Locking/Deleting Personal Attack Based Topics?

Discuss the policies of ePlaya here.

Postby spectabillis » Mon Feb 13, 2006 11:40 am

Kinetic IV wrote:So the fact that our mods hang out with the old hats on the other board should be kept hush hush?


No, it means keep that personal stuff off Policy Discussion. Lets also keep this on topic as well, if you have a more valid concern PM me.
spectabillis
 
Posts: 3530
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 12:07 am
Location: parallel cortex sensory stream interface

Postby Chai Guy » Mon Feb 13, 2006 11:45 am

I think locking/deleting threads should be an absolute method of last resort. I hope that we don't have to do that with people who are actual members of this "community" who post here on a regular basis.

That said, here are *my* suggestions:

1. Threatening violence.
2. Posting personal information about a person (i.e. phone numbers address etc.)


Basically, if someone is "name-calling" me, I just respond or move on. Usually it says more about the person calling me a name than it does about me anyway. I think many of the problems we've seen on this board have been the result of people trying to bait each other anyway.
User avatar
Chai Guy
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 1:37 am
Location: Los Angeles

Postby DVD Burner » Mon Feb 13, 2006 11:53 am

Chai Guy wrote: here are *my* suggestions:

1. Threatening violence.
2. Posting personal information about a person (i.e. phone numbers address etc.)


Basically, if someone is "name-calling" me, I just respond or move on. Usually it says more about the person calling me a name than it does about me anyway. I think many of the problems we've seen on this board have been the result of people trying to bait each other anyway.


So this means that you should'nt say things like " I would just love to ring your neck"?

As far as name calling goes:
I myself enjoy calling people things like "chickenhead".
I find that it works better than calling someone an "asswipe".

Is there something to be said there?
Image

"The art is in the digit!"

The Original Digiman
User avatar
DVD Burner
 
Posts: 9741
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 4:09 am

Postby Kinetic IV » Mon Feb 13, 2006 11:57 am

Addendum to Chai's #2: Posting satellite imagery of one's personal residence or that of their immediate family. Since this will likely become the defacto code of conduct for the eplaya I want to make sure that is specifically covered.

I know #1 covers violence but I'd like to see it specifically cover stalking too. It's illegal in the real world and it should be blocked, squelched, whatever on the board.
K-IV
~~~~
Thank you for over 7 years of eplaya memories. I have asked Emily Sparkle to delete my account and I am gone. Goodbye and Goodluck to all of you! I will miss you!
Kinetic IV
 
Posts: 2984
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 7:34 pm
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine as of 10/27/06

Postby Isotopia » Mon Feb 13, 2006 11:59 am

Here, let me linkify that for you ...


Here's a link to a similar concept.

Image[/quote]
User avatar
Isotopia
 
Posts: 2813
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 11:26 am

Postby spectabillis » Mon Feb 13, 2006 12:05 pm

Isotopia wrote:Here's a link to a similar concept.


off topic.
spectabillis
 
Posts: 3530
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 12:07 am
Location: parallel cortex sensory stream interface

Postby spectabillis » Mon Feb 13, 2006 12:11 pm

Kinetic IV wrote:Addendum to Chai's #2: Posting satellite imagery of one's personal residence or that of their immediate family. Since this will likely become the defacto code of conduct for the eplaya I want to make sure that is specifically covered.

I know #1 covers violence but I'd like to see it specifically cover stalking too. It's illegal in the real world and it should be blocked, squelched, whatever on the board.


After your previous post here, this is starting to look like using your personal past differences to address a personal adgenda. Everyone needs to keep the personal stuff out of it for this reason, its not that I disagree with what is being suggested - but you are all making it difficult to sift through it. If people cant keep from separating personal stuff from policy discussion it ruins it for everyone else on the board and makes the more shy and newbies refrain from posting in places where there is conflict.

In other words, if this continues, there is not much of a choice to start blocking people from this section - essentially keeping them from voicing concerns of policy that otherwise would have every right to.
spectabillis
 
Posts: 3530
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 12:07 am
Location: parallel cortex sensory stream interface

Postby Kinetic IV » Mon Feb 13, 2006 12:42 pm

If I didn't feel it's legit I wouldn't take the time to post it here. In this case the stalking comments not only cover my private scenario but one that come up with Rockdad just yesterday in regards to the CT discussion. The satellite imagery one was personal..I'll admit that. And with that I'll shut up in here and see what else surfaces.
K-IV
~~~~
Thank you for over 7 years of eplaya memories. I have asked Emily Sparkle to delete my account and I am gone. Goodbye and Goodluck to all of you! I will miss you!
Kinetic IV
 
Posts: 2984
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 7:34 pm
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine as of 10/27/06

Postby EvilDustBooger » Mon Feb 13, 2006 1:19 pm

It seems to me that Spec is wanting to discuss "at what degree" of
infringment of the TOS do we pull the plug on abusive users and threads.
I don`t think that can be answered. It needs to be decided on a case by case review.
While it is very clearly printed out in the most generic and standard terms...it includes lot`s of restrictions and rules that many of us bend or break occasionally, :roll: and frankly alot of this is relative to the individual poster/viewer.
You could follow the TOS to the letter, and especially with THIS community, you would be whacking threads and users daily ; or as it IS now, while there is little "official enforcement" of crack-head posts; more consciencious people tend to step in and try to cool things abit...or "CITE" a more reliable take on some devisive issue. And sometimes those people become embroiled in something personal and vindictive with original posters or friends of posters...etc..
If one of these persons is a moderator it can turn moderating into a very thankless and nasty chore...and I don`t blame Spec for pondering on this
puzzling predicament he finds himself in occasionally....

The terms :Thou Shalt NOT
post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;

harm minors in any way;

harasses or advocates harassment of another person;

upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any advertising, promotional materials, "junk mail," "chain letters," or any other form of unsolicitedmass mailing or "spamming";
----------------------------------------------
........and on and on and....there couldn`t possibly be a uniform code that can cover all this, especially in such a diverse community as this with "FUCK" threads and people with usernames like "Evi1" or "the Wop" and points of view all over the Planet...and beyond.

I would suggest a PRIVATE review thread for discussion and review of the individual threads or offensive posters for a period of a couple days for moderators and admins to weigh in on. Mods are Mods because they are trusted members of the community and I think their opinions should be respected, and they should be depended upon as our representatives.
Make it a VOTE(you could set each case up as a poll) of trusted members of the community, say a consensus of 4 out of 5 and then "damn the bridges" and cut the thread....
Someone has to make these challenging calls and if we can`t trust our moderators to do it???....we`re doomed :evil:

I also don`t see why there couldn`t be a thread for announcing decisions regarding the offending topics/users and feedback from other users.

All very ugly and democratic, I know, but it`s all we`ve got.
User avatar
EvilDustBooger
 
Posts: 3812
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 2:56 pm
Location: Outside the Box

Postby DVD Burner » Mon Feb 13, 2006 4:43 pm

EvilDustBooger wrote:I would suggest a PRIVATE review thread for discussion and review of the individual threads or offensive posters for a period of a couple days for moderators and admins to weigh in on. .


Ummmm, You are right and that was discussed and agreed upon but, Uuuummmmm That was supposed to have been done about a year ago.
:shock:



EvilDustBooger wrote:Mods are Mods because they are trusted members of the community .


That is supposed to be true. :D


I also don`t see why there couldn`t be a thread for announcing decisions regarding the offending topics/users and feedback from other users.



One thing I haven't figured out is why the admin/mods have not used the "usergroup" feature that way yet? You dont need to have it named usergroup in order to get the same affect.
Image

"The art is in the digit!"

The Original Digiman
User avatar
DVD Burner
 
Posts: 9741
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 4:09 am

Postby spectabillis » Mon Feb 13, 2006 9:30 pm

DVD Burner wrote:
EvilDustBooger wrote:Mods are Mods because they are trusted members of the community .
That is supposed to be true.[quote]

innuendo, keep those personal comments out of policy feedback.

if there is a valid concern about any moderator incl. myself, either PM a mod or post the case in moderator discussion area without those personal parts.
spectabillis
 
Posts: 3530
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 12:07 am
Location: parallel cortex sensory stream interface

Postby spectabillis » Mon Feb 13, 2006 9:34 pm

Since it seems most of the discussion is oriented around what constitutes a personal attack and not around the proceedure, at least we can move foreward with preparations while making sure those concerns are addressed.
spectabillis
 
Posts: 3530
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 12:07 am
Location: parallel cortex sensory stream interface

Postby HughMungus » Mon Mar 06, 2006 11:32 pm

Are "dumbass", "psychotic" or "stupid" considred personal attacks?
It's what you make it.
User avatar
HughMungus
 
Posts: 1823
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2004 10:17 am
Location: Dallas, TX

Postby spectabillis » Mon Mar 06, 2006 11:35 pm

HughMungus wrote:Are "dumbass", "psychotic" or "stupid" considred personal attacks?


Have an example where its used?
spectabillis
 
Posts: 3530
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 12:07 am
Location: parallel cortex sensory stream interface

Postby HughMungus » Thu Mar 09, 2006 11:38 am

spectabillis wrote:
HughMungus wrote:Are "dumbass", "psychotic" or "stupid" considred personal attacks?


Have an example where its used?


viewtopic.php?t=12386&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=60
It's what you make it.
User avatar
HughMungus
 
Posts: 1823
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2004 10:17 am
Location: Dallas, TX

Postby spectabillis » Thu Mar 09, 2006 2:56 pm

but thats not an personal attack based topic, or... what am i missing?
spectabillis
 
Posts: 3530
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 12:07 am
Location: parallel cortex sensory stream interface

Postby HughMungus » Thu Mar 09, 2006 3:20 pm

spectabillis wrote:but thats not an personal attack based topic, or... what am i missing?


Well, that's kinda what I'm asking -- personal attack based topics are evidently not OK but what about unprovoked personal attacks in general?
It's what you make it.
User avatar
HughMungus
 
Posts: 1823
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2004 10:17 am
Location: Dallas, TX

Postby Kinetic IV » Thu Mar 09, 2006 3:39 pm

It's interesting, I had some of those words in my sigline earlier in reference to a 3Playan who doesn't post here anymore. But then I stepped back and cleaned it up a bit after reading the updated posts in here.
Kinetic IV
 
Posts: 2984
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 7:34 pm
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine as of 10/27/06

Postby Dustbuddy » Thu Mar 09, 2006 4:35 pm

HughMungus wrote:
spectabillis wrote:but thats not an personal attack based topic, or... what am i missing?


Well, that's kinda what I'm asking -- personal attack based topics are evidently not OK but what about unprovoked personal attacks in general?


Would the cure be better than the disease? I see a lot of potential for abuse in the application of such a vague standard, and little in the way of a problem that needs solving. The new ePlaya doesn't seem to be much of a flamepit.
User avatar
Dustbuddy
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 1:29 pm
Location: Northern Illinois

Postby HughMungus » Thu Mar 09, 2006 5:12 pm

Dustbuddy wrote:
HughMungus wrote:
spectabillis wrote:but thats not an personal attack based topic, or... what am i missing?


Well, that's kinda what I'm asking -- personal attack based topics are evidently not OK but what about unprovoked personal attacks in general?


Would the cure be better than the disease? I see a lot of potential for abuse in the application of such a vague standard, and little in the way of a problem that needs solving. The new ePlaya doesn't seem to be much of a flamepit.


Which is why it shouldn't be allowed at all. If someone calls my argument, comment, opinion, or whatever "stupid" or "psychotic" or whatever and says why, I have no problem with that. But as soon as they characterize someone they've never met as "stupid" or "psychotic", it's (a) off topic and (b) a personal attack. If you allow that, people will start responding to other PEOPLE with personal attacks rather than addressing the topic at hand, threads will go way off track, mods will have a lot more policing to do, and then it will be really hard to stop.

"You gotta nip it in the bud."
It's what you make it.
User avatar
HughMungus
 
Posts: 1823
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2004 10:17 am
Location: Dallas, TX

Postby DVD Burner » Thu Mar 09, 2006 5:17 pm

HughMungus,

I think the example/s of what would constitute "Locking/Deleting Personal Attack Based Topics" doesn't exist anymore or does not seem likely to happen anymore because most of the folk that would do that sort of thing are not likely to be in this community or on this board anymore.
Therefore the question "Locking/Deleting Personal Attack Based Topics? " is pretty much moot.

Spec may tend to differ from my opinion feeling I may be the type to post a thread that is a prime canadate for "Locking/Deleting Personal Attack Based Topics" and belive me this is not a personal posting, but I just dont see this kind of problem happening on eplaya anymore.

The people that would do that sort of thing are on the other board 3rd removed from the playa.

Now I could be wrong but if the Spec could give an example maybe it would help out the HughMungus if spec posted an example of what would constitute "Locking/Deleting Personal Attack Based Topics".

(please dont consider this a personal post.)
Image

"The art is in the digit!"

The Original Digiman
User avatar
DVD Burner
 
Posts: 9741
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 4:09 am

Postby Dustbuddy » Thu Mar 09, 2006 6:06 pm

HughMungus wrote:
Dustbuddy wrote:
HughMungus wrote:
spectabillis wrote:but thats not an personal attack based topic, or... what am i missing?


Well, that's kinda what I'm asking -- personal attack based topics are evidently not OK but what about unprovoked personal attacks in general?


Would the cure be better than the disease? I see a lot of potential for abuse in the application of such a vague standard, and little in the way of a problem that needs solving. The new ePlaya doesn't seem to be much of a flamepit.


Which is why it shouldn't be allowed at all.


In other words, it ain't broke, so let's fix it.
User avatar
Dustbuddy
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 1:29 pm
Location: Northern Illinois

Postby HughMungus » Thu Mar 09, 2006 6:44 pm

Dustbuddy wrote:
HughMungus wrote:
Dustbuddy wrote:
HughMungus wrote:
spectabillis wrote:but thats not an personal attack based topic, or... what am i missing?


Well, that's kinda what I'm asking -- personal attack based topics are evidently not OK but what about unprovoked personal attacks in general?


Would the cure be better than the disease? I see a lot of potential for abuse in the application of such a vague standard, and little in the way of a problem that needs solving. The new ePlaya doesn't seem to be much of a flamepit.


Which is why it shouldn't be allowed at all.


In other words, it ain't broke, so let's fix it.


No. More like, let's fix it before it tears itself apart.
It's what you make it.
User avatar
HughMungus
 
Posts: 1823
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2004 10:17 am
Location: Dallas, TX

Fascists Keep Eplaya Tidy So Beware Freedom

Postby Captain Fuckwit » Thu Mar 09, 2006 6:48 pm

Fascists Keep Eplaya Tidy So Beware Freedom

(03/23/05)This is a paradox: Moderation does not equal censorship; however, Moderation is censorship. The real heart of the matter is-- What is it that is wanting of censorship? (03/30/05)For any "Moderator" to hint that he may lock down a thread, chiding someone for being off-topic or overly-personal is (unfortunately) a passive and subtle form of censorship. (09/19/05)Censorship equals Fascism. (03/30/05) Fascism is not an outside force.Fascism exists within our own human nature and it is probably something that we all should strive to overcome. Fascism continually creeps on Eplaya. The concepts of Fascism are kind of tricky which makes it a bit more difficult to get one's head around them. But Fascism is here. There's no sense in ignoring it. The most readily available conduit toward promoting Fascism is "message-moderation" and therefore we need to proceed carefully. One element of Fascism is the ideology of creating a perfect order (within a thread).

(04/21/05) ... Unfortunately, it will be in our own fascist nature to want to clean up these provinces, to make order out of apparent chaos, to fence it in, for the good of everyone else. Some users will promote a much needed cleansing of this board with all the drama of falling down a hill! ... The provinces of Eplaya, by their own nature, will always be jungles. You can't tame a jungle, except by cutting it down to extinction . We very well know, that the lively life is in the jungle, where things eat and things get eaten. We're newbies every day . User feedback that advocates the taming of the jungle for the sake of the newbies is ignorant and harmful advice. We're here because we're self-reliant and because we want to be here. And regardless of all our engineering, we're still in a jungle of humanity where our crude nature resides. We can make a better BBS. But beware the fascist pipedream of creating a perfect order in concrete. The jungle is much more alive.

Sincerely yours,
Captain Fuckwit
Captain Fuckwit
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2005 5:28 pm

Re: Fascists Keep Eplaya Tidy So Beware Freedom

Postby HughMungus » Thu Mar 09, 2006 6:52 pm

Captain Fuckwit wrote:Fascists Keep Eplaya Tidy So Beware Freedom


ePlaya != Burning Man
It's what you make it.
User avatar
HughMungus
 
Posts: 1823
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2004 10:17 am
Location: Dallas, TX

Postby spectabillis » Thu Mar 09, 2006 6:55 pm

DVD Burner wrote:... maybe it would help out the HughMungus if spec posted an example of what would constitute ...
already have, please read the beginning of the topic.

HughMungus wrote:Which is why it shouldn't be allowed at all. ... But as soon as they characterize someone they've never met as "stupid" or "psychotic", it's (a) off topic and (b) a personal attack...


ok, now i get where you are comming from. but let me play devil's advocate here and throw out some comments - not saying i agree or disagree.

are you saying that name calling is not allowed? have you never done this yourself? can you point out anyone who has not done it on this board?

in a heated exchange people may throw insults when they normally wouldn't. a helpful and considerate word usually allows them to calm down, take a breather, and still contribute as a great member of the board.

then again, there are those who continue even after you raise it to their attention a few times. do you put some arbitrary number limit on this? if so, how many, and what do you do once they pass it... ban them?

and if you are expecting moderators to read each and every post to enforce things, well... that pretty much runs against the intentions of the community moderating itself witout any 'outside authority' that people at burningman have come to expect. nobody really wants an environment of authority and censorship with a bunch of ego trippers pushing their attitude off on others.
spectabillis
 
Posts: 3530
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 12:07 am
Location: parallel cortex sensory stream interface

Postby HughMungus » Thu Mar 09, 2006 7:54 pm

spectabillis wrote:and if you are expecting moderators to read each and every post to enforce things, well... that pretty much runs against the intentions of the community moderating itself witout any 'outside authority' that people at burningman have come to expect. nobody really wants an environment of authority and censorship with a bunch of ego trippers pushing their attitude off on others.


Cool. It seems to be working already.
It's what you make it.
User avatar
HughMungus
 
Posts: 1823
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2004 10:17 am
Location: Dallas, TX

Postby spectabillis » Thu Mar 09, 2006 8:10 pm

if you were wanting someone to step in, why didnt you ask them to tone it down yourself? why didnt you pm a moderator?

it almost seems like you are bringing it up in policy discussion just for that, but I cant tell.
spectabillis
 
Posts: 3530
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 12:07 am
Location: parallel cortex sensory stream interface

Postby Observer » Thu Mar 09, 2006 8:18 pm

HughMungus wrote:
Dustbuddy wrote:In other words, it ain't broke, so let's fix it.


No. More like, let's fix it before it tears itself apart.


Except, Hugh, you've provided no evidence whatsoever that the current ePlaya is moving in that direction. Quite the contrary, if anything the mood has been getting calmer over the last year or two, even in the absence of any clearly identifiable scapegoat for people to take out their aggressions on. The subscribers don't seem to feel as much of a need to scream as they have been known to, in forums that haven't been moderated with as light a touch. This would suggest that what is being done right now is working.

On the other hand, "let's moderate in order to enforce civility" is something that, while it may sound promising, opens the door to abuse both by the modstaff, should they cease to be impartial, and by the kind of online mob that the Internet is all too good at gathering. It is not difficult to find cases in which a lone, unpopular poster (ie. a scapegoat) was ganged up on en masse, abused in the coarsest of terms, and then banned for his incivility when he voiced a mild objection to what was going on. Civility and provocation are things that can only be judged subjectively, and by dangling out the promise of being able to silence one's opposition by trumping up a charge which will be evaluated on such subjective grounds, one encourages the attempt.

Back during the bad old days of the 1990s when "let's forcibly impose civility" was the fashion of the moment, what resulted was not civility. What resulted was the mass bombardment of sysops, moderators and other would-be keepers of online order with trumped up complaints, which arrived in such volume that undeserving parties ended up being silenced, because admins just didn't want to deal with it any more. It's like knocking a hole in a dike. The system doesn't get abused that much in the beginning, but as time goes on, the trickle of crankery turns into a flood if it is not cut off, while it is still manageable. Sending the message, from day one, that such attempts will inevitably prove futile does just that; by removing the promise of possible success, one removes the incentive driving a would-be lynch mob, as it gathers.

You're defending a proposed change in policy on what would appear to be a claim of good intentions, but where history clearly suggests that the results are going to be perverse, those intentions will count for very little, assuming that they even are sincere ones. Forums where the masses can go cry to the moderators whenever they don't like what they're reading have not, historically, been civil places, and why would they be? In the end, the floor of discussion ends up under the control of whichever faction can scream the most loudly, and the free-floating rage that fuels much of the process is only enhanced by the anger many will feel when they discover that a hash has been made of their freedom of speech, formerly reasonable people gradually becoming ill-tempered as they become accustomed to the absence of justice. Hence the popularity of the cliche "tools, not rules".

Note the presence of the "ignore" function. Anything keeping you from using it?
User avatar
Observer
 
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2004 2:12 pm
Location: Right behind you. Don't look.

Postby HughMungus » Thu Mar 09, 2006 8:29 pm

spectabillis wrote:if you were wanting someone to step in, why didnt you ask them to tone it down yourself?


Because I wasn't sure what is and is not allowed since the TOS doesn't seem to be being enforced in cases of personal attacks and harassment.

why didnt you pm a moderator?


Because I wanted to find out what the moderators were supposed to be enforcing vs. what they were actually enforcing.

it almost seems like you are bringing it up in policy discussion just for that, but I cant tell.


No. I was trying to find out what the moderators are supposed to be doing vs. what I should be doing myself in terms of the TOS. I've seen a few different personal attacks posted by a few people aimed at a few different people lately and they went by seemingly without comment by the moderators so I posted here because I was starting to become concerned that the mods here were going to let personal attacks continue until they became a larger problem (see my previous post about that, above).
It's what you make it.
User avatar
HughMungus
 
Posts: 1823
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2004 10:17 am
Location: Dallas, TX

PreviousNext

Return to Policy Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest