, and Tom has always been very down on the idea of people who donate getting stars, highlighted names, special treatment or anything else non-donating members don't get.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
16:43 / 30.10.06
The community has a say. The problem, Glandmaster, appears to be that nobody else agrees with you.

Nobody agreeing with you does not equal nobody being allowed to agree with you. It's just that nobody gives a shit.
 
 
Olulabelle
17:29 / 30.10.06
I don't think members who donate should have more or less say than any other member of the community but I do think it's relevant that it is made clear that people do donate, and that Tom does not entirely fund Barbelith out of his own pocket. As such the site could, I suppose in some ways be said to be not specifically his. I thought that was relevant to the conversation being had here but I do not personally have any issues with the ORG banner.

I hope that clarifies my postion.
 
 
Tom Coates
18:54 / 30.10.06
Okay - I'm coming into this quite late and I'll read through everything again and give a more considered opinion in a while, but here's my thinking.

(1) With regards to this site and who gets to decide things. As much as possible decisions about the community should be made by all of us together, however there will and regularly are bottlenecks and places where only I can make a decision, or necessary functions of the way that a website is hosted and legal liability and stuff like that and I reserve the right to make those decisions. In the end the buck stops with me on a bunch of stuff, although I'd rather that we got to the buck stopping point as infrequently as possible.

(2) With regards to the financial upkeep of the site, it's absolutely the case that people contribute to help it going and for the most part these contributions along with Google Adsense money bring in enough to pay for the servers and domain registration costs and occasionally for things like getting extra RAM and stuff. While I very much appreciate the financial help—and can say that it has meant on a number of occasions where I didn't have much money coming in that the site was able to continue where otherwise I'd have had to shut it down or eat less—contributing money doesn't buy you any more rights than any other member of the board, or any more say. That may sound harsh, but as far as I'm concerned you guys are not customers and I am not providing a service for you, we're members of a community and unfortunately because I manage the hardware and software I end up having some extra responsibilities. If people want to contribute, then I'm very grateful. If they don't want to contribute, then that's their prerogative as well. But I don't think ability to pay should influence how significant your voice is. See one above - decisions about the community should be made wherever possible by the community, not by people who are contributing cash.

(3) Which brings me to three, which is to say that you guys do have a say and there's absolutely no reason why that banner should be there if you collectively don't like it, or that it should be the only one there if you would want to propose alternatives. I can organise both or either of those if you'd prefer. It's not a place where there's a technological or temporal bottleneck. Personally, I like the idea that the board can be responsible for some social good in some way and that members might be motivated to improve the world, but I do accept that people might not agree with the specific group I suggested for the top banner. If general consensus is that I made an error in putting that up there, I'll take it down. If the general opinion is that we should have more banners up there, or that moderators should decide or something like that, then I'd understand that stuff too.
 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
  
Add Your Reply