Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Yo Mod (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   
Author Topic: Yo Mod
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But here's the thing: this really is a G3-specific issue.
Well, sorta. You can always tell when Pete's come back after a few days off, too, by all the replies he makes to himself. [Smile]
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Please leave me out of your quarrel with G3, Tom.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G3:

I feel bad for you man. And I'm not just saying this for the condescending rhetorical effect it has.

It's clear that you feel picked on, and that most of what you say here is severely impacted by the fact that others are so disparaging of your opinions, and the way you express them. And there is no question that you do get attacked, a lot. To my mind, you're caught in a pretty vicious cycle.

A human being simply isn't emotionally wired to deal effectively with sustained conflict in which he is personally isolated by an entire community, and subjected to repeated, nearly universal attacks from everyone around him.

As I see it, the original attitudes and tactics that engendered the situation you're currently in have little relevance to your options now--and your options are severely limited by your situation.
quote:
Obviously, it only applies to me doesn't it? As long as it applies only to me, I'll continue to highlight it in whatever manner seems to make the most impact.
Yup. I get it. From your perspective, virtually everyone on the board has ganged up against you, and the moderator is siding with the public will by crafting and enforcing rules specifically to respond to conflicts and problems others are blaming on you.

I think it's a valid perspective, and I can imagine how frustrating it must be--I can imagine how, from such a perspective, it would seem that the only options would be to meekly back down and give in to the unfair bullying that this communal "ganging up" effectively represents, or to fight back.

You often read to me like an animal faced with such an overwhelming attack here, that your only choices are fight or flight.

And it honestly sometimes seems like you're aware of this yourself, that you're jutting out your chin in a way that says: "You'll never make me run away, I choose to fight, screw the consequences."

I wouldn't know if you ever wonder if there might be a way to expand your option-set from this limited fight/flight mentality. It seems to me that attempting to envision a path toward higher-level options for conflict resolution might be very difficult, if not impossible, in your situation.

A big crowd *is* really picking on you. You are faced with a pretty overwhelming attack.

It's a bit sad, because it's obvious that participating in this community really matters to you. And it also seems clear (to me, anyway, I doubt that there are many people who would perceive the following as obvious) that there are higher-level modes through which you wish you could participate--as much as you pride yourself on your stoic resistance of the "unfair" attacks, your repeated allusions to how unfair it is that you keep getting specifically picked on indicate that you wish you had more options than the simple fight-flight mode. When you construct phrases like "As long as it applies only to me, I'll continue..." it clearly implies that you wish you didn't have to take the tack you take, but you don't see any alternatives, given your perception of your situation.

My point is that human behaviors are constrained by systemic social dynamics. And a socially dynamic system can develop inertia in response to individual behaviors that constrict that individual's future options to behaviors that will create more inertia in the dynamics through which the system constrains potential behaviors.

Vicious cycles are real.

I dunno. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's obvious that you want to participate without getting picked on so much, but you've got too much pride to find a diplomatic solution to get what you want. There *are* higher-level options that humans can use in dealing with conflict--"fight or flight" aren't the only possible responses, but the situation that has developed around your perception of your options is such that you don't seem to see any realistic alternatives other than these stark choices.

Is there anyway someone outside can help?

[ September 14, 2012, 07:21 PM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by OrneryMod:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
The way to move the thread back to where it was, would be to delete your post as well as the "bump" post. If you wanted to leave a trace of the edit, you could place the link in your mod edits thread. Thanks for clarifying.

I do feel that it is important for there to be a record of moderator actions in the thread where the actions took place. My plan was just to let the thread move down the page and then unlock when it was just another old thread.
The Lybia thread is off the page now. I hope you'll unlock it soon and make a portion of this argument moot.

---
Edited to address SP's subsequent post.

[ September 14, 2012, 07:28 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That doesn't make this argument moot, Pete.

The argument isn't about this specific application of moderation--at all. The argument is clearly that this specific application of moderation shouldn't be applied universally.

[ September 14, 2012, 07:16 PM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
" I am sure I will be inexplicably banned once again for no stated reason and those that follow me from thread to thread launching personal attack after personal attack will continue to be tolerated. This is a pretty ****ty moderator."

You really don't understand. People aren't attacking you for no reason. You're like someone who farts every time you get in an elevator and someone says, "you know, that is really childish."

But it does beg the question about why some people that complain seem to follow G3 from elevator to elevator ...
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Well, sorta. You can always tell when Pete's come back after a few days off, too, by all the replies he makes to himself.
But this gets to the heart of the preferences issue.

I personally sometimes appreciate it when Pete *bumps* a thread with nothing more than a "bump." I get to read through something that wouldn't have caught my attention otherwise. I don't need some editorial comment to justify calling my attention to the thread--on the contrary, it allows me to relate it to contemporary topicality through my own filter, with the sole implication being that someone else believes it relates to contemporary topicality.

Pete isn't disrupting everyone's discursive space by trying to get the thread-title space to read: "Nyah, nyah nyah-nyah, nyah--I win at Ornery."

There may be a separate issue of whether Pete is overloading top-headline space with the *quantity* of "bumps" he jumps in a given period of time, and this might be a problem--but it's distinct from the specific issue that really needed attention from moderation here.

You may dislike thread necromancy as a general rule, but others have other preferences. I wish there was more of it, personally.

My argument is that moderation should come up with individual solutions to unique, disparate problems, rather than instituting a blanket ban on using a specific wording in the spell through which posters raise the dead.

[ September 14, 2012, 08:02 PM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OrneryMod
Administrator
Member # 977

 - posted      Profile for OrneryMod   Email OrneryMod   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G3:
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
I can see the moderator deciding that unadorned bumps are unhelpful, but I really don't get locking the thread. "This was inappropriately bumped, so now it shall never be revived again!" Doesn't make much sense to me.

Really? You know why it was locked.

quote:
Originally posted by OrneryMod:
I did consider not taking any action when I noticed who had made the post, lest my action be taken as a personal attack rather than what I felt was needed. Then I decided that was silly and that people wouldn't read that much into the moderation, and that if I felt like that was what was needed before I looked at who made the post, then who made the post shouldn't matter.

There is a significant personal aspect to this, that's transparently obvious. As Lisa pointed out, "QFT" is essentially the same but it's OK. I only put the bump because 1) I am lazy and B) the news is flooded, you gotta be fully disconnected not to know why it's relevant.

My guess is our secret little moderator was one of those saying it Libya and Egypt was not a failure and hates that I have once again been proven correct. That's right, I said it. [Razz]

He probably wanted to simply delete the entire thread but thought the backlash would be too intense. I am sure I will be inexplicably banned once again for no stated reason and those that follow me from thread to thread launching personal attack after personal attack will continue to be tolerated. This is a pretty ****ty moderator.

You are actually one of my favorite posters. I enjoy the interesting viewpoints that you bring, and you often highlight news that I would not have seen in my regular consumption. I do wish that you would post more in your informational style and less in your inflammatory style.
Posts: 1260 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OrneryMod
Administrator
Member # 977

 - posted      Profile for OrneryMod   Email OrneryMod   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
" I am sure I will be inexplicably banned once again for no stated reason and those that follow me from thread to thread launching personal attack after personal attack will continue to be tolerated. This is a pretty ****ty moderator."

You really don't understand. People aren't attacking you for no reason. You're like someone who farts every time you get in an elevator and someone says, "you know, that is really childish."

But it does beg the question about why some people that complain seem to follow G3 from elevator to elevator ...
This is a small community. There aren't more than about 35 active posters, and generally only about 10-15 active topics. Not so much following each other around, more that there are only so many places to go.
Posts: 1260 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OrneryMod
Administrator
Member # 977

 - posted      Profile for OrneryMod   Email OrneryMod   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingprometheus:
quote:
Well, sorta. You can always tell when Pete's come back after a few days off, too, by all the replies he makes to himself.
But this gets to the heart of the preferences issue.

I personally sometimes appreciate it when Pete *bumps* a thread with nothing more than a "bump." I get to read through something that wouldn't have caught my attention otherwise. I don't need some editorial comment to justify calling my attention to the thread--on the contrary, it allows me to relate it to contemporary topicality through my own filter, with the sole implication being that someone else believes it relates to contemporary topicality.

Pete isn't disrupting everyone's discursive space by trying to get the thread-title space to read: "Nyah, nyah nyah-nyah, nyah--I win at Ornery."

There may be a separate issue of whether Pete is overloading top-headline space with the *quantity* of "bumps" he jumps in a given period of time, and this might be a problem--but it's distinct from the specific issue that really needed attention from moderation here.

You may dislike thread necromancy as a general rule, but others have other preferences. I wish there was more of it, personally.

My argument is that moderation should come up with individual solutions to unique, disparate problems, rather than instituting a blanket ban on using a specific wording in the spell through which posters raise the dead.

I don't remember the last time that Pete bumped a thread with only a *bump*, he does a pretty good job of asking a new question, bringing a new thought, or a current event into the thread. Even today when he was trying to bump massive numbers of threads, every bump added something to the conversation.

Just for fun I looked up the last time someone bumped a thread with only a "bump". It was RickyB in the August of 2011.

Posts: 1260 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I confess that I did do a massive number of thread bumps today, with two overarching purposes.

1. To show that the new interpretation on an old rule is quite modest, and doesn't interfere with purposeful thread necromancy.

2. To push the locked threads to page 2, to demonstrate that temporary locking isn't a ham-fisted measure.

I'd also point out that G3 and I both are on thinner ice probation-wise than anyone else here, and that G3 didn't get suspended for these bumps, and that I didn't fall afoul of the rule with a dozen or more bumps that included bits of content.

So I don't think it's an oppressive rule or one that really harms the discussion here.

I'd hate to see these simple "bumps" (or any new interpretation of a rule) be used to push anyone further towards a suspension or ban, but other than that, it seems like a fairly reasonable rule interpretation of Card's suggestion that every post should be substantive and contribute to the discussion.

Are smily responses OK, as in to demonstrate that one appreciated a joke?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Mod:
quote:
I don't remember the last time that Pete bumped a thread with only a *bump*, he does a pretty good job of asking a new question, bringing a new thought, or a current event into the thread. Even today when he was trying to bump massive numbers of threads, every bump added something to the conversation.
Oy, mod, it seems like you're completely missing my point.

Pete's massive thread bump today IS a problem. He shouldn't have done that. It was really inconsiderate of posters involved in conversations. He just dumped all of the headlines. Conversations that were active got buried. In fact, I just barely noticed after you mentioned what he did, that one of the threads that I've been most active in, and would like to see continued by other posters, was the last thread on the front page, and since it was so low on the page, I hadn't noticed that someone had responded to me--even though the reply was posted today. If one more thread had gotten bumped, I might not have ever noticed that someone had responded to me, in spite of the fact that I last posted yesterday, and looked for it when I first checked Ornery today. This is because a glance at the front page made it seem like it hadn't moved toward the top any time recently.

Because of what Pete did, there will quite possibly be posters who won't have time for ornery today, who will come back and not realize that threads they were following moved since they checked last--since a ton of conversations that were placed near the top in the last couple of days just got kicked to page 2.

And here's the thing: G3's narcissistic scoreboard graffiti wouldn't actually be a community problem AT ALL, if it weren't for the fact that, when he does it, he bumps down other threads, deprioritizing them, and making it less likely that participants will open them and have an opportunity to contribute.

This is the actual problem.

The legitimate reason for stopping G3 from bumping his thread titles is because he's bumping down everyone else's conversations in an effort to make the front page a scoreboard where he's winning, rather than trying to engage and allow for engagement in discussion.

It has nothing to do with whether he used the word "bump" and nothing more--it's the fact that he's crowding out space without a legitimate discursive motive. If I decided to use the thread-titles in the front page to write acrostic poetry, then it doesn't matter if I contribute some comment with a tiny bit of content to each thread I'm putting up top: I'd be screwing with everyone's ability to participate in the conversations that interest them for an entirely inappropriate reason--one that has everything to do with what I want to see in the thread-title space, and nothing to do with what I want to see in the actual discussions behind the titles.

Banning the word "bump" doesn't address the problem. The problem is that whenever something gets bumped, it bumps down conversations other people were trying to have--and thus it requires a justification. Sometimes the context, and the single word "bump" indicate a fine discursive justification. At other times, someone is just purely screwing up the space everybody scans for the conversations they're involved in, for the sake of some way they value the priority of the headline space rather than the discussions themselves, even if they do add a few words as a token justification.

Seriously. What Pete did today was way worse than what G3 did--he just knocked down everyone's conversations, and people are going to have to figure out what happened and go looking for their threads if they don't want them to end because of Pete's completely inappropriate interruption.

What happened today entirely proves my point. Your rule doesn't respond to the actual problem, which is that people can interrupt other conversations by knocking them down the page, without a legitimate discursive reason.

Whether the word used is "bump" or something more like "hey, today reminded me of this thread," the issue is that there should be legitimate discursive intent if you're gonna cyberinterrupt everyone else's headlines. Sometimes "bump" is sufficient to indicate discursive intent. Sometimes a responsive sentence doesn't hide the fact that it's not a genuine attempt to contribute, it's just someone trying to hog the headline-space for their own personal reasons.

And Pete:

Come on, man. Anybody who only drops in every 2-3 days just completely lost their place, and you just ended conversations people were potentially interested in--just so you could suck up to mod by showing that you abide by rules, while still trying to get around them.

I can't imagine that you really agree that bumping a thread with the word that indicates exactly what one is doing should get banned, do everyone a favor and just abide by the spirit of the rules she's trying to enforce--which means that all you have to do is discipline yourself so you don't post when you're too angry to think straight--because your historical problems with mods have nothing to do with your willingness to abide by rules, they have to do with your temper, and frankly, how lousy you can sometimes be at accurately speculating on your interlocutors' motives.

[ September 14, 2012, 10:50 PM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Come on, man. Anybody who only drops in every 2-3 days just completely lost their place"

How so? Anyone who comes back from 2-3 days ago would not notice the change. Most of the posts that I bumped were on page 1 or page 2, and the moving conversations are right back on top of the page.

"he just knocked down everyone's conversations, and people are going to have to figure out what happened and go looking for their threads "

OK, SP. Please identify one single conversation that was going earlier that can't be found now. Put your money where your accusations are.

"just so you could suck up to mod by showing that you abide by rules"

You're pretty lousy at speculating at my motives. I happen to think that Mod's made a reasonable decision here. If I didn't, I'd challenge it, as I've always done. If you don't give me that much credit, then you're wrong about me. Again.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Conversations that were active got buried."

Please show me one single active conversation that got "buried."

Are you certain that you're not just fishing for accusations because I proved that you were wrong?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I can't imagine that you really agree that bumping a thread with the word that indicates exactly what one is doing should get banned"

Of course I don't. Back in the day, I got banned for six weeks for bumping a thread with the words "bumped for enumclaw" because Everard convinced Msquared that I'd bumped it with sinister motives. [Roll Eyes] If you'd read what I had said with as much energy as you try to read my motives, you'd have noticed that I said specifically that I would hope no suspensions would ever result from a "bump."

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
OK, SP. Please identify one single conversation that was going earlier that can't be found now. Put your money where your accusations are.
"can't be found now"?!

Who said things can't be found? My money is good, it's on "people are gonna have to go looking for their place" just like you quoted me as saying.

If you're going to keep challenging things I say, respond to what I actually say, hmm?

In this case, turn the page and notice that Phil posted a thread on false positives in scientific research this morning, and no Ornerite on the west coast who may have failed to check the headlines before they got home from work had any chance of responding unless they go looking, because your bump bomb today jacked it all the way to page 2 before they would have gotten home.

And the problem isn't just when titles move to page 2.

I scan the headlines that fit on of my screen when it's at the top of the page at a zoom level which is comfortable for reading. Since the reality is that there are rarely more than 10-20 pages that move on any given day here, it's reasonable to assume that a lot of folks just scan the top headlines to see if threads they've been following have moved. Once something is off the top half of the front page, it's effectively gone for most readers--it's usually been a couple of days since such threads have moved, which means that threads below that threshold seem like dead threads. Since this is how Ornery threads movement usually works, it's reasonable to assume that a lot of readers lose sight of threads once they drop off the top have of the page, and just assume that those discussions have died, unless they happen to notice the dates.

Now maybe you always check the time stamps, but that doesn't change the fact that you don't seem to have considered the fact that others may not do this, which is pretty much the definition of "inconsiderate," mmm?

[ September 14, 2012, 11:24 PM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Phil posted a thread on false positives in scientific research this morning, and no Ornerite on the west coast who may have failed to check the headlines before they got home from work had any chance of responding unless they go looking, because your bump bomb today jacked it all the way to page 2 before they would have gotten home."

You said "active discussions." If you find that ONE thread interesting, then say something on it. Problem solved. Every other thread that anyone posted on today is on page one.

Now go whine about something else. Goodnight

[ September 14, 2012, 11:37 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You're pretty lousy at speculating at my motives
Well sure, except that I'm really not.
quote:
If you'd read what I had said with as much energy as you try to read my motives, you'd have noticed that I said specifically that I would hope no suspensions would ever result from a "bump."
I did notice that. I wasn't pulling motives out of thin air and ascribing them to you, I was reading what you said, and speculating on what motives could produce the things you were saying. I took several things you said, and correctly guessed what it meant about how you felt about a slightly different context.

Which is why what you quoted is basically me saying: "It's obvious that you feel X about this." And why your initial response is essentially: "Of course that's exactly how I feel."
quote:
SP:"I can't imagine that you really agree that bumping a thread with the word that indicates exactly what one is doing should get banned"
quote:
Pete: Of course I don't.
The only thing that's unclear is why you follow this citation of me correctly predicting your position by resentfully implying that I don't follow what you're saying, or understand where you're coming from very well.

Since I think I have a pretty good bead on how your motives interact when you construct arguments that disprove your own points, I've got some guesses on how this came to pass too: You misinterpreted my description of banning a "tactic" (using the word "bump" to bump a thread) with the idea of banning a "poster," and you erroneously thought I was suggesting that you had somehow implicitly *agreed* with banning *posters* who use the tactic. (Which I didn't do.)

And you're very much opposed to banning folk for minor, unimportant things, so your motive was to counteract the implication you incorrectly read into what I said.

See how helpful it is to have an interlocutor who can accurately follow what your motives are, and who therefore understands where you're coming from, and what you could realistically mean, even when you're dropping the ball discursively?

[Razz]

[ September 15, 2012, 12:18 AM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"once they drop off the top (half) of the page"

I sometimes no edit willy good...

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by OrneryMod:
You are actually one of my favorite posters. I enjoy the interesting viewpoints that you bring, and you often highlight news that I would not have seen in my regular consumption. I do wish that you would post more in your informational style and less in your inflammatory style.

G3, this is a very good point you should think about. When you make a point backed up by evidence, whether I think it's right or wrong, I still appreciate it. Your tendency is to start with a POV and facts to support it. That's great.

However, there are more than a few posters who are more likely to respond to facts with opinion, snarks and attacks. And then your reaction is generally to jump into the fray and try to out attack them. Which is pointless. You end up burying your initial good post and evidence under a long dog fight. I think a better approach might be to try and ignore the posts that are meant to goad and concentrate on the more thoughtful responses. (I realize that's easier said than done. [Wink] ) My two bits.

As to the actual thread topic. I think the Mod is doing an good job and I understand the rule on just posting a bump. That being said, I don't think the threads should be locked for those reasons, even temporarily. But it's a minor issue.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
By the way, Pete:

So it's clear, I wasn't trying at all to get you into trouble with the mod, and I highly doubt that mod is gonna count your bump bomb against your "play nice" points. I wasn't trying to get you in trouble, and there is no reason the mod should think you've done anything that merits getting in any trouble.

It *is* clear that all you were doing was trying to work within the rules mod is establishing to quickly overcome the perceived problem that was created by this particular form of rule enforcement.

Your loophole exploitation happened to demonstrate my point about the flawed nature of this moderation approach very effectively, which is the only reason why I seized what you did and made noise about it.

In any case, don't twist any of this this out of proportion. I do think what you did was a tiny bit inconsiderate, but it obviously isn't a big deal in any context larger than that described this thread--at all. Seriously, no biggie. Not even worth mentioning in any other context. It just happened to play perfectly into the minor, insignificant quarrel going on in this thread--which is barely important enough to argue about in the first place...

[ September 15, 2012, 01:12 AM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I highly doubt that mod is gonna count your bump bomb against your "play nice" points."

If you'd read my email exchanges with this Mod you'd realize I have no bloody play nice points, SP.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
if you'd read my email exchanges with this Mod you'd realize I have no bloody play nice points, SP
[LOL]

Well score some then.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it's my sense from what I *have* read that convincing mod that you're willing to abide by rules won't actually help your cause nearly as much as simply running a temperature check on your smokestack whenever you catch yourself making accusations or using pejorative terminology.

Seriously, if you simply applied that intellect of yours to scanning your own text for "accusations" and "pejoratives" and forced yourself to really gauge how hot your whistle is blowing whenever you found them, I bet you'd never have a peep of trouble with another mod again.

You'd have to actually stop yourself from posting when you're seeing red, of course, and--for all I know--that might take all the fun out of Ornery, but I'm personally convinced that it would at least give you back pretty full control of your Ornery destiny...

[Smile]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just a by the way:

My focusing on the negative in headline-hogging doesn't mean that nothing positive can come out of the practice.

I may have zoomed in the magnifying glass on the negative potential consequences of Pete's bump bomb to illustrate my point about what the precise moderation-worthy target actually is (in the discussion I'm trying to have with the mod), but that doesn't mean that there aren't also ways in which it might be a good, fine thing that Pete did.

Hopefully, the resurrected threads will have an overall effect of injecting more new blood into ornery, revitalizing dormant remnants of interest into discursive activity. I *am* pro-necromancy, after all. Raise the zombies, let's have a party, by all means.

[Big Grin]

But if we're talking mod-blocking thread-churn, then let's isolate the proper problem and direct solutions at the exact issue and as little else as possible when instituting new restrictive rules, please...

[ September 15, 2012, 03:43 AM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OrneryMod
Administrator
Member # 977

 - posted      Profile for OrneryMod   Email OrneryMod   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingprometheus:
quote:
if you'd read my email exchanges with this Mod you'd realize I have no bloody play nice points, SP
[LOL]

Well score some then.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it's my sense from what I *have* read that convincing mod that you're willing to abide by rules won't actually help your cause nearly as much as simply running a temperature check on your smokestack whenever you catch yourself making accusations or using pejorative terminology.

Seriously, if you simply applied that intellect of yours to scanning your own text for "accusations" and "pejoratives" and forced yourself to really gauge how hot your whistle is blowing whenever you found them, I bet you'd never have a peep of trouble with another mod again.

You'd have to actually stop yourself from posting when you're seeing red, of course, and--for all I know--that might take all the fun out of Ornery, but I'm personally convinced that it would at least give you back pretty full control of your Ornery destiny...

[Smile]

I agree.
Posts: 1260 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
SP, I haven't said gotten remotely pissed (in either sense of the word) on this forum in the last month. If I've said anything angry lately, please show it to me, otherwise I'd appreciate if you'd stop hanging my history over my head when I'm doing nothing wrong since my suspension. And I do not appreciate your false and somewhat insulting motive inference that I was trying to suck up to OM, which as far as I can tell would be futile. I have no illusion that OM is even remotely pleased with my agreeing with OM on this issue.

No amount of nice posting is going to "give me control of my Ornery destiny" because there will always be those who continue to act like the past was the present. I hope that you won't continue to be one of them.

I have, from time to time, found myself in agreement with Everard, Tom Davidson, and Lisa, so please wrap your brilliant noggin around the fact that I agree with OM on the particular of this rule.

[ September 15, 2012, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And SP, you would regain some lost points if you'd man up and admit that no, I didn't do what you accused me of; I painstakingly put all the active conversations back at the top of the page. It was a lot of work undertaken out of (gasp) consideration of others.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by OrneryMod:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingprometheus:
quote:
if you'd read my email exchanges with this Mod you'd realize I have no bloody play nice points, SP
[LOL]

Well score some then.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it's my sense from what I *have* read that convincing mod that you're willing to abide by rules won't actually help your cause nearly as much as simply running a temperature check on your smokestack whenever you catch yourself making accusations or using pejorative terminology.

Seriously, if you simply applied that intellect of yours to scanning your own text for "accusations" and "pejoratives" and forced yourself to really gauge how hot your whistle is blowing whenever you found them, I bet you'd never have a peep of trouble with another mod again.

You'd have to actually stop yourself from posting when you're seeing red, of course, and--for all I know--that might take all the fun out of Ornery, but I'm personally convinced that it would at least give you back pretty full control of your Ornery destiny...

[Smile]

I agree.
How is "I agree" substantively different than "bump" when it comes to empty replies? [Wink]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I haven't said gotten remotely pissed (in either sense of the word) on this forum in the last month
First and foremost: well done on the month of sobriety--genuine props, and it does show in your posts here.

Second, agreed that your posts recently haven't been seeping spleen, and I suspect that mod has noticed this, and has actually awarded you with some "play nice" points in the secret tally she keeps on known trouble-makers and agitators here.

That said, "pissed" is a pretty relative term, it can refer to a wide range of anger--one can be 'just the teensiest bit pissed' or 'pissed to the point of incoherent, uncontrollable rage.' And it ain't against any rules to get a bit pissed, here. It's actually a fair chunk of what we do, by design, at Ornery (check out dictionary.com's first definition for the word "ornery," for a nugget of irony). There are ways to experience and express anger and indignation without running afoul of the unholy ornery banhammer. The key is simply to refrain from flipping one's lid--one can steam a bit, but one should keep one's chemicals contained--if a top pops, someone's got to bump the beaker from the burner before it blasts bombastic bile all about our mad lab here...
quote:
I'd appreciate if you'd stop hanging my history over my head
That's fair. Apologies.
quote:
And I do not appreciate your false and somewhat insulting motive inference that I was trying to suck up to OM
Hmm. Well, maybe you ought to stop alternating between presenting yourself as a martyr of the mod's personal vendettas, and a staunch supporter of the reasonable abide-ableness of her new whims.

People infers what people infers.

But I can appreciate your lack of appreciation--even if I wonder why you're so touchy about it. You can go ahead and call me a kiss-ass for calling the mod "highly reasonable" here in this thread if you like, I wouldn't find it worth crying over--I'd probably just acknowledge that there is some validity to it, and contextualize the acknowledged validity by rolling my eyes at whatever seemed to be an exaggeration of my disposition given the relevant facts at hand...
quote:
And SP, you would regain some lost points if you'd man up
I don't need "play nice" points. I'm clearly secretly the moderator. I just use this avatar to make public criticisms of my acts of moderation in order to throw folks off my scent, and to express my personal internal conflict with the choices I'm forced to make in my role as mad mod.

[Wink]
quote:
I have, from time to time, found myself in agreement with Everard, Tom Davidson, and Lisa, so please wrap your brilliant noggin around the fact that I agree with OM on the particular of this rule.
Clear this up for me: You actually think that bumping threads with just a "bump" should be prohibited (as in--this is a rule you would come up with and institute of your own volition), or you understand the justification of the mod in coming up with such a rule, you think it reasonable enough, and you're willing to abide by it?

I assume you mean the latter. The former would surprise me.

[ September 15, 2012, 09:15 PM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" I'd appreciate if you'd stop hanging my history over my head

That's fair. Apologies."

"Well, maybe you ought to stop alternating between presenting yourself as a martyr of the mod's personal vendettas"

Gee, what were we just saying about history? When did I last do that?

Based on emails, I'm quite sure that nothing I say or do will get this mod to like me or even to deal with me on the same neutral basis as OM deals with other members; I am on permanent double-probation. AFAIK no other Mod has ever personally written to the Cards to pre-approve my permanent and irrevocable banning from the forum should it become necessary. [Frown] OTOH, that doesn't mean that I cannot approve some of the mod's policies, e.g. the wall of shame thread, multiple threads to determine how Ornerians want things done. I think this OM is genuinely interested in improving Ornery. (And I mostly brought OM's enmity on myself). I think that OM is WRONG that the best way to improve Ornery is to get rid of me for good. But I otherwise disagree with G3 that this is the worst, or even the 2nd-worst OM that we've ever had. For one thing, OM's show ability to admit that OM made a mistake, even where I was concerned. And that alone makes OM better than some predecessors.

"staunch supporter"

tentative supporter. That's why I tested the limits of the rule. My initial response was negative, as you might note on page 1, but on reflection, I tentatively agree this is a good rule, with reservations that I've already expressed above.

[ September 16, 2012, 12:38 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"First and foremost: well done on the month of sobriety--genuine props, and it does show in your posts here."

I wouldn't go that far; I've just kept my boozing and my posting separate, which is another idea of OM's that I agree with (hope my agreement does not offend you [Razz] ).

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingprometheus:
Clear this up for me: You actually think that bumping threads with just a "bump" should be prohibited (as in--this is a rule you would come up with and institute of your own volition), or you understand the justification of the mod in coming up with such a rule, you think it reasonable enough, and you're willing to abide by it?

I assume you mean the latter. The former would surprise me.

Here you are right, mostly.

I consider the rule reasonable enough, and am willing to abide by it, and I also recognize that the rule is not something that OM plucked out of nowhere, but rather reasonably extrapolated it from Orson Scott Card's written guidelines for this forum.

No, it's not something that I would come up with on my own. I suspect that OM's been pestered by folks complaining about Thread Necromancy, and in a possible attempt to appease the torch and pitchfork crowd, issued this valid rule interpretation that will prevent a nominal number of thread bumps. I suspect that I've once again made myself persona non-grata around here by demonstrating the narrowness and reasonableness of the rule. But I did so to quash what I saw as an unnecessary conflict between Lisa and OM; I did so for the good of the forum. I don't care if you believe or agree with me; that was my motive, and I executed my plan with the utmost consideration for participants.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
SP:
"Well, maybe you ought to stop alternating between presenting yourself as a martyr of the mod's personal vendettas"

Pete:
"Gee, what were we just saying about history? When did I last do that?'

In the post directly before I inferred what I inferred:
quote:
Pete:
I'd also point out that G3 and I both are on thinner ice probation-wise than anyone else here

It also bears mentioning that the very next sentence after "When did I last do that?" is yet another example of you playing the martyr.
quote:
I'm quite sure that nothing I say or do will get this mod to like me or even to deal with me on the same neutral basis as OM deals with other members
I can understand not wanting ancient history dredged up and flung in your face out of nowhere, but I don't think you have a very good read on how others perceive some of the things you post, pal. You're the one who drags your history around with you, and flings it in everyone's face all the time.

I'm not trying to bust your balls here, buddy. I have a feeling that on your side of this, there's a guy who feels a bit wounded and betrayed by someone he considers a friend--a guy who feels attacked, and is upset at it.

On this side of the conversation is just a guy with issues regarding authority, who wants a throw-down fight with lots of yelling each and every time a rule-maker tries to take an inch--a guy who is annoyed to get interrupted in his fight-the-power rant, but can't help but be amused that the one Ornerite who would be best served by simply staying off of mod's radar, is the one Ornerite who apparently can't help but wander into the "Yo Mod" thread and make it all about himself personally...

Seriously, friend: your Ornery destiny really is in your hands. It sometimes just seems that you can't figure out how to stop those hands from a little tic you have of picking up any firearm you come across, pointing it at your feet, and pulling the trigger...

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But I did so to quash what I saw as an unnecessary conflict between Lisa and OM; I did so for the good of the forum. I don't care if you believe or agree with me; that was my motive, and I executed my plan with the utmost consideration for participants.
I do understand what you were trying to do. I know you well enough that it's easy to figure out that your motives were pure, and what they were in your mind.

And I get that you tried to minimize disruption with your bump-bomb--and frankly, you did a commendable job at limiting the impact on the thread title space, given that your goal was to move 3/4 of a page worth of threads around.

And I did look at all the obvious effort you put into coming up with so many responses. It has to have sucked to have done all of that work and then get bashed for it by a friend who was complaining about the problem you were really just trying to fix.

I get it.

There are angles here which you don't seem to follow--at all (you've apparently got major blind spots when it comes to other people's motives, and you seem to fill in whatever blanks you find with "the most personally attacking motive possible")--but I can see how this must all appear to you, and, through that lens, it does seem pretty unfair.

But ain't nobody the least bit mad at you here, just so it's clear.

[Smile]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"your goal was to move 3/4 of a page worth of threads around."

No. My goal was to move two (count them: 2) locked threads down the page to demonstrate that OM's word was good re unlocking them. Moving the other threads was merely a means to an end, and I left page 1 pretty very close to it was when I started, other than the timestamps.

You accused me of disrupting and losing active discussions; indeed I did no such thing.

"It also bears mentioning that the very next sentence after "When did I last do that?" is yet another example of you playing the martyr."

So you spin. But in the real world, martyrs don't mostly bring their problems on themselves, as I admitted that I did.

And what you quoted did NOT say that OM was acting from a personal vendetta -- I said that I believed that OM was doing what OM thought was best for the forum. So you are wrong on both counts, again. Go fish. You're annoying me.

"you seem to fill in whatever blanks you find with "the most personally attacking motive possible"

Not today. And not this week. Nor last week. So go fish, or learn to use the past tense.

"I'm not trying to bust your balls here, buddy."

Not trying, because it seems to come naturally to you. But I like you anyway. But you are being a pest today, as if you were trying to elicit the very behaviors that you condemn in me.

If that's your motive, then you have failed.

If that's not your motive, then reconsider your approach.

"Ornerite who apparently can't help but wander into the "Yo Mod" thread and make it all about himself personally..."

It seems to me that you are the one that started to make it all about me after I proved you mostly wrong. If it upsets you to be proven wrong, then you should probably continue (as usual) to stick to topics where one cannot be proven even partially wrong.

[ September 16, 2012, 03:21 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
martyrs don't mostly bring their problems on themselves
Martyr:

"a person who seeks sympathy or attention by feigning or exaggerating pain, deprivation, etc"

How aware would you guess you are of how people perceive you?
quote:
You're the one that started to make it all about me after I proved you mostly wrong.
I'm not sure how you think this happened--or even what you think I was saying that you proved wrong.

Feel free to enlighten me.

[ September 16, 2012, 03:29 AM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
How aware would you guess you are of how people perceive you?
How others perceive me has nothing to do with my motives, nor whether my feelings have been "exaggerated."

You're entrapping me. There's no way I can answer your questions without talking about myself. At which point you say that I'm making it about myself.

It's a bully's trick, SP. I'm surprised at you. I've put a lot of effort into being a better poster. Please stop trying to trip me up. And find something else to talk about. You want to talk about me, then email me or call. Ornery isn't my facebook page; please don't treat it as such.

[ September 16, 2012, 03:51 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
On the failure in Egypt thread, http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/6/14736/8.html, D Pace said:

"Now I'm going to pretend to respond intelligently to the idea that I need to contribute a wise thought to this thread in order to be able to post on it."

Now when was the last time that a new rule implementation motivated folks to even pretend to post more intelligently?

I'm liking this rule.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D Pace
Member
Member # 1493

 - posted      Profile for D Pace   Email D Pace       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
But the only reason I posted there was in civil disobedience to "moderation" of the mere act of posting.


Although it's better to probably say something, instead of just "bump". But locking the thread hurts other posters when there's a valid reason for the thread being topical again.

I really fail to see the need to exert authority as long as nobody's gouging, fish-hooking, or groin-kicking, figuratively speaking.

Posts: 376 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D Pace:
But the only reason I posted there was in civil disobedience to "moderation" of the mere act of posting.

And yet, despite that motivation, you ended up posting something useful, validating the very rule you set out to criticize. [Big Grin]

Oh, question not the need! A majority here were downright begging OM to exert a heavy hand, to make and enforce bold new rules. I never thought ANYTHING good would come of such a draconian mandate; I thought at best a new rule could be benign in the cancerous sense, but this one may, wonder of wonders, actually improve things around here.

quote:
I really fail to see the need to exert authority as long as nobody's gouging, fish-hooking, or groin-kicking, figuratively speaking.
I generally agree with that sentiment. And yet ... the principle of the stop light comes to mind. There's nothing inherent about the color red that says stop, or about green that says go, and yet a teeny bit of arbitrary order seems to save lives.

[ September 16, 2012, 04:14 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1