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 » About civility at Ornery.

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: About civility at Ornery.
seagull
Member
Member # 694

 - posted      Profile for seagull   Email seagull   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Those who would blame OrneryMod for “allowing” the forum to get out of hand a few months ago should realize that we ALL share that blame. Any one of us can step in and point out to people that they are being uncivil. Some of the more level headed people here like LetterRip, kentakian, Everard, and msquared (when not acting as OrneryMod) often do so and since they do not do it too often their words have an effect. In fact, TomD has been doing so much of it that he lost some (but not all) of his credibility, some people started to ignore him and just go on with their discussions. Even some of the more controversial posters (like Redskull, PeteAtHome and Baldar) sometimes successfully call for a return to a meaningful discussion and with their established credentials and staying power, many of us have enough regard and respect for them that they do get listened to.

I think it is OUR job to keep Ornery a civilized, honest, interesting and intellectually challenging place. If you think there are other qualities that draw you to this forum, please add them to YOUR list of things that YOU would like to encourage. But, please do not try to tell the rest of us what this forum is about, or how we should behave. The only one who can do that it the owner of the site and he has chosen (wisely IMHO) to relegate that responsibility to OrneryMod.

We are all guest of the Cards here in more than one sense. OSC created this forum, and even if he is not visibly active as a member, many of us first got here from his web site after reading and enjoying his wonderful books. Having that common experience makes it much more likely to find Kindred spirits here than in a random internet forum.

Those who criticize OrneryMod should remember that YOU are the one responsible for your own posts on this forum and that (as Redskull sometimes points out) there are consequences to being rude or shoddy on this forum that do not require a moderator to intervene. It is not OrneryMod’s job to referee between us. We as a community are pretty good at doing that ourselves and OrneryMod is very wisely respecting (maybe even encouraging) that precious living spirit of Ornery. As a volunteer we should all thank him for spending the time he does making this forum a better place.

As a volunteer, it is not Mark’s job to keep Ornery civil or to check the truth of every post and link. We as members have done it for a long time and without the collective brain power of people who regularly come to this site - it would not be what it is. Lately we have been failing at keeping the discussion civil. People, who feel cornered or ganged up on, sometimes respond in kind when no one comes to their defense (sometimes creating multiple personalities to do so). Others (like Baldar and Pete) who could hold their own even in dirty fights, refused to let their voice be drowned by innuendos.

What Pete did to get banned was mostly a reflection of the behavior of others. All he did (probably on purpose and better than I ever could) was to demonstrate how bad things got and call it to the attention of OrneryMod who as a part time volunteer was in the unfortunate position of having to deal with it.

Mark has limited time to moderate this place, organize OrneryCon and be an active member as msquared. He is doing this on a volunteer basis and IMHO this forum is much better served by his style of hands-off but active moderation than it was by the almost complete lack of moderation that preceded it. I do not always understand why he does what he does, but I do not have to understand it to appreciate it.

Those who accuse OrneryMod of making mistakes (everyone makes mistakes) or think they could have done better, probably do not realize how hard it would have been for anyone (including themselves) to reach any kind of consensus on ANYTHING at Ornery. Even if it were not for the ORNERY name, [ [Wink] ]there are enough Jews here that this would obviously be impossible (wherever you have two Jews, you’ll have at least 10 opinions). [/ [Wink] ]

No, I am not a member of the much maligned “secret police” and I do not even know who they are. I do thank them, however, for volunteering to spend their time helping Mark do what had to be done. I also trust Mark and Pete’s judgment in choosing them and think that considering that they were there to HELP OrneryMod make a more objective decision (which was still eventually up to him and him alone) it is not fair for us “Hot heads” (as Pete likes to call himself) to criticize Mark for not asking us to make his job HARDER by requiring him to read our comments and try to reconcile them.

When OrneryMod (with Pete’s prodding) eventually managed to take action on what obviously took much deliberation and consultation with others, is it any wonder that he did not have time to send warning messages or explain his logic? It was already too late to prevent the deterioration and action was needed (rather than words) to correct it. Even if OrneryMod never said it explicitly, it was clear to anyone who read his announcements that a message had to be sent that “IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO BE CIVIL” and that “I didn’t get a warning” was no excuse for being a bully. Consequences can come without warning both in real life and on this forum. Mark has a real life to live and having reached a decision and taken the action he thought was necessary it was time for him to get back to his real life.

Is it unfortunate that some people got suspended without warning – Yes.
Did everyone on that list really need to be suspended – I don’t know.
Was it OrneryMod’s fault that unfortunate things happened – No.
Could anyone else have done better -- Maybe a saint could?
Am I glad that they are all allowed back? – Yes!!!!

OrneryMod did his best and we are lucky to have him here.

I have heard much criticism of OrneryMod’s actions and I understand that several of the Ornery 8 have chosen to start their own forum. I can understand their frustration and have followed several links here on Ornery to some interesting discussions on the Ai-Jane forum. I don’t think this is necessarily a bad thing for Ornery. If just a few of us are enough to create such a interesting spin-off, it only reflects better on the rest of us. I hope that as time goes by AI-Jane will keep growing and that it manages to survive its own internal strife and first major moderation actions. For now, I wish them luck with the but I have yet to see enough activity, volume or membership there to justify going there directly when I am looking for an interesting discussion and analysis of current events. So for those of you who spend time on both forums: I appreciate occasional comments and links to discussions on Ai-Jane so I can follow them. I will probably remain a lurker there until I find a topic that I care about. I am much more likely to do find such a topic if I hear about it on a cross post at Ornery. But I am much LESS likely to become active if AI-Jane presents itself as a competitor to Ornery rather than as a sibling.

Posts: 1910 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"is it any wonder that he did not have time to send warning messages or explain his logic?"

I'm having difficulty imagining a situation so urgent that eight people had to be banned immediately, without explanation or warning, after two months of gossipy deliberation.

Perhaps if aliens were about to invade, or one of us had developed some kind of textual bomb that would have threatened the lives of small children -- but what, in your imagination, justifies immediate action without notification?

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Leto
Member
Member # 570

 - posted      Profile for Leto   Email Leto   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Those who accuse OrneryMod of making mistakes (everyone makes mistakes) or think they could have done better, probably do not realize how hard it would have been for anyone (including themselves) to reach any kind of consensus on ANYTHING at Ornery.
I don't care about the mistakes, I know I could do better (no offense, m^2), and I certainly realize how difficult it is. Also, there is no consensus needed but the one between the Cards and the moderator. All else is a gift.
Posts: 942 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Leto
Member
Member # 570

 - posted      Profile for Leto   Email Leto   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh, and Tom:
quote:
I'm having difficulty imagining a situation so urgent that eight people had to be banned immediately, without explanation or warning, after two months of gossipy deliberation.
Hey, at least Mark went and explained it after the fact. I can think of other places who haven't even that much respect for others to do the same.
Posts: 942 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom,

seagull pretty much hit the nail on the head. Let the mod look to his own duties, you should look to yours first.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mv
Member
Member # 462

 - posted      Profile for mv     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
An unofficial answer to Seagull's comments (I don't speak for Jane, I only listen to her):

quote:

I have heard much criticism of OrneryMod’s actions and I understand that several of the Ornery 8 have chosen to start their own forum. I can understand their frustration and have followed several links here on Ornery to some interesting discussions on the Ai-Jane forum. I don’t think this is necessarily a bad thing for Ornery. If just a few of us are enough to create such a interesting spin-off, it only reflects better on the rest of us. I hope that as time goes by AI-Jane will keep growing and that it manages to survive its own internal strife and first major moderation actions. For now, I wish them luck with the but I have yet to see enough activity, volume or membership there to justify going there directly when I am looking for an interesting discussion and analysis of current events. So for those of you who spend time on both forums: I appreciate occasional comments and links to discussions on Ai-Jane so I can follow them. I will probably remain a lurker there until I find a topic that I care about. I am much more likely to do find such a topic if I hear about it on a cross post at Ornery. But I am much LESS likely to become active if AI-Jane presents itself as a competitor to Ornery rather than as a sibling.

We don't see and don't seek competition. OA seems to coexist just fine with the older Hatrack forum: they offer different menus. So shall we. View AIJ as a coffee shop, and OA as a bar; any town needs both. You can probably see some differences in the kind of threads and topics we have now; as Jane's personality develops -- those AI's are slow -- the differences will become clearer.

We see no problem with posters attending different forums, looking for threads that are more interesting to them. We are certain that there will be days when OA would offer better threads than AIJ, and vice versa.

We see cooperation that ultimately would improve both forums, not a messy divorce battle.

Observe also that some of the better posts on AIJ came from our members that never posted on OA.

A more interesting question is this:

quote:

I will probably remain a lurker there until I find a topic that I care about.

The direction of AIJ greatly depends on the posters. My own vision is to pull AIJ toward International Politics and History and improve these subforums; but others have different ideas, and are welcome to build up other areas. Now, we even have a hiphop discussion: an apocalyptic disaster for any forum that tries to be serious. Since we got no idea what you are looking for -- unless you give us some hint -- you may have to lurk for a while.

quote:

I hope that as time goes by AI-Jane will keep growing and that it manages to survive its own internal strife and first major moderation actions.

Thank you. We don't seem to have much of an internal strife yet. Moderation is more serious, and we did have our share of violations, headaches, and warnings. Our intention is to be very strict with repeated personal attacks and PG-13 violations; how well we can implement it remains to be seen. (The basic idea: smaller but cleanly run forum is preferrable to a larger but messier.)

[ May 03, 2004, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: mv ]

Posts: 1798 | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Let the mod look to his own duties, you should look to yours first."

Seriously, man, you do a terrible job of ignoring me for someone who says, whenever I talk to you, that you're ignoring me. [Smile]

I don't HAVE any duties on this forum -- no more than you do. I do, however, believe that the Mod could use the help -- and the advice. Frankly, he CERTAINLY needs better advice than the sort he'd get -- and has received -- from you.

[ May 03, 2004, 09:07 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron
Member
Member # 1698

 - posted      Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't know Tom. Such a small minded attack, kind of like your jibes and digs, kind of like calling people you don't like stupid, kind of like laughing at people and calling them whiney, kind of like trying to tell other people how to do their job when you break the very rules those people try to keep for this forum. Everybody has flaws Tom, we all make mistakes, sometimes we even feel contrition about the mistakes shown to us. I really don't see that here, you seem to think your some kind of superman that walks tall and clearly sees the flaws everyone else has but can't seem to grasp hold of your own. Let's hope the other forums you say you moderate aren't treated the same way by you.

Tom please moderate yourself before you tell others how to moderate.

[ May 03, 2004, 09:34 AM: Message edited by: Ron ]

Posts: 1683 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ron, the funny thing about you -- and believe me, it really IS funny -- is that you suffer from the exact same problem. [Smile]

Here's a quick suggestion: admitting that you're aware of your own rather blatant shortcomings in this regard might make me more likely to pay attention to you, rather than just dismissing you as the typical self-interested, manipulative type -- which is, quite frankly, what I've been doing since your first few days on this forum, which were filled with more than a few examples of "Oh, heck, people are treating me the way I'm treating them! Help me!"

Seriously, Ron, you'd seem a lot less hypocritical if you didn't spend so much time insulting and attacking people while accusing them of being hostile and insulting. [Smile] While you berate me for not showing what you consider adequate contrition, Ron, why don't you do me a favor and link to a few examples of your own contrition? That I haven't seen any might just mean I've been reading the wrong threads -- although I doubt it.

[ May 03, 2004, 10:10 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  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 
A debate about the shortcomings of two members is not what this forum is about. Both of you have e-mails that are visible to each other. If you want to get into this, do it that way. Please don't derail the thread into personal bickering.

Thanks.

OrneryMod

Posts: 1260 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In all seriousness, OM, I've asked Ron to E-mail me about this issue before. *shrug* He wasn't inclined to do so at the time.

That said, Ron, the invitation's still open: if you want to have this discussion, my E-mail addy's in my profile.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seagull
Member
Member # 694

 - posted      Profile for seagull   Email seagull   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OrneryMod beat me to it.

I would like to request that people would limit their comments (at least on this thread) to shorter self evident comments (like Redskull's above) or to their own opinions about civility. Please avoid longer examples and "proofs" of specific personal violations.

Ron, I happen to agree with most of what you said about Tom. But I have found that responding in kind to his baits and personal attacks only helps HIM divert threads from topics he knows he can't win. Sometimes it results in completely derailing some of the good threads here because there are people who would stop responding to a thread as soon as they see more than three consecutive tit-for tats from Tom.

Tom is a very intelligent and skillful person who often contributes meaningful information to discussions and provides a unique and unusual perspective that would be hard to replace. While I am glad that he got a wakeup call to take a look at his own posting habits before critcizing others, I would hate to lose his unique voice and his intellect. Tom and I may not like each others posting habits, but I still respect his intellect and we still managed to co-exist on Ornery for a long time before many of you came here.

If I am going to support Pete's action in reflecting what was done to him, it would be unfair for me not to support Tom's right to do the same to Ron. Ornery would not be what it is if only SOME of us were allowed to use these methods. Both Pete and Tom risked banning and suspension in doing so and that is the way it should be.

There is and should be some slack to make things interesting and fun but none of us should allow it get to the point where good informative discussion becomes impossible because of personal animosity. I would prefer Ornery to be more like a chess or Go club where people come to excercise their intellectual skill competing in a civil manner than like a WWF arena where people come to watch overgrown bullies beat each other up.

Remember that there is no reason for Ron (or any of us) to help Tom (or other less skillful baiters) divert a meaningful discussion into a personal tit for tat. Please for the sake of YOUR OWN CREDIBILITY, don't fall into that trap.

Now, if only I was smart enough to listen to my own advice [Wink]

Posts: 1910 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Y'know, seagull, you never did answer my question: what possible situation would be so urgent that the OM simply wouldn't've had time to explain his thinking BEFORE instituting the ban?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  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 
Seagull

While I appriciate the sentiment I would prefer you not to try and bait Tom like that.

OrneryMod

Posts: 1260 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hey, it's no biggie. *laugh* But I WOULD like him to answer my question.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
carmachu
Member
Member # 1691

 - posted      Profile for carmachu   Email carmachu   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Edited by OrneryMod to remove unneeded comments.

carmachu

[ May 03, 2004, 09:25 PM: Message edited by: OrneryMod ]

Posts: 52 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  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 
Ok this is close to becoming a Tom bashing thread and that is not what it was supposed to be about.

I have discussed this issue with Tom by e-mail in the past, and we disagree on the topic.

I am going to close the thread since it has gone off the topic and has become a bashing thread.

OrneryMod

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 
Ok both Tom and Seagull have asked to reopen this and I will. I would like to see it not have any flames about the people involved. Seagull and Tom want to have this discussion. If you have something usefull to say, please go ahead.

OrneryMod

Posts: 1260 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So, now that all this is cleared up, can I get an answer to my question?

In what situations do you believe not posting a rationale is better than posting one, and what would be the negative repercussions?

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GlobalDemocrat
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've noticed that seagull in his topic starter only advocated the extreme right wing people. Maybe this was well intentioned but i wouldn't bet on it, given his post of an extreme right wing nature. Of course, he's allowed to do so, but if he/she wants to appeal to our better nature, he's doing a bad job by being so skewed.

Edit:
I also would like to know the reason of action/removals without explanation. I can think of laziness, no time, tiredness?
And to say that there are worse boards out there, so we should be happy with any explanation we get even if it is after the fact, is surely a flawed argument! At the very least this goes against the topic starter of seagull (who isn't my friend), which is i believe to improve the quality of this board.

[ May 03, 2004, 10:47 PM: Message edited by: GlobalDemocrat ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Zyne -
On GlobalDemocrat's thread, you said the following:
quote:
On civility: Is it OK to make a personal diatribe against someone on the basis that they posted in a shocking manner? Do two wrongs make a right, is that the New Ornery? Is what has happened on this thread okay with everyone--For example, can Tez call a poster a pathetic person and then threaten to ridicule that poster if sie dares show face again?
Well, even though I disagree with how Tez went about responding to GD, he wasn't jsut responding to a "shocking" post. He was responding to a post in whgich GlobalDemocrat very clearly and publicly dengrated all American history as well as our current military and even us American OA posters. You must have seen it, Zyne, so let's be even-handed: two wrongs don't make a right, but it's not right to let one slide and tsk-tsk the other.

OrneryMod - You also responded:
quote:
Zyne is right.

The best thing to do if you feel a post is a trolling post is to ignore it. Making any comment drops you to the level of the person making the post.

I would tend to agree, but let's be straight with the facts here. This was no ordinary trolling, which is bad in and of itself, but a blanket attack on all Americans. GlobalDemocrat was baiting every American on this board and you know it.
The best way to deal with that is to REPORT it. I decided to post to show that an increasing number of us at Ornery weren't going to take the bait, but unfortunately my friend Tez slid right past my post on the matter and made his own angry reply, perhaps because of his own family's military experience.

We can't run a civil conversation on Ornery if you let people like Murdok and GlobalDemocrat rush into every conversation with mockery and speculation about the motives of others, baiting everyone else at OA. This is not fair modding.

Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tezcatlipoca
Member
Member # 1312

 - posted      Profile for Tezcatlipoca     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You seem to endorse flaming of people, or parties, or nations whenever it is politically convienent for you Zyne. You seemed to completely ignore that the Troll (GD) was insulting everyone, and only got offended when I told him what he was, a person who didn't even bother making a discussion, and then pretended to hide his troll characteristics why saying "Is this ok to talk about Mod?"

quote:
I heard it was all a part of legit interrogation.

Guess they found one of Saddam's manuals, and had to know: Was it like this? Or this? Or did he do it like that? -Zyne

That was the first response you posted to the thread. And then you post this.

quote:
Is it OK to make a personal diatribe against someone on the basis that they posted in a shocking manner? Do two wrongs make a right, is that the New Ornery? Is what has happened on this thread okay with everyone--For example, can Tez call a poster a pathetic person and then threaten to ridicule that poster if sie dares show face again? -Zyne
Please spare me. First you completely ignore the fact that he is insulting people, and when I tell him to shut up and stop being a troll you jump to his defense and start talking about two wrongs. If it was two wrongs, then why didn't you get on his case like you should have? I thought I did quite well in my response, I refrained from any personal attacks, and simply told him that he was a troll, an obviously one at that. Then I was glad he wasn't banned earlier, because that means he would actually be banned, and that I would point out whenever he acted like a troll again.

Please, who here has the double standard? You allow people who agree with your politics to insult other people but jump to the defense of him when they expose him for what he is?

Posts: 1272 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Murdok
Member
Member # 1225

 - posted      Profile for Murdok   Email Murdok   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
We can't run a civil conversation on Ornery if you let people like Murdok and GlobalDemocrat rush into every conversation with mockery and speculation about the motives of others, baiting everyone else at OA. This is not fair modding.

Talk about being uncivil - So excuse me here for calling you a little weenie - That's about all I can say if you insist on insulting me in such a fashion. You are a Weenie - A Weenie Butt, Weenie Pants - Weenie Face - You are the SpongeBob Square Pants of Weenie!

Weenie weenie weenie!

How's that for uncivil?

Posts: 954 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tezcatlipoca
Member
Member # 1312

 - posted      Profile for Tezcatlipoca     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Are you suprised that people still remember what you were like before you were banned Murdok?

You did act just like GD is acting now, you even admitted it. It is no more uncivil that pointing out what you did in the past.

Whose fault is it that you are grouped with people like GD, WarrsawPacts or your own? And your latest post doesn't help your image too much either.

[ May 06, 2004, 11:44 AM: Message edited by: Tezcatlipoca ]

Posts: 1272 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
witless chum
Member
Member # 1643

 - posted      Profile for witless chum   Email witless chum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I would tend to agree, but let's be straight with the facts here. This was no ordinary trolling, which is bad in and of itself, but a blanket attack on all Americans. GlobalDemocrat was baiting every American on this board and you know it.
The best way to deal with that is to REPORT it.

I don't agree. Reporting someone wastes my time and then all our time when we argue about if his banning/warning/whatever was fair.
Ignoring him takes very little time and effort.
Nobody will troll if they don't get a response. We can have a civil conversation if those interested in doing so can restrain themselves enough to ignore those who aren't .
Dan

Posts: 642 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
WC:
I'm just not sure we have enough people who can do that. Look at how GD's thread erupted.

Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
witless chum
Member
Member # 1643

 - posted      Profile for witless chum   Email witless chum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah, you're probably right. I promise to try to hold myself to that standard, but I won't hector anyone else about it.

Dan

Posts: 642 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kentuckian
Member
Member # 101

 - posted      Profile for Kentuckian   Email Kentuckian   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I would like to interject a thought:

I'm tired of coming to Ornery and reading about Ornery. I come to read about EVERYTHING else, politics, sex, philosophy, baseball... You know, important stuff. Lately, we seem caught up in a lot navel gazing.

Just a thought.

Posts: 1430 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
witless chum
Member
Member # 1643

 - posted      Profile for witless chum   Email witless chum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If I posted a thread titled "Do we talk too much about Ornery on Ornery?" would you become uncivil, Kentuckian?

So,Point taken. (eye's averted from navel, ohh, wait, there's some lint, ok, got it) Although you did post on a navel gazing thread to complain about navel gazing threads...

Dan

Posts: 642 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Murdok
Member
Member # 1225

 - posted      Profile for Murdok   Email Murdok   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Witless - I think what you just did is navel "Grazing"....Can I have a little?
Posts: 954 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FIJC
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"If I posted a thread titled "Do we talk too much about Ornery on Ornery?" would you become uncivil, Kentuckian?

So,Point taken. (eye's averted from navel, ohh, wait, there's some lint, ok, got it) Although you did post on a navel gazing thread to complain about navel gazing threads...

Dan"

Do you want me to post the thread? [Razz] Anyway, I think that because Ornery is a small forum, it is easier for conflicts and disagreements to become more personal. Generally speaking, most of us know one another's posting style and generally know one another's ideology. I think when this occurs, every once in a while there will be a brawl or two, or three, or four, or five, LOL. Hopefully everything will get better soon.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'd still like seagull to answer my question, if possible.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
witless chum
Member
Member # 1643

 - posted      Profile for witless chum   Email witless chum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Witless - I think what you just did is navel "Grazing"....Can I have a little?
Certainly, send me a self-addressed stamped envelope. Just don't do anything odd
with it.

Dan

Posts: 642 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seagull
Member
Member # 694

 - posted      Profile for seagull   Email seagull   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry Tom, I have most of my answer saved on another computer since before Ornery went down for a few days. I haven't forgotten about you.
But I don't have access to it right now.

Besides, I want to get a chance to keep up with developments on this thread.

Posts: 1910 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seagull
Member
Member # 694

 - posted      Profile for seagull   Email seagull   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm tired of coming to Ornery and reading about Ornery. I come to read about EVERYTHING else, politics, sex, philosophy, baseball... You know, important stuff. Lately, we seem caught up in a lot navel gazing.
Same here, I am sorry that this is such a hot topic but I thought I might at least provide a lightning rod for all that navel gazing so we could keep the interesting discussions on topic.

And having started the thread, I feel like I should at least read it every once in a while.

Thank you Kent for visiting this thread and bothering to post on it. You definitely don't need lessons in civility from the likes of me.

Posts: 1910 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seagull
Member
Member # 694

 - posted      Profile for seagull   Email seagull   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I didn't bother to answer Tom's question in its original phrasing because he had already provided two colorful examples that made me think that he considered the question to be rhetorical. If he had been more civil and clear in phrasing the question I may have given it some thought as I did later in my
May 10, 2004 response to his Hey, Mark.... thread.

Let me clarify to the rest of you that I am referring to the specific phrasing of Tom's question (with the aliens and textual bomb) and NOT to Tom as a person. I do not consider Tom to be a troll and I think that personal attacks (like the ones deleted from this thread) whether they are directed at Tom, Redskull, Ron, myself or anyone else contribute to the deterioration of meaningful discussion into name calling.

Let me repeat again that, I respect Tom's intellect, posting skills and unique point of view. I learn more from people like Tom who have a different perspective than I do than I learn from people who already agree with me on most issues. I also appreciate Tom's input and insight on topics where I have less expertese than he does. I do tend to verify the facts for myself, especially with Tom's data because we are so different that we may reach oppposite conclusions from the same facts. But he does provide meaningful links and references that help me reach information that I may never have come across otherwise. I am in his debt if only for that alone.

I completely agree with OrneryMod's DECISION to step in, intervene and stop the deterioration of this thread. It is interesting to note that as a result Tom and I found ourselves on the same side of an issue (and not for the first time). When this thread was locked, Tom started a second thread to try and continue the discussion. Before I had time to respond, that thread too contained two personal attacks that made it even less likely that we could have a civil conversation where readers interested in reading our OPINIONS could follow the discussion in context.

Tom and I were now in the same boat. We both asked OrneryMod to unlock this thread and change his METHOD of intervention to editing the offensive comment instead of completely locking the thread (thank you OrneryMod). I regret that the whole thread I am reffering to (including Tom's opening post and my reply) has disappeared from Ornery, so I can not link you to it. But one of the things this process shows by example is that Tom and I are probably closer to each other in our opinion about whether threads should be edited or locked than either of us is to OrneryMod's initial opinion when he chose to lock this thread.

Having addressed the background and the points where we seem to agree (I can never be sure with Tom even when I think I agree with him) let's look at the question he posed on this thread:

quote:
In what situations do you believe not posting a rationale is better than posting one, and what would be the negative repercussions?
I think the answer should be so obvious that the question doesn't really deserve a reply.
In fact the answer is already there in my opening post:

quote:
Mark has limited time to moderate this place, ...

when OrneryMod eventually managed to take action on what obviously took much deliberation and consultation with others, is it any wonder that he did not have time to send warning messages or explain his logic

a message had to be sent that “IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO BE CIVIL” and that “I didn’t get a warning” was no excuse for being a bully

The moderator has posted his rationale in a summarized form that applies to all 8 of the people he banned. He also got agreement on it from at least two well respected members of this community before doing so.

Even IF the Mod and his so called "secret police" made a mistake. Once they made the decision, the people they considered as violators of the new policy needed to get a wakeup call rather than encouragement in the form of special attention.

What did you expect? Personal attention and public warnings to every troll on the forum? We'd be flooded with the REAL trolls (not just the name calling banter) trying to see how far they could go before they got banned or suspended and boasting about it when they got back. When Mark has the time to read and post on this forum I would rather see him post as msquared than trying to referee trolls in his role as OrneryMod.

I think the policy about trolling has been clearly stated on this trolling thread. Note that the thread itself was NOT locked, allowing every one of us to show support for the troll by posting a reply to the thread thereby keeping it alive. I hope none of you does that (including WarsawPact).

To facilitate discussion of how to treat trolling activity without reviving the thread itself, I am quoting that policy statement here:

quote:
Zyne is right.

The best thing to do if you feel a post is a trolling post is to ignore it. Making any comment drops you to the level of the person making the post.

OrneryMod

If it was not for my respect for Tom as a person that I have much to learn from, I would not have bothered to answer his rhetorical question.

-- Edited to fix quotes and links

[ May 11, 2004, 03:43 AM: Message edited by: seagull ]

Posts: 1910 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seagull
Member
Member # 694

 - posted      Profile for seagull   Email seagull   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Do you want me to post the thread? [Big Grin] ROFL [Big Grin]
No, FIJC, Please, Please don't do that.

If you did I might end up starting another thread on Ornery about the civility of posting a new thread just to "talk about how much talking about Ornery we do on Ornery"? Now would that be civil of me?

Let's move on for now, this thread has served its purpose.
I don't want it to get too long because as is, it is a pretty good example of how trolls of various types can and do get treated.

[ May 11, 2004, 03:48 AM: Message edited by: seagull ]

Posts: 1910 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Personal attention and public warnings to every troll on the forum? We'd be flooded with the REAL trolls (not just the name calling banter) trying to see how far they could go before they got banned or suspended and boasting about it when they got back."

I disagree. In fact, this is contrary to my own experience as a moderator and does not reflect the situation at Ornery.

In general, it's perfectly sufficient to have a boilerplate letter for dealing with the occasional (and rare) egregious troll -- but since Ornery has more of the other type, the combative arguer, it's more likely that OM would just have to spend more time.

But you know what? That's not a bad thing. As you've observed, I don't think all of OM's actions have been particularly well-considered, and I think he'd benefit from having to put his rationale in writing before enforcing his decisions. Making each enforcement decision take more time, thus reducing the total number of interventions overall AND improving the quality of communication for each intervention, would in fact be a good thing.

[ May 11, 2004, 07:44 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

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