case studies

We're doing it wrong...we know

Postby III » Mon Mar 01, 2004 8:49 pm

possibly. i'll stand by that sentiment, though i'll admit i could have phrased it in a kinder fashion.
User avatar
III
 
Posts: 1510
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 10:14 pm

Postby Ivy » Mon Mar 01, 2004 9:05 pm

Would the rather lively 'busted by the cops at burningman' discussion that ensued just after the event be deemed in violation of the TOS? I don't mean this as a rhetorical slap, I honestly don't know how the rules would be applied there.


I haven't read every post in that thread (and most of them I read a while ago), but it seems to be that it doesn't violate the TOS: while it maybe talking about illegal activity, it's people talking about having been busted. People are talking about things that happened to them, experiences, and actually being ticketed/fined for engaging in illegal activity/ies.

(I admit that it has a real slippery slope possibility, though.)

Just my $0.02.
User avatar
Ivy
 
Posts: 979
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 8:20 pm
Location: Long Beach, CA

Postby Chai Guy » Mon Mar 01, 2004 9:11 pm

what if we just prefaced everything with "Allegedly" ??
User avatar
Chai Guy
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 1:37 am
Location: Los Angeles

Postby Tancorix » Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:41 pm

How about this one that just showed up in the Newbie thread, a van for sale that could be made into an art vehicle? It's listed as either a trade or for sale for $3750.

http://eplaya.burningman.com/viewtopic.php?p=39776&sid=5c104bc13786224cce506fc621a0a8d5#39776

And now from the TOS under the Expected Behaviors section:
The ePlaya is a no-commerce zone. Recommending a good deal you found is acceptable, gifting is always encouraged. Advertising items or services for sale or trade will not be tolerated.

I'm not making a formal complaint as this one doesn't really mean diddly to me...but with the rollout of the new rules I am curious how this one will be handled?
User avatar
Tancorix
 
Posts: 957
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 7:56 pm
Location: Not here, not there. I'm somewhere though.

Tommy Chong's Art van for sale

Postby juanicoheal » Mon Mar 01, 2004 11:13 pm

1))I have to say that Aquariumgirl was asking some questions that were on my mind, but was never going to ask them outright. THEY are watching. I was able to find/glean most the answers from elsewhere on eplaya threads and reading between the lines in the PissClear issues. (Damn funny stuff.) You have to admit that the event does have a reputation for being a week long Trip.

I think Aquagirl drew more attention to her question, not by posting in the "busted" thread, but with her starting a new thread to post her question. Would the reaction to her all to blatant questions not have lessened if she hadn't posted only in the well used "busted thread"?

Not all of us newbies are just jumping in with both feet, only to have them crammed back into our mouths. I want to gain some insight to get my butt to BRC this year and back in one piece. And maybe gain some friends/jaded mentors in the process.

So far, I like what I see.

2))This mikeylightsit fella just didn't read anything it seems - his thread ever advertises that he trying to sell. And is passing himself off as a 7 year vet........ I don't come here to be sold to.

3))And Tancorix - I did notice the stunning similarities to the DF continuum in Aquagirls posts. (Y'all killed my impulse to use them smilies when I read the many DF threads.) Boy y'all can be NASTY!

Cheers
my $.03 (it costs me more - I'm Canadian)
User avatar
juanicoheal
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 5:47 pm
Location: British Columbia

Postby admin » Tue Mar 02, 2004 10:58 am

stuart wrote:
this girl is a newb and she exhibited the typical pattern of assuming that she was on an equal footing with others not so newb and goofy. This board exhibited the typical response of being less than friendly in it's response. She reacted in an immature but perhaps understandable, if not justifiable, manner. In that response she made the huge faux pas of calling out P.. The boards response was swift and mercilous, as it often is.
Oh, and then K calls her a sock puppet for good measure.

is this the desired pattern?
am I reading this all wrong?


Than you for asking that queston Stuart. The answer is no.

My thoughts-

1) no one really knows if she's a newbie. I would guess yes. She thought she could find a cool discussion about drugs, and was surprised and put off that no one would have it with her here. She was llooking tof rthe wild'n'free party folk that she expects to find at the event. I concede that her reaction to the good info she was given was immature.

2) once again, as with TawnyGnosis, the community (over)reaction was brutal. I simply do not understand why so many intelligent, sensitive people beat the hell out of folks who simply don't know any better. Why can you not just give her the information she is missing, then back off? Why must you respond so viciously to every little bit of bait? These are serious questions and I would love to hear all of your responses to it.

3) calling a person a sock puppet completely kills any hope of real conversation - it completely shifts the focus and the actual intent of the conversation itself is lost in a repetitive - and might I add quite boring - argument of he said/she said. It is reminiscent of a witch hunt - the accused has absolutely no way of defending him-or herself, and teh accsuer comes off like a rabid Puritan.

FYI - A formal complaint was issued against Aq.girl aginst her attitude, not the drug content of her postings. I've contacted her to talk about it, tho I do not feel she was in any way more offensive than the other folks in this discussion. I've also reminded everyone that if you are admitting to committing a crime on the eplaya if you are saying you are on drugs, have taken drugs, and or are actively planning to take drugs.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Mon May 26, 2003 9:52 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA

Postby admin » Tue Mar 02, 2004 11:01 am

Tancorix wrote:How about this one that just showed up in the Newbie thread, a van for sale that could be made into an art vehicle? It's listed as either a trade or for sale for $3750.

http://eplaya.burningman.com/viewtopic.php?p=39776&sid=5c104bc13786224cce506fc621a0a8d5#39776

And now from the TOS under the Expected Behaviors section:
The ePlaya is a no-commerce zone. Recommending a good deal you found is acceptable, gifting is always encouraged. Advertising items or services for sale or trade will not be tolerated.

I'm not making a formal complaint as this one doesn't really mean diddly to me...but with the rollout of the new rules I am curious how this one will be handled?


Someone else alerted me to this, and I just contacted the poster, letting him know I was going to delete this post. Which I've done. It was very clearly an ad, so there was no need to delay action.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Mon May 26, 2003 9:52 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA

Postby Ivy » Tue Mar 02, 2004 11:23 am

2) once again, as with TawnyGnosis, the community (over)reaction was brutal. I simply do not understand why so many intelligent, sensitive people beat the hell out of folks who simply don't know any better. Why can you not just give her the information she is missing, then back off? Why must you respond so viciously to every little bit of bait? These are serious questions and I would love to hear all of your responses to it.



For clarification purposes, I believe you mean the incident with TawneeLynne, unless there was something with TawnyGnosis that i missed (which is possible).

As for the other questions (Why can you not just give her the information she is missing, then back off? ) I think that's what most people did. I believe art of the problem lies in that her questions were answered. She just didn't like the answers (for whatever reason--perhaps she was looking for something different but didn't quite word it properly) so she continued to ask the same questions. hat's when the attitudes started cropping up (not to accuse Trey, but it seems to have started here:http://eplaya.burningman.com/viewtopic.php?p=39675#39675--but please ntoe the number of posts before that which answered her questions fully).

Ignorance is one thing--and I think the answers to her first sets of questions were entirely unviscious and totally appropriate. But repeated ignorance? How long must it be tolerated? Is it not part of our "duty" (for lack of a betetr word) as educated citizens of both the playa and the eplaya, to educate? And if so,
can it not be admitted that there are many different theories of education--and some of them are nicey-nice and nurturing and some of them are a little more stern?

Just my $0.01.
User avatar
Ivy
 
Posts: 979
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 8:20 pm
Location: Long Beach, CA

Postby Tancorix » Tue Mar 02, 2004 11:38 am

I've also reminded everyone that if you are admitting to committing a crime on the eplaya if you are saying you are on drugs, have taken drugs, and or are actively planning to take drugs.


Holy smokes. I want to make sure I understand this...if I talk about my past experiences where I may have done something questionable, it's a crime on the eplaya? This is overly broad and imho a very chilling statement. If I can't pass on past experiences to maybe serve as a warning for others, then I have a problem with that.

This really bothers me....does anyone else see this like I do? [/quote]
User avatar
Tancorix
 
Posts: 957
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 7:56 pm
Location: Not here, not there. I'm somewhere though.

Postby admin » Tue Mar 02, 2004 11:58 am

Ivy wrote:For clarification purposes, I believe you mean the incident with TawneeLynne, unless there was something with TawnyGnosis that i missed (which is possible).


Ah, you may be right.

Ivy wrote:Ignorance is one thing--and I think the answers to her first setssof questions were entirely unviscious and totally appropriate. But repeated ignorance? How long must it be tolerated? Is it not part of our "duty" (for lack of a betetr word) as educated citizens of both the playa and the eplaya, to educate? And if so,
can it not be admitted that there are many different theories of education--and some of them are nicey-nice and nurturing and some of them are a little more stern?
.


Well...good question. Do you think that responding with escalating hostility is an effective means of teaching someone in this situation? Did she learn anything besides the fact that there are a bunch of people on the eplaya who are willing and able to rip her throat out? I would say no - she was not willing to understand that it is not cool to have drug discussions here, and any attempt at real communication with her withered after her unfortunate anme-calling because no one could rise above the bait.

Was she hurting anyone with her ignorance? No one but herself.

I guess what concerns me is the sense of righteousness with which people eventually responded. Not initially - the initial response were for the most part super cool, very clear. But once she got her back up (again, a very immature reaction), the mob got their backs up (also, I feel, an immature reaction)and brought it to a higher level of animosity.

YOU guys are the wise ones here. Being the most active, engaging, and funny posters, your conduct sets the tone for everyone. Calling a person a fuckwit (or any equivalent thereof) more frequently killls any possibility of truly educating someone, so the teaching argument doesn't fly very far with me in this case.

I think the initial responses were educational - the latter ones had no intent of teaching her anything but a lesson about messing with the egos of the community. "Call ME right-wing?! Hold my jacket..."

I'm really not preaching that everyone should stick out their hands to be held after she's bitten them, or turn the other cheek. But why not just walk away from the conversation when you have made your point and they have obviously stopped listening - as Aq.girl did fairly early on?

It seems to me this is not only feeding the troll, but taking the leftovers and packing her lunches for the week.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Mon May 26, 2003 9:52 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA

Postby admin » Tue Mar 02, 2004 12:03 pm

Tancorix wrote:
I've also reminded everyone that if you are admitting to committing a crime on the eplaya if you are saying you are on drugs, have taken drugs, and or are actively planning to take drugs.


Holy smokes. I want to make sure I understand this...if I talk about my past experiences where I may have done something questionable, it's a crime on the eplaya? This is overly broad and imho a very chilling statement. If I can't pass on past experiences to maybe serve as a warning for others, then I have a problem with that.

This really bothers me....does anyone else see this like I do?
[/quote]

THERE IS A NO DRUG POLICY AT BURNING MAN AND ON THE EPLAYA.

Taking illegal drugs is illegal.
Doing something illegal is committing a crime.
Admitting to doing something illegal is admitting to committing a crime.

These boards are open to the public. Anyone can read them. Anyone does. Anyone can choose to act on the information they read here.

This should not be news to anyone here. Think before you post. Do not implicate yourself. If you need to have a discussion about drugs, do it somewhere else, somewhere private and secure.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Mon May 26, 2003 9:52 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA

one more thing...

Postby admin » Tue Mar 02, 2004 12:49 pm

I'd also like to say that I heard back from Aq.girl, and she is hurt. Her perception is that she came and asked some questions, and was insulted and harassed. She feels newbies get rocks thrown at them and is bewildered that Burning Man supports a mob mentality (my words, not hers).

While I pointed out that she threw the first stone with the "right-wing" comment, I do think that with a little more love and a little less vitriol, she would've come around fairly easily.

Within the volunteer teams, we have a culture of second chances. The fact is, not everyone gets it the first time. But some folks who needed a second or third chance end up being some of the most excellent contributors to our teams.

Can you ask yourselves if you were ever deserving of a second chance, and what happened when you did, or did not, get it?
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Mon May 26, 2003 9:52 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA

Postby precipitate » Tue Mar 02, 2004 12:51 pm

> I do think that with a little more love and a little less vitriol, she
> would've come around fairly easily.

With all due respect, I'm not inclined to coddle the idiots and the grossly
immature.

Then again, you'll notice I wasn't throwing stones in this one even though
I'm the one she called a right-winger (my only response to her happened
before I knew that post existed).
precipitate
 
Posts: 747
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 10:51 pm
Location: Somewhere near an ocean and a desert and a mountain

Postby Tancorix » Tue Mar 02, 2004 1:00 pm

So...it's the admission of a crime. I suppose if someone fulfilled the terms of their court order and society has cleared them that it still won't be good enough for the eplaya if they choose to share their experiences. Hmmm. I'll have my hot chocolate with marshmallows please. It's getting a little chilly in here.
User avatar
Tancorix
 
Posts: 957
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 7:56 pm
Location: Not here, not there. I'm somewhere though.

Postby juanicoheal » Tue Mar 02, 2004 1:05 pm

precipitate wrote:With all due respect, I'm not inclined to coddle the idiots and the grossly immature.


What about the inexperienced and wide-eyed?
User avatar
juanicoheal
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 5:47 pm
Location: British Columbia

Postby III » Tue Mar 02, 2004 1:13 pm

>>inexperienced and wide-eyed

there is indeed a difference, and has been pointed out, the initial responses were informative and non inflammatory.

the question is what happens when those initial responses are ignored/derided/blown off. at that point, it's no longer innocent and wide eyed, but willfully ignorant.

i'm trying to figure out how much i contributed to the escalation (and i'm willing to accept both stuarts and tp's comments that i was a part of it). i'm now trying to figure out how much of that was my personal ego, either bridling at the direct barbs, or more likely at the indirect ones that implied my answers were worth nothing, and how much was an effort to clarify for a potential larger readership my exact position, since it was clear that the origional questioner was not interested in hearing what i had to say.

i'm also not sure how i would respond differently if i could do it all over again, though it's something i'm going to go think about now.
User avatar
III
 
Posts: 1510
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 10:14 pm

Postby juanicoheal » Tue Mar 02, 2004 1:39 pm

I'm sure that if Aqua had taken the advice given when signing up for the eplaya; ie.to read and get a feel for the place first; that she wouldn't have gotten her back up so fast. She was probably expecting a bunch of responses along the lines of "pass the dutchie" and to her surprise got the hard truth.

I've noticed that there are a few of the "top posters" that can be a little gruff. - I've been reading a LOT of threads... made me a little nervous to put my first post out there.

the initial responses were informative and non inflammatory.

I totally agree.[/quote]
User avatar
juanicoheal
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 5:47 pm
Location: British Columbia

Postby juanicoheal » Tue Mar 02, 2004 1:39 pm

I'm sure that if Aqua had taken the advice given when signing up for the eplaya; ie.to read and get a feel for the place first; that she wouldn't have gotten her back up so fast. She was probably expecting a bunch of responses along the lines of "pass the dutchie" and to her surprise got the hard truth.

I've noticed that there are a few of the "top posters" that can be a little gruff. - I've been reading a LOT of threads... made me a little nervous to put my first post out there.

the initial responses were informative and non inflammatory.

I totally agree
User avatar
juanicoheal
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 5:47 pm
Location: British Columbia

the User- Admin Role on Eplaya

Postby Panther » Tue Mar 02, 2004 1:43 pm

admin wrote:I guess what concerns me is the sense of righteousness...
I'm really not preaching...
It seems to me....


I would like to know more about the role of the named "Admin-Site Administrator". I currently have an assumption that this logon is accessible to more than one person (all the admins), which would be its one exception to the current TOS with regards to account sharing. I believe the Admin account's function should naturally be to post official information or notices where a course of action was taken.

What I am seeing here is someone using the Admin account to sermonize on their own personal viewpoints in an anonymous way WHILE UNDER THE COLOR OF AUTHORITY. I think this is an ABUSE of the "Admin" account.

In the future, I hope that this person using the Admin account will log off the Admin account and log on with their own user name when writing content that falls outside of austere official notices. In compromise, if this person is acting as an Admin, they can still explain or sermonize about their course of action by announcing that the are working within an "Admin" capacity or by having a star or bar on their identifier but they should still be posting under their regular Eplaya identity.

Regarding the discussion of drugs; In no certain terms is there any prohibition regarding the discussion of drugs on the Eplaya within the Terms of Service. If there is zero tolerence for mentioning drugs on eplaya, it should be spelled out in the TOS and not tucked into a single thread named Case Studies. In the U.S.A. talking about drugs is not illegal. If the discussion of drugs is against the rules at Eplaya, then there should be a comprehensible understanding that one has more civil rights outside of Burning Man than within the Burning Man online community or the event.

Panther :)
Panther
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2004 7:11 pm

Postby juanicoheal » Tue Mar 02, 2004 1:46 pm

Sorry - didn't mean to post that one twice - not sure how that happened even. :oops:
User avatar
juanicoheal
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 5:47 pm
Location: British Columbia

Postby Badger » Tue Mar 02, 2004 2:12 pm

Regarding the discussion of drugs; In no certain terms is there any prohibition regarding the discussion of drugs on the Eplaya within the Terms of Service. If there is zero tolerence for mentioning drugs on eplaya, it should be spelled out in the TOS and not tucked into a single thread named Case Studies. In the U.S.A. talking about drugs is not illegal. If the discussion of drugs is against the rules at Eplaya, then there should be a comprehensible understanding that one has more civil rights outside of Burning Man than within the Burning Man online community or the event.


You're killin me Panther....
.
Desert dogs drink deep.

Image
.
User avatar
Badger
 
Posts: 3322
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 2:43 pm
Location: San Francisco

Postby precipitate » Tue Mar 02, 2004 2:14 pm

Hey, is Panther another incarnation of WSPR?
precipitate
 
Posts: 747
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 10:51 pm
Location: Somewhere near an ocean and a desert and a mountain

Postby Isotopia » Tue Mar 02, 2004 2:27 pm

Quote:
Hey, is Panther another incarnation of WSPR?



Don't think so.

WSPR though an idiot, never seemed to have the same level of hot-poker-up-the-ass indignation and self-righteousness that our newest e-playa bud seems to be schlepping in with him.
User avatar
Isotopia
 
Posts: 2838
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 11:26 am

Postby precipitate » Tue Mar 02, 2004 2:35 pm

There's just that sense of vendetta against The Man going.
precipitate
 
Posts: 747
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 10:51 pm
Location: Somewhere near an ocean and a desert and a mountain

Re: the User- Admin Role on Eplaya

Postby rodent » Tue Mar 02, 2004 2:35 pm

admin wrote:Regarding the discussion of drugs; In no certain terms is there any prohibition regarding the discussion of drugs on the Eplaya within the Terms of Service. If there is zero tolerence for mentioning drugs on eplaya, it should be spelled out in the TOS and not tucked into a single thread named Case Studies. In the U.S.A. talking about drugs is not illegal. If the discussion of drugs is against the rules at Eplaya, then there should be a comprehensible understanding that one has more civil rights outside of Burning Man than within the Burning Man online community or the event.


discussion of drugs is a slippery subject with many angles of legitimate debate (i.e. victimless crimes, drug war effectiveness). The worrisome areas are any appearance of promoting or condoning drug use.

Let me put it this way.

---
Hi, I'm planning to come to San Francisco because I heard it was an expressive place to visit. I wish to get the full experience of SF and I like to rob banks, it's the way I express myself. I just wanted to know what the security systems in SF banks where like. A friend of mine said that there may be hidden cameras, do you know how to spot them? What are the best getaway routes? Is there a best way to outrun police?
---

I'm not trying to slam the original poster but just showing what happens when you substitute one crime with another (regardless weather or not you believe that drug use should be a crime or not). Examine your feelings for the above paragraph vs. the original post.

Discussing a crime is one thing. Discussing the best ways to commit a crime with the intent to commit that crime is a whooooole'nother thang.

---
rodent (putting the eek in geek)
User avatar
rodent
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 12:21 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, California

Moving Forward

Postby juanicoheal » Tue Mar 02, 2004 3:05 pm

How is this best dealt with in the future?

We can discuss the incident to death, but if nothing productive comes of it. What have we learned? The users that have bothered to join in this discussion thread obviously all care about Eplaya, or they wouldn't toss in their hat.

This IS the Case Studies thread after all.

As the gurus, or at minimum top posters, should there not be a small sense of responsibility to gently guide the newbies? Or should Admin. need to log on more often to monitor the inappropriate posts. I would rather Admin get the darn edit fuction back, and deal with the problems IF they get out of hand.

I would prefer to see a more welcoming environment. But hey that's just me.

BTW - Did anyone notice that the C>O>P>S> thread has had more action on it than any other in the past few days? (Other than the ticket bitch sessions) 41 posts and 761 views. Popular topic.
User avatar
juanicoheal
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 5:47 pm
Location: British Columbia

Postby rodent » Tue Mar 02, 2004 3:14 pm

A possible soluction, new users first 5 or 10 posts could be moderated (held for admin examination) before posting. Instant sockpuppetry could be lessened by this as well. Also, those persons who are just creating a new account to start a flame (willsmallpenis, stopbmorg, ect). At the least, it would keep a newbie from getting slammed on their first post or two.

---
rodent (putting the eek in geek)
User avatar
rodent
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 12:21 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, California

Postby juanicoheal » Tue Mar 02, 2004 3:34 pm

new users first 5 or 10 posts could be moderated (held for admin examination) before posting


I've seen that before with both success and failure. As the discussions are free flowing and continual, does the Eplaya move too fast for the newbies posts to remain relevant?

Similar option is not approving their account so quickly. I was able to post within hours of my first viewing of the Eplaya board. Maybe make 'em wait a little, read a little before they can post?

You aren't going to be able to avoid the DF socks or Allanon flaming, if they are determined to produce their desired results.

Point to think about - What about theCryptofishist aka BlueBirdPoof? Needd to change handle due to death of a loved one.
User avatar
juanicoheal
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 5:47 pm
Location: British Columbia

Postby Tancorix » Tue Mar 02, 2004 5:17 pm

I only wish the Eplaya Task Force had discussions like this when we were working out the TOS and Community Guidelines. This discussion is 2 months late.

In any event I kinda like the idea of restricting newbie posts but I proposed having the admins approve new accounts as an alternative. ie Allanon3. It was supposed to cut down on sock puppetry, but it takes admins and moderators to enforce that.

Anyway I'll step back and let the debate continue.
User avatar
Tancorix
 
Posts: 957
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 7:56 pm
Location: Not here, not there. I'm somewhere though.

Postby Chai Guy » Tue Mar 02, 2004 8:00 pm

Personally I think this is much ado about nothing....


A person posted a message about drugs at BM

People responded, stating that drugs were illegal and that you shouldn't bring them to BM, and in fact, you may even have a better time experiencing the event sober.

I did not see the person get "slammed" (and if that's your definition of getting slammed, I would hate to think what would happen to your feelings if you actually attended the event).

I don't see this thread as being anything other than positive. While I certainly understand that these boards belong to Burning Man LLC and they have every right to monitor/censor them as they see fit, I don't see any reason why this isn't a valid discussion. In my mind, censoring just makes a bigger deal of something than it really is.
User avatar
Chai Guy
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 1:37 am
Location: Los Angeles

PreviousNext

Return to ePlaya Feedback

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests