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 » Dear Mod (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Dear Mod
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:
[LOL]

...and there is the exact point: I don't consider myself responsible for your reactions or mode of engagement, even though I sometimes feel the negative emotion state that corresponds with "worry about a friend."

In the end, I know that you're really the one responsible for your own mode of engagement with me.

Dang. I moved my post to clarify context, and then you replied to it above my repost. Sorry.
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 
It's now officially an utter mess.

[Big Grin]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rev. Onnie Jay Holy
Member
Member # 6604

 - posted      Profile for Rev. Onnie Jay Holy   Email Rev. Onnie Jay Holy       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingprometheus:
VL
quote:
So you're saying only physical damage constitutes harm?
No. The fact that I qualified a specific type of harm actually means that I was implying that other types of harm exist.

I was, however, suggesting that you don't actually need community protection from the harm to your feelings that reading something can cause.

Look, I don't think the discourse here needs to be micromanaged either, but words are a form of action and it is the person who uses those words who is responsible for the consequences, not the person they use them on.

You have already acknowledged that not all forms of harm are physical so you already essentially conceded this point, and no no amount of sputtering on your part is going to undo that.

This is on the sign up page

quote:
You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this BB to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by this BB. In addition, we strongly recommend that you do not post personal information about yourself, such as full name, address, etc.
as is this

quote:
This board is moderated and the Moderator(s) has the authority and discretion to edit or remove any post considered to be in violation of the posting rules as described here and elsewhere, and to enforce the forum guidelines and standards through such means and by means of communication with individual members. The Moderator(s) also has the authority to take disciplinary action, including suspensions of posting privileges, banning of members, and deletions of accounts. Concerns or questions regarding the moderation or moderation policies of this board should be directed to the owners of the site.
Now unless this has changed since you registered you agreed to the presence of a moderator and some pretty restrictive rules when you joined.

If you don't like it you're free to hangout elsewhere online.

Posts: 84 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  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:
and no no amount of sputtering on your part is going to undo that.
[LOL]

Am I the one who is sputtering?

While you're pondering that, ask yourself if "sputtering" seems like the type of term that is calculated to elicit an emotional response.
quote:
but words are a form of action and it is the person who uses those words who is responsible for the consequences, not the person they use them on.
I've been arguing that people should take responsibility for their own mode of interaction, Onnie. There are absolutely consequences to your actions, and you absolutely are responsible for them.

But communication is a phenomenon that it requires both the action of transmission and the action of interpretation. I'm responsible for the messages I produce, VL, but you are responsible for how you choose to interpret and react to those messages.

I can take responsibility for the how my actions impact, say, my reputation: if I constantly speak like a dishonest douche, and fail to understand or acknowledge the obviously valid points that interlocutors make, then I can't blame others for dismissing me as a troll--my self-presentation is my own responsibility.

But this notion that you're a passive victim of other people's words--that you're not responsible for your own reaction to what somebody else says--is absolutely absurd.

Take responsibility for yourself.

[ September 21, 2013, 07:38 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 
SP, the personal responsibility fairy. [Smile]

Sorry about the mess.

Getting back in 03 or 04, I actually got suspended for three freaking months for deleting some of my own posts? I kid you not. It wasn't the content of the posts. Just the act of deletion. Gah. I'm a fan of simple rules, Very short suspensions. Keep things calm with a minimum of harm. Maximum light minimum heat.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And you're an adult. You shouldn't need adult supervision. .
I think world history demonstrates that there are almost zero people for whom this holds true.
Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 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 
I wish that there were some way to expand our editing privileges, myself.

I get that changing things after others have already responded to the original form doesn't work because it changes the context in which interlocutor's responses should be understood, but I tend to edit my syntax, word selection, and meter a lot before I post, and I hate going back and re-reading something to see how a conversation took the direction it did, only to realize that a "correction" I was trying to make completely omitted a key part of a sentence, or otherwise rendered my meaning completely unintelligible. My permanent orthographical errors drive me insane, too...

...a writer can wish...

But yeah, getting suspended for months for taking something back sounds pretty ridiculous.

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rev. Onnie Jay Holy
Member
Member # 6604

 - posted      Profile for Rev. Onnie Jay Holy   Email Rev. Onnie Jay Holy       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
SP yes you're sputtering.

You agreed when you signed up that you'd submit to some specific rules and a moderator. Take responsibility for that.

Posts: 84 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  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, the argument was about Kwanzaa. Can you imagine a more stupid subject for people to go ape*** over? There were no less than 5 people on the forum demanding that I be permanently banned. Freaking Kwanzaa. !!! So anyway when people talk about how awful the moderators are now, or how past years used to be the good ol days, I get a mite prickley. Not that I don't miss some of the wonderful characters. But the good ol days weren't always good.

[ September 21, 2013, 08:27 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:
SP yes you're sputtering.
Huh. I'm usually aware when my utterances devolve into stutterances. I guess I'll just have to take your word on the matter at its worth.

I will confess, though, that you seem to me to be the teakettle whose spout-stop is starting to shudder and flutter right now... Do you suppose it's possible that your insight into the source of this sputtering is slightly obscured by some steam in your sight line?
quote:
You agreed when you signed up that you'd submit to some specific rules and a moderator.
Did I agree not to criticize the woeful subjectivity and/or longstanding historical failure of efficacy of such things?
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 
Pete:
quote:
But the good ol days weren't always good.
Good old days never really were. But I tend to like the fact that the human memory applies a rose-colored lens to the past.
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 
Yeah, my first day on Ornery in 2001,before I even posted people were talking about how great things had been. And a week later, some were talking about how great things had been before I have arrived [Smile] before G3, before Richard Dey, before Balder, I was the snake in the garden of ornery.
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:
before G3, before Richard Dey, before Balder, I was the snake in the garden of ornery.
I shudder t'thunk what you mean.

[Wink]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The average causticness has steadily increased, and Pete was definitely the first poster to consistently push the line.

Yes the 'good old days' did exist, and the average politeness throughout ornerys history has steadily been on a downward trend. I think perhaps the trend has somewhat reversed since I don't think now is as worse as it has been in years past, but we are in the lull of election cycles and we tend to be our worst when they approach.

Also we have found a bit of unity in the NSA spying stuff where everyone tends to be disgusted with all the politicians.

[ September 22, 2013, 02:20 AM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 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 
LR, I respectfully submit that gangbanging every newby that hits back as hard as he's been hit, is not the signpost of some utopia of civility.
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 
At least it wasn't for this Newby
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom:
quote:
You know what?
I gave this some thought the other day, and I've got to admit that I'm actually glad this mod is trying.

Glad to hear that. I agree entirely, even with the inevitable errors that the Mod will make.

SP:
quote:
And people really need to stop whining to try to limit the free speech of others.
I for one don't want to limit free speech. Everyone agrees that different venues and contexts are intended for certainly formats. You will be asked to leave a wedding if you want to grab the mike and talk about how the right or left political persuasions have perverted our freedoms. You'll be kicked out of a funeral if you stand up and ask if anybody wants to get laid. I could give 1000 examples of inappropriate but free speech.

Are you saying that anybody should be allowed to say anything, that this forum places no constraints on appropriate discussion? That would allow for trolling, advertising, spamming and my personal fave, lying (intentionally posting content known to be false that is intended to deceive). It would also allow people to insult each other freely, post links to pornography, call Mormons evil, etc., etc., etc.

I can't believe that you truly would want that, so be a little more clear about what you really think the limits should be. But if you do want to allow all of the things I mentioned, then say that. If we went that way there would be no need at all for a Moderator.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rev. Onnie Jay Holy
Member
Member # 6604

 - posted      Profile for Rev. Onnie Jay Holy   Email Rev. Onnie Jay Holy       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You agreed when you signed up that you'd submit to some specific rules and a moderator.

Did I agree not to criticize the woeful subjectivity and/or longstanding historical failure of efficacy of such things?

You accepted the terms of the contract when you joined. It's ridiculous for you to complain about people asking the rules to be enforced when you agreed to the rules.

AS to your attempts to paint me as some kind of hypocrite, I don't think the level of baiting you engage in is worthy of mod interference. I just find your defense of your position absurd and disingenuous.

My problem is with this

quote:
I'm responsible for the messages I produce, VL, but you are responsible for how you choose to interpret and react to those messages.
If you go out of your way to be insulting then the person you're insulting is not responsible for feeling insulted. Any other interpretation would be a misinterpretation. Now maybe they'd have the discipline not respond emotionally, but that's really not normal.

You're smart enough to be aware of illogical of the point you're arguing, but you're also too proud to admit it because, like so many people here, once you've committed to a point you regard abandoning it as inexcusable weakness.

quote:
When certain schoolchildren run to the teacher over and over and over to complain about what other kids are saying, the teacher should explain to the tattletales that sticks and stones may hurt bones but words can't really hurt you.
Now in this situation if a little girl runs to the teacher and says "Bobby called me a stupidhead" yes the teacher would probably give the child the "sticks and stones speech" if, however she runs over and says "Bobby called me a stupid c***" she's going to intervene.

I don't think Seneca should have gotten reprimanded for talking about freedom hating liberals generally.

However I do think G3 deserved to be reprimanded a couple years ago when he talked about liberals having their lips wrapped around a certain executives cock, which was the cumulation of a series of attempts he seemed to be making to see just how much he could get away with.

Your ideas sound nice in theory, but first of all they were a failure in practice, and second of all, and I can't stress this enough, they're not what we agreed to when we signed up.

[ September 22, 2013, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: Rev. Onnie Jay Holy ]

Posts: 84 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rev. Onnie Jay Holy
Member
Member # 6604

 - posted      Profile for Rev. Onnie Jay Holy   Email Rev. Onnie Jay Holy       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Al Gee, does that mean that even after you were disciplined by an authority figure you don't want their post abolished? What's wrong with you? Don't you love free speech? [Smile]

This is the same problem I have with libertarians (despite leaning their directions. The idea that the free market has the god-like ability to solve EVERY problem, (and that the ones it can't solve must not be real problems).

Posts: 84 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Al Gee, does that mean that even after you were disciplined by an authority figure you don't want their post abolished? What's wrong with you? Don't you love free speech? [Smile]"

I love the feel of leather across my bare skin even more! FWIW, I'm back from my second round of detention today. I guess I've been a little too free with my speech lately.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah, I've got no sympathy for the "free speech" canard. There are thousands of message boards that allow exactly what sp is asking for, on any topic imaginable. Most political boards are much more open than here. But those who want more leash to be rude to varying degrees don't ever just go where its welcome; instead, they seem to want to stay here. I imagine that being one sarcastic troll among hundreds isn't terribly fulfilling, but its probably very entertaining on a board that attracts civil posters who prefer discussion to dueling. You get to be the one making all the zingers.

What seems lost here is the fact that, were Ornery to actually allow this, it would not be Ornery anymore. It would be another obnoxious troll-hoard, full of semi-literate rants for the passionately angry but only moderately informed. People who want actual discussion will go elsewhere, and there won't be a fun group of squares to pick at anymore.

Whatever one thinks of OSC, he created a very specific environment here, an exceptionally narrow one when it comes to posting behaviors, and then used his celebrity to people it. That's what Ornery is; a small, strictly civil discussion forum. And what it has yielded is a pretty exceptional level of informed, intelligent discourse (by internet standards). Now, OSC's involvement seems to have waned to almost zero, and the board seems to be self-governed (do new mods even need to be cleared by the Cards?). So, at this point, it could continue as it has, or change course, and become something different. I find it strange that people would argue for the latter, since what it would become already exists in droves, and if you like it how it is, why would you want to mess that up? Because if you think this place would be the way it is without its rules and active moderation, you really need to check out some other message boards. Ornery is the *extreme* exception.

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 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 
VVL
I don't think Seneca should have gotten reprimanded ...

I don't either but I'm not sure that he was reprimanded, per se. Moderator might have been giving friendly advice. And may have been responding to Seneca's complaint in the first place. Some members including one member who is usually extremely polite, it only two or three exceptions in the entire 10 years I've known him here, suggested that Seneca might be mentally ill. The latter is a pretty strong breach of etiquette. There seems to be some missing steps to the logic of the original post. The moderator may simply have been trying to explain to Seneca why people were responding to him in the way that they were.

I think the appropriate way to handle this, is to say when you say XY&Z, it sounds loopy to me.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I won't say specifically whether he should or shouldn't have been banned, but there is a consistent pattern in his remarks where he refers to people who are in favor of increased gun controls or new laws as "hoplophobes", anti-freedom leftists, and even rabid anti-freedom left. Since he's not specifically saying my name or the name of others here who are in favor of increased gun control legislation, but he makes those remarks in direct response to posts criticizing Zimmerman's carrying or the relative safety of carrying weapons in public, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that he includes us in his characterizations.

In the future I will ask him to clarify if his comments include me, and if he doesn't respond that I am not one of those people I will report him to the Mod.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  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 
Al:
quote:
Are you saying that anybody should be allowed to say anything, that this forum places no constraints on appropriate discussion?
I don't think you'll find me on the record here making statements to this effect.
quote:
I can't believe that you truly would want that, so be a little more clear about what you really think the limits should be
I think that what needs to be limited is the way certain individuals are consistently manipulating the moderation policies to push their points in the toxic communicative relationships that they themselves are at least partially responsible for engendering rather than modifying their discursive approach.

Onnie:
quote:
If you go out of your way to be insulting then the person you're insulting is not responsible for feeling insulted.
Sure they are. The insulter is responsible for their actions, and the insultee is responsible for their actions. We may have social conventions which contextualize our perceptions of social culpability, but the fact that societal norms impact social judgments doesn't actually permit us to abnegate our personal responsibility for our own actions on a more fundamental level.

Notice, by the way, that your hypothetical only works because we freely speculate that the motive of the insulter was to give insult. And while I personally believe that it's obvious that motive inference is a necessary and natural part of any functional communicative cycle, the guidelines of the forum stipulate that we can't actually ever infer someone's motive was to give insult, or, at least, we can't ever act upon such an assumption unless a poster explicitly cops to his/her insulting intent.
quote:
You're smart enough to be aware of illogical of the point you're arguing, but you're also too proud to admit it because, like so many people here, once you've committed to a point you regard abandoning it as inexcusable weakness.
Thanks for clarifying what my motives are for everyone, Onnie.

But I don't believe you should be censured for stating your beliefs about my reasons for maintaining the validity of the points I make, even if it does boil down to you claiming that I'm being dishonest/disingenuous in my argument rather than acknowledging the possibility that I might be right.

Because I think you should be allowed to say what you think, regardless of whether it seems insulting and intellectually dishonest to me.
quote:
AS to your attempts to paint me as some kind of hypocrite
Allow me to point out that I haven't said anything to this effect. Do you think it's possible that the image you interpret is just something that emerges into relief when the paint you yourself are supplying is juxtaposed in ways you don't normally see?

Adam:
quote:
What seems lost here is the fact that, were Ornery to actually allow this, it would not be Ornery anymore. It would be another obnoxious troll-hoard, full of semi-literate rants for the passionately angry but only moderately informed.
What a terrifyingly slippery slope we face, huh? Fortunately, we seem to have enough self-congratulatory hot air around here to simply float away whenever we approach the precipice...

[Wink]

[ September 22, 2013, 08:20 PM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rev. Onnie Jay Holy
Member
Member # 6604

 - posted      Profile for Rev. Onnie Jay Holy   Email Rev. Onnie Jay Holy       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
SP

It's not speculating to presume that one someone calls a person a c**** that they mean it as an insult. There is no neutral interpretation of a great many words. When you use that laughing emoticon there is no other plausible interpretation to it other than mockery.

You should be man enough to own your insults and not scurry behind distractions and insist that no one can prove you meant to be insulting.

Anyway none of this is relevant. You agreed to have your free speech limited in this forum when you joined. If you've got buyer's remorse now you can go elsewhere. The web is full if places where you can express your opinions uncensored to your heart's content.

[ September 22, 2013, 08:29 PM: Message edited by: Rev. Onnie Jay Holy ]

Posts: 84 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  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 
The laughing emoticon most plausibly means that I find something funny, Onnie.
quote:
You should be man enough to own your insults and not scurry behind distractions and insist that no one can prove you meant to be insulting.
Why should I take responsibility for the subjective, internal emotional state that corresponds with your interpretation of the things I say?

You can't get angry because somebody points out how your actions are in contradiction with your stated values, and demand that not only should they take responsibility for how their perceptions of your actions make you feel, but that they should come out and own up the negative characterization of motives which you ascribe to them.

Or, rather, you can demand whatever you want, but you should understand that some of your demands seem highly unreasonable.

The fact that you may feel insulted when someone points out how your actions contradict the persona you wish to publicly present is completely understandable to my mind. But you really do need to start taking responsibility for your own part in all the creation of meaning that is produced by communication.

[ September 22, 2013, 09:33 PM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingprometheus:
Why should I take responsibility for the subjective, internal emotional state that corresponds with your interpretation of the things I say?

A good demonstration that we need a moderator is that you have to ask this question. You could just as easily ask "Why should I take responsibility for the subjective, internal emotional state that corresponds with your interpretation of me punching you in the nose?" You would be missing the obvious to the exact same degree.

If you want a more poetic rebuttal, consider this Sufi parable:

"A certain man climbed a tree and vigorously scattered the fruit like a thief from the branches. The owner of the orchard shouted up from the ground, “What are you doing, you rascal?”

The man in the tree shouted back, “I am merely a servant of God in God’s orchard, and I have the right to take and eat God’s fruits, which were given to me by Him. How can you blame me and be so stingy at the table of the all-rich Lord?”

The owner grabbed the leg of the thief and dragged him down to the ground, then bound him with a rope to the tree and beat his legs with a club. The thief cried horribly, ‘Stop, stop, have some reverence for God. You’re killing an innocent”.

The owner replied, “With God’s club I beat you. It’s God’s club, and the wood and shape of it belongs to God. I am only the instrument of His Command”.

Maulana Rumi says, “Remember my friend, O thief in my court, the oil that devotes itself to the rose, smell the oil or the rose as you please”.

If you want to hold the attitude that you can behave how you please here; and that other people's reactions to that are their own problem, then you should happily concede that the community can report you, have you banned for it, and let your reaction to that be your problem. Certainly we shouldn't care about your subject, internal emotional responses to such actions, right?

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I think that what needs to be limited is the way certain individuals are consistently manipulating the moderation policies to push their points in the toxic communicative relationships that they themselves are at least partially responsible for engendering rather than modifying their discursive approach."

You have your way, and others have theirs. I might alliterate a lot, but I prefer the punishing pun and the deserved ding because some things really are over the line. Whatever, we'll keep talking. Now that I've got a few bans under my belt I'll try to remember where the line is at a given point in time.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rev. Onnie Jay Holy
Member
Member # 6604

 - posted      Profile for Rev. Onnie Jay Holy   Email Rev. Onnie Jay Holy       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The laughing emoticon most plausibly means that I find something funny, Onnie.
Not in the context you use it. You only use it to mock. Be a man and own your rhetoric.

quote:
Why should I take responsibility for the subjective, internal emotional state that corresponds with your interpretation of the things I say?
Because the emotional response you try to elicit isn't subjective. Your language is transparently intended to elicit an emotional response.

This argument of yours is a dead letter.

[ September 22, 2013, 11:26 PM: Message edited by: Rev. Onnie Jay Holy ]

Posts: 84 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
vegimo
Member
Member # 6023

 - posted      Profile for vegimo   Email vegimo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Two words I would love to see less of here are "demand" and "concede."
Posts: 255 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
This is the same problem I have with libertarians (despite leaning their directions. The idea that the free market has the god-like ability to solve EVERY problem, (and that the ones it can't solve must not be real problems).
[Eek!] First I find out I’ve been misrepresenting myself as a liberal and am apparently a centrist, now I find out I’m a libertarian. I do love this place. You learn new stuff all the time. Occasionally about yourself no less.

One point I wanted to make by this topic was for the mod to be more conscious of how their decisions were perceived and what effect mod actions have upon the community beyond the individual being reprimanded. Keeping the fight clean and blows landing above the belt is an honorable goal for a ref. You can’t however make the athletes afraid to throw any punches at all for fear of a penalty.

In my opinion the mod, contrary to the rest of us apparently, MUST engage in motive speculation. If the intent was not to offend then you give more leeway. If the intent is to offend despite holding to the letter of the rules then you give less leeway. If the person reporting a post has a history of inflammatory or prevocational posts then blow off that report unless it is particularly offensive. Or inform the reporter that you are willing to suspend the individual for the rule break but they will be suspended right alongside the individual for provoking the offender.

This is after all just rambling as it was pointed out we agreed to the rules of the land when we signed up. Crying about it now is not nearly as productive as crying to game the system to silence your opponents.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Very nicely written, Seekingprometheus, thank you. I agree that some of the calls for moderation have been worse and more destructive than the conduct that was complained about.

I do disagree with the idea that the current moderator is not doing a reasonable job. While personally, I'd rather that no moderation was needed, I can't reasonably object to moderation that is designed to keep a debate civil. Getting control of blatant insults and motive speculation is a good thing, trying to convince the moderator to censor others because you disagree with their content - not so good. I think its been a trying few weeks for the current mod, but the results are not that bad.

I also strongly agree with you that taking offense is something within your own control, and accordingly, I may have reported someone one time in the twenty or so years I've been using message boards (and I'd probably take that one back). If one can't handle reading someone's words, why keep reading them?

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RedVW on a Laptop
Member
Member # 615

 - posted      Profile for RedVW on a Laptop   Email RedVW on a Laptop   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is like arguing about pornogrphy and its definition. There are fewer active threads now than in the past. The threads that are active however, tend to have rapid spats of activity. So if you have been here a long time you have some perspective as to how heated exchanges get now versus five years ago. The lack of active threads now makes any interactions more noticeable. In the past it was easy to miss a heated exchange simply because there was too much to read.

The scope of topics has minimized over the years. The length of posts with new content added by a member has diminished. The block quoting of texts has gone through the roof. Instead of the deliberate and staid speed of the past, people now spend time quoting text blocks back to each other instead of actually having a discussion. In this environment, it is very easy for people to argue presentation instead of content of ideas. It's debate on the level of gotcha moments where a typo or poor word choice results in people focussing on winning points.

I can put up with snarky comments. I can deal with the walls of text block quotes. I can even deal with the political drift. What I do have difficulty with is when people you argue with discount the statement you type as being invalid simply because it is easier to shout down an argument by ignoring it rather than actually discussing the argument like adults.

Posts: 507 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
When has that not been true? I was originally drawn to Ornery in 2005 because of some of the more intellectual discussions on evolution, the Iraq war and political freedoms. It was so vicious back then that it took me months before I made my first innocuous post. That nobody eviscerated me for it boosted my confidence and over a long period of time I became a more regular contributor.

The difference between then and now is that there are fewer posters and that a higher proportion of topics these days are purely confrontational. You wouldn't think that a thread on Zimmerman and Martin would devolve into a contest over gun rights where people used the two protagonists as nothing more than avatars of either good or evil. But, so it did.

That's ok in and of itself. What's worse is that the prevalence of aggressive posts with wide-ranging denigrations of people who disagree with the person's committed point of view leaves less and less room for any kind of discussion.

FWIW, I disagree with you on most topics, sometimes so strongly that I shake my head that you can even think the thoughts you do. But I have never shrunk from engaging you because you are always thinking about the topic at hand. I can handle our differences because you are willing to engage and respond to what others actually say. There is one obvious poster and sometimes one other with whom I can't find any substance at all in their posts and instead see nothing but disdain, disrespect and condescension. That never would have been tolerated in the old days.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Maybe it's time for G3 to find another half dozen catch news article excerpts to start a chain of new threads. The veracity of that info or opposition to their points all while trying to determine how much if any of the viewpoints expressed (or framed to express) G3 actually holds is also worth a good flurry of post counts. [Smile]
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RedVW on a Laptop
Member
Member # 615

 - posted      Profile for RedVW on a Laptop   Email RedVW on a Laptop   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lol Al I generally don't have an issue with you or your arguments. Most are reiterations of the mainstream media. What I like to engage you in is when you are not reiterating. I've watched people grow up and frequently change their arguments. There are still some hard core believers of the world view they had at age 18. But you see changes in people as they get older. There are people I wanted to kill at one point. Pete for example. But I count him as a true friend and suggest we have both mellowed over the years. Them there are relationships such as mine with Tom. Tom hasn't changed either his posting style or his point of view in years. He tends to irritate me because after all these years I'm not even sure if he believes what he writes. But he is part of what makes Ornery what it is. I'm not sure I like it when I can't count on reading one of his snarky passive aggressive comments or what happens when someone calls him on it. Tar babies tend to engulf, and most of us avoid it.

And each of us had some variation on the ornery theme. I'm sure people hate my wall of texts. I'm sure people hate when I wax imperious. And I know that many people actually hate me. I know many people do not even read what I post and simply assume what I wrote.

Most of this gets ignored by us unless we start losing our tempers. It's the times when it gets under our skin that causes issues. I'm sorry but the fact is G3 gets treated pretty astound lay bad by many people here. I doubt he enjoys this fact. But I have seen him suffer from being a shot messenger more than once.

And he is not the only example.

So maybe we could all be a bit less snarky, argumentative, and presumptive and stop the degrading of threads to where every letter typed becomes vendeta incarnate.

If a moderator is truely crossing the lines it has never, ever been a case where that moderator isn't swiftly removed. So everyone just relax.

Posts: 507 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
starLisa
Member
Member # 2543

 - posted      Profile for starLisa   Email starLisa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I post quite a lot on Facebook. It's possible that some of you are friended to me there, so you know this.

I have the power to moderate the comments that appear on my posts. I can't edit them (other than my own comments), but I can delete them. And I can ban people who violate my rules too egregiously and won't stop.

But I find I rarely have to. Because heavy handed moderation stifles discourse and makes everyone feel like they're dealing with Big Brother. It's stupid and counterproductive.

I don't let people engage in "You're an a**hole" type comments. Not even if they're on my side. Actually, especially if they're on my side. But short of that, I let discussion go where it wants.

If someone starts throwing slurs at an entire group, then it's a judgment call. If I know there are people involved in the thread who will take such comments as slurs against them, I treat it that way. Otherwise, I often do not.

I've noticed that heavy-handed moderating tends to drive away even people who aren't particularly argumentative, simply because it changes the atmosphere to a very negative and strained one. Far more than some spirited arguing does.

I'm posting this in full knowledge that the current moderator will dismiss it, since that's his M.O. But maybe if other people here become moderators some day, it will make a difference.

Posts: 2066 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  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 
Adam:
quote:
You could just as easily ask "Why should I take responsibility for the subjective, internal emotional state that corresponds with your interpretation of me punching you in the nose?"
What about when the context of the question includes the fact that my interlocutor is claiming that I mean things that I really haven't actually said, and denying that they have any responsibility for the interpretive liberty they take? Do you suppose that some of the distinctions between the consequences of sticks-and-stones-and-punches-in-the-nose and the consequences of words might apply in such a case?

To put it another way: can I take your Sufi "rebuttal" to my hypothetical question, insist that my subjective interpretation of your words is that you are calling me a thief and saying that I should be beaten, and demand that you admit that you were trying to insult and physically threaten me?

Or rather, I obviously can claim that that's what you really meant...but I confess I'd be a bit worried that it might look like I was trying to shove words you didn't actually say into your mouth, and then denounce you for it--know what I mean? [Wink]

So you tell me, Osho: do you accept full responsibility for my internal, subjective state of feeling physically threatened and insulted by your real meaning, or do you think I bear some responsibility for how I interpret and react to what you said?
quote:
If you want to hold the attitude that you can behave how you please here; and that other people's reactions to that are their own problem, then you should happily concede that the community can report you, have you banned for it, and let your reaction to that be your problem.
This is actually a good demonstration of one of the real moderation problems we have here, to my mind. There are a few of you who have developed the habit of insisting that you can explain what other people really mean, and ganging up to explain to the mod and the forum at large that your consensus subjective interpretation of real meaning of someone else's posts is in violation of the rules.

And since moderators are highly subjective, biased individuals themselves, this social-bullying tactic actually succeeds from time to time.

[ September 23, 2013, 07:10 PM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OpsanusTau
Member
Member # 2350

 - posted      Profile for OpsanusTau   Email OpsanusTau   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
your consensus subjective interpretation of real meaning of someone else's posts is in violation of the rules.
In the sentences that follow, "you" is to be understood as the rhetorical second person only - not SP specifically (since to be totally I honest I tend to skim SP's posts as heavy on words and light on content, so I have no idea to what extent this would even apply) or any other person. I really just couldn't think of another equally effective way to say it.

When everyone but you thinks you're being a jerk, maybe you are actually being a jerk. Or if everyone but you thinks that something you just said was really rude, maybe it's time to update the internal rude-o-meter.

Posts: 3791 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  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 
Seriati:
quote:
I do disagree with the idea that the current moderator is not doing a reasonable job.
I'm an on-again-off-again poster, so I haven't followed what the new mod has been doing that much--I wasn't even aware of the change in hands until a couple of days ago--but it really seems that the current mod is at the very least using his position to go after DJ out of a personal bias.
Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

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