Ranger Genius wrote:But that raving lunatic shouting CHIRP makes it really fucking hard to play a game of chess, or to sit down and discuss a book or the news with some friends. I don't come to the Eplaya to pass through and get something I need. I'm not on an errand. I want to be able to enjoy conversations with the diverse group of people who hang out here.
Idiotic and anti-social behaviour seriously hinders one's ability to do so on this board on occasion. Your analogy doesn't hold.
III wrote:re: the "who likes tony" thread.DVD wrote:It's "Who finds Tony amusing"
appears to be started as a sincere attempt to evaluate the effects of one particular poster on the nature of this board. degenerates into two separate flame fests, between two pairs of people.DVD wrote:Please state where it attempts to be sincere.
first glance would indicate that 7e has been violated by all of them.
however, was spun off from a discussion in the "what do you hate about burning man" thread (in the nature of burning man section).DVD wrote:First things first I guess. Wrong again, the thread you speak of is
What do you hate most about..... which is not "what do you hate about burning man".
Big...no....HUGE difference. Just to set the record straight it goes this way;
"What do you hate most about.....people bitching incessantly about inane shit?" It had nothing to do with hating Burningman. That in itself is slanderous and can be taken in the wrong way.
one of the participants engages in a fairly common troll technique - accusing other of actions he himself is engaging in (in this case, non-constructive posts in the case studies thread). he then predicts an ugly flame war, indicating his intention to escalate whatever ensuing discussion into something disruptive to the entire community.DVD wrote:Wrong again. I had a nice exchange with some fellow eplayans before the participant you speak decided to post a negative statement about me. I made a statement with a humorthat III found not to be as such. To each their own.
finally, he violates 7b by making use of multiple identities to fuel an argument that might have otherwise just died out.DVD wrote:You really need to post a link/quote. It's missing or is just not clear what you are referring to.
(i'll break with my original format of offering separate presentations and analysis, since i'm not sure they're actually all that separate in my head.)
this is ugly. and the recent spate of banning people for minor offenses would indicate that all four be banned for some period of time, with maybe a greater penalty for the person who instigated the original comment, multiple violations, and a previous history of acted on violations.
however, it seems that the bans, especially in this case, have done little to improve the tenor of the board. i'm not sure what other administrative actions are available, but it seems that the current set of actions/responses are not providing the results desired.DVD wrote:Wrong again. The one who is suspended is not banned, they are suspended.
in particular, it seems that managing the small details of peoples actions has ignored the greater impact of how they influence the tenor of the board, and that the attempts at fairness are actually feeding the behaviors that eventually need to be addressed in a more strict manner. i don't have details on this, but it seems that the current administrative approach lacks a certain holisticness (holisticnicity?) that probably contributes to chaos and disruption going on here.
DVD wrote:If you don’t have details why are you posting here as though you do? The disruption seems to be misplaced. Try again to at least get what you want to achieve correct in the first place and maybe something positive can come of it.
there was absolutely no reason why the person in question, had to
1.) make the statement that they did when what was said on the thread first stated in your post here, was not intended for her.
2.) there was no reason to make a thread as hurtful and slanderous as the one she made that created a bigger flame war.
I really think you ought to try again to get your facts straight.
So far, all I see is a very vindictive individual that has a difference of opinion that is not worthy of being posted in this "case studies" thread.
Your friendly neighborhood Polly-fucking-anna over here would like to point out that I had a dream last night that the only way to cease this whole melee of increasingly disrespectful, pointless, and very non-Burning Man related vitriol that this board has become was to pull the plug on the whole thing for a while and continue messing around under the hood while everyone cools out.
precipitate wrote: While I understand that deleting an inflammatory thread may be perceived to be a productive action, I'd be disappointed if all the evidence that the person at whom the thread was directed is not, in fact, a particularly useful member of the eplaya community were lost.
Rian Jackson wrote: A certain user has threatened legal action upon several of us already on this board. Said user has no case regardless, but what if you had deleted a thread that contained 'evidence' in someone's defence?
Rian Jackson wrote:I'm especially concerned about this thread deletion because it provides a lot of evidence. A certain user has threatened legal action upon several of us already on this board. Said user has no case regardless, but what if you had deleted a thread that contained 'evidence' in someone's defence?
As I said, I'm not worried about this particular one. But blue light special deleting, if it is continued in this way, could have ramifications that you can't foresee.
Besides, I kind of wanted to see what names I was being called while I was gone for the weekend.
Rian Jackson wrote:i'm not sure how good of a gaugue 'feeling threatened' is.
the message DVD sent to me set off some alarm bells. but it certainly didn't scare me enough to worry. but then, i'm really sensitive - and really kind of a hard ass - about violence and threats.
i'm sure if i read it over again now i'd blow it off as nothing. i'm really cursing myself for erasing it, but at the time i thought it better just to forget about the whole thing.
there's pretty clear language for explicit threats. and it's usually clear enough when there's a history of good natured joking behind it - or not.
i have to restrain myself sometimes from saying something i don't really mean. but then again, sometimes self restraint is good for all of us.
III wrote:"the case studies thread is not a welcome place for thread drift, uncontributory remarks or bickering."
III wrote:this is for discussion of general board policy, not microlawyering of disputes between two individuals.
i think. i'd have to ask the o.p. to make sure...
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest