| Author |
Topic:
Official Forum Rules and Policy Feedback Thread
|
Ender_Sai
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Feb '01
|
Date Posted:
11/21/05 4:11pm
Subject:
RE: Senate Floor Questions and Clarifications Thread
|
But OWM, I never promised I'd make perfect judgements. I only ever, from day one, promised honesty.
Consider, that I didn't rush to judgement as KW said. I contacted non-Senate mods for advice, to make as impartial a decision as possible.
Based upon a history of recidivism that I both remembered* and could find, coupled with a history between you two of friendly antagonism and, for want of a better word, rivalry; I concluded that in all probability, it was intended to get a rise out of KK, as a slight disrespect.
(* - It's worth noting I do bugger all research in the Senate; most of what I say is based on memory. I have the ability to recall most of what I read, which makes me a menace at Trivial Pursuit)
My decision was based on probability.
As I said, I never promised I'd be perfect. I said I'd be honest, and that's what I'm doing. I've never been anything less than that in my decision-making.
If it wasn't your intent, as I said, I apologise. I gave you less ban time than your record dictates, I protected you from yourself and gave you warnings that if you were adamant I needed to action your complaint against KK, that I'd have to treat your actions as baiting and I told you what MS policy on baiters was.
Really, OWM, the blame for your ban falls upon your shoulders. I executed it, and with obvious reluctance; but you're the one who had the power to prevent it.
And no, KK didn't use the phrase baiting in his PMs. From the second PM I got from you to really only a few hours ago, I didn't speak to KK all weekend. This was my call, OWM, not his - just like I said.
OWM posted:
Oh come on man, it's all in the interests of spirited debate and consistency (see, I probably misspelled that right there!) in moderating. People can't air greviences and complain about what they perceive is unfair? How does that bother you? I think the Senate is going fine.
Well, in this case, it's not like a policy decision, it's an issue of judgement where determining right or wrong is next to impossible. You, in your vocational capacity, must appreciate how taking your word for it remains hard - not because I distrust you, rather because of your connection to the whole ordeal.
E_S
-----signature-----
In this truth he knew himself to be.
From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Obi-Wan McCartney
Registered:
Aug '99
|
Date Posted:
11/21/05 4:44pm
Subject:
RE: Senate Floor Questions and Clarifications Thread
- Date Edited:
11/21/05 4:50pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Obi-Wan McCartney
|
ES posted:
Really, OWM, the blame for your ban falls upon your shoulders. I executed it, and with obvious reluctance; but you're the one who had the power to prevent it.
-Yeah right! That's like the abusive husband telling the wife that if she had done the dishes he wouldn't have to give her the closed-fist treatment.
In all honesty, it never occurred to me that you would ban me because I never once thought you would actually take the position that I actually was trying to bait Kimball. You took his word for it, remembered that we have had disagreements before, and pronounced me guilty. You told KW that there was a history of my doing this on purpose, yet, no history can be found.
ES posted:
You, in your vocational capacity, must appreciate how taking your word for it remains hard - not because I distrust you, rather because of your connection to the whole ordeal.
-Right, that doesn't make any sense. For the record, under whatever oath I can take on the internet, I typed Kinneson instead of Kinnison because that's how it sounds in my head, I just spelled his name wrong. But again, for all your claims about my objectivity, for your statements about my connection to this and your inability to take me at my word, why did you simply take Kimball at his word?
Why, when after you told me that Kimball is your superior and that you couldn't take any action against him, decide that you could believe his version of events and then ban me?
You claimed in PM's and here on the board, as did Kimball Kinnison (wow, I almost did it again, I'm sitting here typing and I almost typed with an e and was like correct that quick!), that there were a bunch of posts where I misspell his name and he corrects me. I can find not more than one such post, six months ago, and in the rest of them, he doesnt correct me at all!
NOW you claim its out of remembering all these times I misspelled his name and he corrected me? The whole thing is susicious because the reasoning keeps changing.
I believe you thought you were doing the right thing, but the fact is, you were mistaken, you rushed to judgment. Not to action, but to the judgment that I did it on purpose. You made a bad call, but its forgiven (especially since you forgave my outbursts afterwards.) BUt its still suspicious to me, since from my perspective, I know I didn't do anything wrong, but when I complain about Kimball, I get banned. I get reasoning that sounds like balony to me, and then you both change your story and now claim you simply "remembered" these past posts that you "can't find" because you "bugger research," and that it was all based on "probability."
-----signature-----
God Bless J-Rod's Wife!
Obi-Wan McCartney: Model Forum Member since 1999!
America's Beatles are far better than England's precious Rolling Stones
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
LostOnHoth
Registered:
Feb '00
|
Date Posted:
11/21/05 4:49pm
Subject:
RE: Senate Floor Questions and Clarifications Thread
- Date Edited:
11/21/05 4:53pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
LostOnHoth
|
Why don't you guys just take this to PM - otherwise you invite commentary and while I would love to comment I think it would probably just fuel the fire.
Unless of course that is what is intended by this thread (the commentary that is) in which I'll just shut up and sit back down in the corner 
-----signature-----
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world.
The unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
RavenKing
Registered:
Aug '05
|
Date Posted:
11/28/05 12:59pm
Subject:
RE: Senate Floor Questions and Clarifications Thread
|
Ender_Sai posted:
Can we all stop behaving like utter children and stop trying to play Che Guevara vs the Man?
 I just got that! So that's why Chev is called Che. That's a much better nickname for him. Not that I'm calling him childish, of course...
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Ender_Sai
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Feb '01
|
Date Posted:
11/28/05 4:42pm
Subject:
RE: Senate Floor Questions and Clarifications Thread
- Date Edited:
11/28/05 5:03pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Ender_Sai
|
That has nothing to do with it.
I called him Che because it was easier to type than Chev. Simple, universal human laziness. 
E_S
-----signature-----
In this truth he knew himself to be.
From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Obi-Wan McCartney
Registered:
Aug '99
|
Date Posted:
11/30/05 8:30pm
Subject:
RE: Senate Floor Questions and Clarifications Thread
|
Or were you really BAITING HIM!!! 
-----signature-----
God Bless J-Rod's Wife!
Obi-Wan McCartney: Model Forum Member since 1999!
America's Beatles are far better than England's precious Rolling Stones
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Ender_Sai
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Feb '01
|
Date Posted:
11/30/05 9:54pm
Subject:
RE: Senate Floor Questions and Clarifications Thread
|
OWM, part of your problem is that you tend to not let things go, flogging that horse well into the afterlife.
Yes, it's very funny, your constant references to getting banned; but is it possible we could, oh you know, move on now? 
Awesome!
E_S
-----signature-----
In this truth he knew himself to be.
From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Ender_Sai
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Feb '01
|
Date Posted:
12/1/05 4:03pm
Subject:
RE: Senate Floor Questions and Clarifications Thread
|
After some typical martyrdom drama, I've decided I'm sticking to public warnings rather than private ones. I'm not suggesting the histrionics aren't fun, but I'd prefer to leave it open for all to see what constitutes OK/Not OK.
E_S
-----signature-----
In this truth he knew himself to be.
From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Obi-Wan McCartney
Registered:
Aug '99
|
Date Posted:
12/5/05 10:20am
Subject:
RE: Senate Floor Questions and Clarifications Thread
- Date Edited:
12/5/05 10:24am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Obi-Wan McCartney
|
Don't be so sensitive Ender.  
-----signature-----
God Bless J-Rod's Wife!
Obi-Wan McCartney: Model Forum Member since 1999!
America's Beatles are far better than England's precious Rolling Stones
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Ender_Sai
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Feb '01
|
Date Posted:
12/7/05 5:12pm
Subject:
RE: Senate Floor Questions and Clarifications Thread
|
Obi-Wan McCartney posted:
Don't be so sensitive Ender.
 lub j00 teh owm! 
Upping this for impending drama..?
E_S
-----signature-----
In this truth he knew himself to be.
From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Obi-Wan McCartney
Registered:
Aug '99
|
Date Posted:
12/9/05 8:57am
Subject:
RE: Senate Floor Questions and Clarifications Thread
|
i need to learn internet speak.
Anyway, one thing I would to propose is that the more senior or "seasoned" members of the board take a more active interest in presenting BOTH sides of an argument.
I mean, the conservative posters can't believe EVERY thing they say is 100% correct in a black and white way, there are many sides and considerations in any argument.
I hate to see the forum act like a bunch of lawyers. You know, only bringing up points that help their cause, trying to only "win" arguments against people rather than trying to have a discussion.
Combat posts are fun, but sometimes, I'd like to have discussions. I mean, even when I think someone is completely wrong, I still like to discuss the parts of their argument that have merit, or expose the flaws in my own argument.
-----signature-----
God Bless J-Rod's Wife!
Obi-Wan McCartney: Model Forum Member since 1999!
America's Beatles are far better than England's precious Rolling Stones
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Ender_Sai
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Feb '01
|
Date Posted:
12/9/05 6:50pm
Subject:
RE: Senate Floor Questions and Clarifications Thread
|
OWM, this was a theme we brought up in the last Focus Group.
We resolved to try and foster discussion, and to avoid precisely what you're talking about we decided to crack down on posts that just existed to score points for one belief set.
It worked to a point; but there's still a very "us and them" sense to politics in the Senate, and we're too divided along ideological lines to fine too much middle ground.
If you have any ideas on how we can do this, this is the place for it.
E_S
-----signature-----
In this truth he knew himself to be.
From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Obi-Wan McCartney
Registered:
Aug '99
|
Date Posted:
12/9/05 8:24pm
Subject:
RE: Senate Floor Questions and Clarifications Thread
|
Lead by example. Treat others like you want to be treated.
Instead of zinging your fellow posters, treat them with respect.
Instead of throwing salt at your fellow posters with comments such as "its called the constitution. Perhaps you've heard of it?" you can make comments like "I think that's the beauty of our federal system."
I think you can end idiotic thought-crime bans on "labeling" and banning people for expressing the idea that they think an idea is bigoted.
Simply banning language in order to foster a better debate seems orwellian to me.
Let people express ideas. There should be no ban on ideas. Only on insulting other posters.
-----signature-----
God Bless J-Rod's Wife!
Obi-Wan McCartney: Model Forum Member since 1999!
America's Beatles are far better than England's precious Rolling Stones
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Strilo
Title: PT Manager
aka Dr. John Dorian
Registered:
Aug '01
|
Date Posted:
12/10/05 2:33am
Subject:
RE: Senate Floor Questions and Clarifications Thread
|
|
Here's a thought: If you want this forum to be more inviting to users and not so intimidating, try being a little more compassionate and understanding in your moderating. KK's attitude towards me when I broke a rule, of which I was not aware as it was my first overall experience posting here, was abraisive, abrupt and rude. If this is how users are routinely treated here, then I can understand why many choose not to post here. I certainly will not be coming back. Try treating your users with respect and courtesy, especially when they are new and unknowingly break a rule of which they were not aware.
-----signature-----
#1 on iTunes Most Played: R.E.M. "Imitation of Life"
#1 on iTunes Film Scores: Harry Potter "A Window to the Past"
* * * * * *
"Turned on the TV and what do I see?
A pageantry of empty gestures all lined up for me. Wow!"
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Darth Mischievous
Registered:
Oct '99
|
Date Posted:
12/10/05 3:01am
Subject:
RE: Senate Floor Questions and Clarifications Thread
- Date Edited:
12/10/05 3:19am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Darth Mischievous
|
In this case, I have to tend to agree with KK's assessment of the situation.
This forum tends to offer a more mature arena for discussion, and sometimes that includes a more direct moderating style to center the discussion. When it is done on an equitable basis, it is very effective for this venue.
---
As far as the issue of speech in the forum is concerned, here's my take:
Individuals are going to have their opinions, and they will most likely generally stick by them. I personally have no issue with an individual who staunchly and eloquently expresses their views, regardless of what side of the sociopolitical aisle they stand.
That tolerance ends when ridicule occurs or a demonstratively condescending approach comes in to play towards others. That could mean belittling the other's viewpoint, making fun of it, telling them various insulting things about their intelligence, and so on.
As I've said many times over, my best friend IRL is on the opposite end of the sociopolitical aisle as I am. We vehemently disagree on issues, but we have the best conversations!
Why?
Because I don't belittle his views, and I respect him as an individual.
We need to remember that we are all individuals with a common interest in discussing issues in a serious fashion.
The most important aspect of that is that our fellow members - who may not agree with us - can come to a realization of the rationale that we use to formulate our opinions and why we continue to believe that way. Of course, we do this by posting opinions, articles, and so on.
We cannot force anyone to subscribe to our points of view.
A little rivalry is fun and adds intrigue to the forum, as long as the participants can remember that these are just opinions.
I don't subscribe to molding the forum into a quasi-PC atmosphere where no one can make an opinion known that may take on a firm position on something, regardless of ideological bent, because it may offend someone or go against their sensibilities. The opinion that people are stupid or bigoted for their views isn't applicable in this forum.
The 'I'm right and you're wrong and stupid' idea isn't what this forum involves.
It involves, "This is my opinion, this is why I came to the conclusion, and I believe it to be the correct assumption because..."
There will always be varying levels of disagreement in the forum concerning opinion statements which inherently gives rise to opposing sides (the 'a v. b' discussion). Such is fine, so long as each side makes points that state their case and not berate the other individual for their viewpoints made.
Athough it is an interesting occasional voluntary exercise, forcing individuals to take on opposing viewpoints of their own and defend them isn't a realistic nor attainable goal for a forum of this type. It is also as futile to expect those with solid beliefs on any side of the sociopolitical aisle not to express those opinions directly, albeit they must be done respectfully.
-----signature-----
Why so serious?
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
