posted
[Computo] {[...] Whether you like it or not, so long as this place tries to inhibit free discourse, of whatever variety, and reacts with emotional posts of the kind posted by Greybird on the xlegionx thread, you're going to get attacked. }
You may have missed my comments in the thread here on "XlegionX", but I'll note the gist of it again:
I posted nothing on Rob's board in the "XlegionX" thread, nor have I posted anything there since I left in mid-June. Whoever re-posted my words on that thread did so without my consent and against my (admittedly unexpressed) wishes.
I'll note, all that being said, that my response that was linked here, not posted -- made for the benefit of those here at LW.net in the wake of Rob's drunken on-line rant -- was not at all "emotional."
It did make harsh judgments of Rob, but that was out of a sense of justice, not simply emoting. It also dissected your (and his) nonsense about "inhibiting free discourse." This board does nothing of the kind. Its founders and mods remove spam and other elements that interfere with genuine discussion.
Inlookers shouldn't take my word about that essay. Read it here.
From: Starhaven Consulate, City of Angels | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
This is despite putting my case on unregulated posting in a very polite and hopefully fair and reasoned manner. I certainly don't agree that its a nonsense - too many other places work perfectly well on that principle.
You'll note my restraint in not responding in kind.
A note to the moderators: despite your stated position on the rules, and anticipating that there are no exceptions to the rules, I nonetheless request that you don't censure or ban Greybird. There is no need to make an example of him. I'm sure he didn't mean it personally.
quote:sense of justice
Your sense of justice is my sense of histrionics. It wasn't necessary, and, self-evidentally, combined with everyone else's melodrama, it was inflammatory. You could have just left.
After all - and we all forget this, including me - it is only a message board. "Justice" rarely comes into these things. Its usually just self-indulgence.
At Athanon, when I was getting riled by the Nature Boys and things were getting very bitter, someone sent me a terribly politically incorrect e-postcard. "On-line debates are like the Special Olympics: no matter who wins, you're still a spastic."
I took the hint too late, unfortunately.
quote: Whoever re-posted my words on that thread did so without my consent and against my (admittedly unexpressed) wishes.
This is getting off-track: to your credit, that's an honest admission. xlegionx, or whoever, could not have known you didn't want your post repeated. That's the risk of posting these things on a message board - they fall into the public domain. Still, you must have known that risk.
I seem to have been dragged into this debate again... Oh well. At least for the most part people are being level-headed about it.
posted
Sometimes having a target painted on your butt is the price you pay for doing what you think is right.
In this case, I'm perfectly willing to accept being a target. If the board gets spammed, whatever. We'll deal with it. Unregulated forums aren't my cup of tea. Sorry. Tried it. Bought the T-shirt.
As far as the rules, this MB isn't a democracy. This is personal property. What the owners say goes. This includes enforcement of the "rules." Capriciousness is only capricious when the person in charge is capricious. Benevolent monarchy CAN be the best form of government, under certain circumstances. I trust Scott and Gary. I trust the two of them to make good decisions about the operation and future of this message board. And that's my final word on the subject.
-------------------- White. A blank page or canvas. His favorite. So... many... possibilities.
From: Birmingham, AL | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
[Computo] {[...] My "nonsense"? I do believe I've just been flamed. }
Not at all. Everyone on the Net, including me, is capable of utter nonsense. The way you apparently construe "inhibiting expression" or "freedom of speech" (in a manner quite similar, from where I sit, to that of Kamphausen) IS nonsensical.
As Kid Prime observed, this board is private property (via contract) -- as is Rob's. "Freedom of speech" doesn't apply. We are using it by Gary and Scott's leave and under their rules, however benevolent. (Fully so thus far, as I see them.)
Or, in Rob's case, where rules are unexpressed and unwanted, and where he is being misleading, by suggesting that he wants discussion -- when, at the core of things, he clearly does not.
You'd do well to develop a tougher net.hide. You took offense where none was intended, and where I was assessing arguments and allusions.
{[...] it is only a message board. "Justice" rarely comes into these things. It's usually just self-indulgence. }
Justice comes into all human relationships. Only a small subset involves legal matters. (Lawyers, in my experience, tend to make it a far larger subset {rueful smile})
My assessment of Rob built upon an earlier one that also criticized the LHQ board's moderators -- wherein I put more blame on them, and less on Rob, than either deserved. My own sense of acting in a just manner required putting my new views on record, as I reconsidered what had happened.
[ September 15, 2003, 06:01 PM: Message edited by: Greybird ]
From: Starhaven Consulate, City of Angels | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Computo: My "nonsense"?
I do believe I've just been flamed.
This is despite putting my case on unregulated posting in a very polite and hopefully fair and reasoned manner. I certainly don't agree that its a nonsense - too many other places work perfectly well on that principle.
You'll note my restraint in not responding in kind.
A note to the moderators: despite your stated position on the rules, and anticipating that there are no exceptions to the rules, I nonetheless request that you don't censure or ban Greybird. There is no need to make an example of him. I'm sure he didn't mean it personally.
quote:sense of justice
Your sense of justice is my sense of histrionics. It wasn't necessary, and, self-evidentally, combined with everyone else's melodrama, it was inflammatory. You could have just left.
After all - and we all forget this, including me - it is only a message board. "Justice" rarely comes into these things. Its usually just self-indulgence.
At Athanon, when I was getting riled by the Nature Boys and things were getting very bitter, someone sent me a terribly politically incorrect e-postcard. "On-line debates are like the Special Olympics: no matter who wins, you're still a spastic."
I took the hint too late, unfortunately.
quote: Whoever re-posted my words on that thread did so without my consent and against my (admittedly unexpressed) wishes.
This is getting off-track: to your credit, that's an honest admission. xlegionx, or whoever, could not have known you didn't want your post repeated. That's the risk of posting these things on a message board - they fall into the public domain. Still, you must have known that risk.
I seem to have been dragged into this debate again... Oh well. At least for the most part people are being level-headed about it.
Dave
Huh?
-------------------- Just an Old, Broke-Down, Drunk, Bum!!
With a Power Ring...
From: Westerly Rhode Island | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Greybird: [Computo] {[...] My "nonsense"? I do believe I've just been flamed. }
Not at all. Everyone on the Net, including me, is capable of utter nonsense. The way you apparently construe "inhibiting expression" or "freedom of speech" (in a manner quite similar, from where I sit, to that of Kamphausen) IS nonsensical.
As Kid Prime observed, this board is private property (via contract) -- as is Rob's. "Freedom of speech" doesn't apply. We are using it by Gary and Scott's leave and under their rules, however benevolent. (Fully so thus far, as I see them.)
Or, in Rob's case, where rules are unexpressed and unwanted, and where he is being misleading, by suggesting that he wants discussion -- when, at the core of things, he clearly does not.
You'd do well to develop a tougher net.hide. You took offense where none was intended, and where I was assessing arguments and allusions.
{[...] it is only a message board. "Justice" rarely comes into these things. It's usually just self-indulgence. }
Justice comes into all human relationships. Only a small subset involves legal matters. (Lawyers, in my experience, tend to make it a far larger subset {rueful smile})
My assessment of Rob built upon an earlier one that also criticized the LHQ board's moderators -- wherein I put more blame on them, and less on Rob, than either deserved. My own sense of acting in a just manner required putting my new views on record, as I reconsidered what had happened.
Double Huh??
-------------------- Just an Old, Broke-Down, Drunk, Bum!!
With a Power Ring...
From: Westerly Rhode Island | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Greybird: [Computo] {[...] My "nonsense"? I do believe I've just been flamed. }
Not at all. Everyone on the Net, including me, is capable of utter nonsense. The way you apparently construe "inhibiting expression" or "freedom of speech" (in a manner quite similar, from where I sit, to that of Kamphausen) IS nonsensical.
As Kid Prime observed, this board is private property (via contract) -- as is Rob's. "Freedom of speech" doesn't apply. We are using it by Gary and Scott's leave and under their rules, however benevolent. (Fully so thus far, as I see them.)
Or, in Rob's case, where rules are unexpressed and unwanted, and where he is being misleading, by suggesting that he wants discussion -- when, at the core of things, he clearly does not.
You'd do well to develop a tougher net.hide. You took offense where none was intended, and where I was assessing arguments and allusions.
Actually, you showed disrespect for my opinion when you labelled it with the insulting and pejorative "nonsense". That's clearly contrary to Rule 1:
quote: 1. RESPECT. Show it. Use it. You should at least respect the opinions, works, and posts of others, and the others themselves at ALL times. I'm not saying that you have to agree with everyone and everything or that you have to like everything...just understand that it is someone's work or someone's thoughts that you're commenting on or disagreeing with.
In using such belittling language, I also suspect you were trolling me and trying to goad me into a flame war.
The fact that the moderators have not seen fit to do anything about it indicates to me that their application of the rules is entirely arbitrary, and that they're very willing to play favourites.
So much for the rules, and their weight.
In any event, it is clearly not a nonsense. The internet functions in its entirety without any policing by any regulatory body. The creative anarchy of capitalist democracies are likely to be the reason behind their economic success. Investors applaud open and unregulated economies. Taxes are criticised by many people for their distorting effects on ecnomies. The absence of regulatory intrusion, to effect the free flow of anything, is very worthwhile. The same philosophy applies equally from multi-jurisdictional down to tiny message boards.
quote:
{[...] it is only a message board. "Justice" rarely comes into these things. It's usually just self-indulgence. }
Justice comes into all human relationships. Only a small subset involves legal matters. (Lawyers, in my experience, tend to make it a far larger subset {rueful smile})
My assessment of Rob built upon an earlier one that also criticized the LHQ board's moderators -- wherein I put more blame on them, and less on Rob, than either deserved. My own sense of acting in a just manner required putting my new views on record, as I reconsidered what had happened.
Hm. Fair enough. Given you wanted them "on the record", though, its surprising that you were distressed that they were repeated.
Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Computo: Its not "their" standards, or rules. Its anyone's standards/rules. I was one of the guys appointed to be in charge at Athanon, towards the end. We had rules on what people could and couldn't do. They failed entirely, and after a period of siege by the Nature Boys, the board shut down, for much the same reasons and with the same melodrama as the abandonment of Legion HQ at Rob's boards. Its a shame because Athanon was a particularly good board. ... The Nature Boys are clever and persistent, and they love the sort of reaction that they're fed here.
So, if I read you correctly, you're saying the best way to beat them is to join them? Become an anarchy because they're going to win in the end, anyway?
Again, I disagree. There will always be people in the world who attempt to create disorder and confusion just because they can. The worst thing the rest of us can do is give up and say, "You win!"
Anarchy may have its benefits, but I didn't see very many on RDB. You're right in that my position is fairly well entrenched on this. (I cannot speak for anyone else.) Anarchy encourages bullies to be bullies because no one opposes them. Might makes right.
A better way, I believe, is to try to create some standards and adhere to them. No system of standards is ever perfect. But standards can be modified as time goes on. There is no point in trying to anticipate every conceivable negative outcome that can arise from posting on message boards. We can learn from past experiences, adapt to situations as they happen, and trust ourselves to also be clever and persistent.
-------------------- The Semi-Great Gildersleeve - writing, super-heroes, and this 'n' that
From: The Stasis Zone | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Computo: [QUOTE] The fact that the moderators have not seen fit to do anything about it indicates to me that their application of the rules is entirely arbitrary, and that they're very willing to play favourites.
So much for the rules, and their weight.
Your criticism of the administrators and moderators in this case is specious, grossly hyperbolic, and unwarranted. If any actual emotional hurt had been done you by Grey's use of the word "nonsense," then there would be cause for the mods to look into it.
Clearly, in this case, no such hurt exists, as it is clearly your intent in posting to this thread to be an iconoclast to TPTB on this message board.
That's fine, more power to you, whatever, but I do take exception to you calling the people who run this MB hypocritical favoritists.
Good day.
-------------------- White. A blank page or canvas. His favorite. So... many... possibilities.
From: Birmingham, AL | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
[Computo] {[...] Actually, you showed disrespect for my opinion when you labelled it with the insulting and pejorative "nonsense". That's clearly contrary to Rule 1: [...]}
Are you incapable of distinguishing between vigorous disagreement and personal insult? It seems that you are. Disagreement does not at all require disrespect, though how you're reacting to the first is starting to create the second.
I cannot control how you take an assessment that your opinions -- about how this board is supposedly interfering with personal expression -- are not based in any observations rooted in sense, do not cohere as to making sense, and are thus, to be succinct and from my viewpoint, nonsense.
If you are determined to see this as an insult, despite my explicitly saying that this was dealing only with what you were saying, I cannot change your decision. Only you can.
Does showing this thin skin please you, coming into what is for you a new Net community that you plainly have not observed for long? I can assure you that I don't find this pleasing. The founders leave us great latitude as to encouraging genuine discussion. Which, until you came along with some fairly petty legalisms, is what this was.
And don't lecture me about spontaneous ordering of worldwide markets. As against the predilections of most lawyers I've met, and knowing my own background as a writer, editor, and magazine publisher, I've probably forgotten more about that matter than you have ever learned. (Okay, that's hyperbole. Nonetheless, you're presuming a lot to give such a lecture.)
We are talking about whether particular rules create a desired end, and whose purview it is to set these up and apply them. If you want to be a part of this community, you might try working with these rules and the people who are here, and the scope of how they see them.
In a community this size, it does come down to the objectivity of the two men who own the venue and are in charge. There's no other practical way to deal with this. We don't have bigger contractual arrangements. I would suggest that you would benefit by gaining, especially, a sense of proportion.
{[...] Given you wanted them "on the record", though, it's surprising that you were distressed that they were repeated. }
I was only "distressed" over the prospect of the error being made that you ended up making, and with which we started. That is, that others would assume I was still taking part in a message venue that I had said I was not using, and which I had openly come to detest, along with the absurdities believed by its owner.
[ September 15, 2003, 10:20 PM: Message edited by: Greybird ]
From: Starhaven Consulate, City of Angels | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Which, until you came along with some fairly petty legalisms, is what this was.
And don't lecture me about spontaneous ordering of worldwide markets. As against the predilections of most lawyers I've met, and knowing my own background as a writer, editor, and magazine publisher, I've probably forgotten more about that matter than you have ever learned. (Okay, that's hyperbole. Nonetheless, you're presuming a lot to give such a lecture.)
You're trolling again, Greybird. Stop it.
I'm not lecturing you, I'm trying to expand my point with reference to other forms of unregulated and perfectly workable systems, none of which are a "nonsense", or "petty".
He Who Wanders is capable of debating me in a rational and polite fashion. He disagrees with me, and I respectfully accept his opinion. I'd do that even if it wasn't rule #1, because he's engaging in level-headed, persuasive and non-emotive debate without repeatedly resorting to ad hominem insults based on unfounded assumptions on my background and profession, none of which you know anything about whatsoever.
I'll gladly discuss the matter further with He Who Wanders, but not with you, while you're clearly picking for a fight.
In the meantime, the moderators (despite regular visits here) continue to do nothing to reign in Greybird and his attempts at baiting, rather than politely and respectfully debating, and Kid Prime backs them on it.
The rules seem to be working wonderfully.
Addressing He Who Wanders:
quote: So, if I read you correctly, you're saying the best way to beat them is to join them? Become an anarchy because they're going to win in the end, anyway?
Again, I disagree. There will always be people in the world who attempt to create disorder and confusion just because they can. The worst thing the rest of us can do is give up and say, "You win!"
Anarchy may have its benefits, but I didn't see very many on RDB. You're right in that my position is fairly well entrenched on this. (I cannot speak for anyone else.) Anarchy encourages bullies to be bullies because no one opposes them. Might makes right.
A better way, I believe, is to try to create some standards and adhere to them. No system of standards is ever perfect. But standards can be modified as time goes on. There is no point in trying to anticipate every conceivable negative outcome that can arise from posting on message boards. We can learn from past experiences, adapt to situations as they happen, and trust ourselves to also be clever and persistent.
Its an exhausting process, when the alternative is simply to let people have their fun until they get bored with it and be on their way. I guess that would be an example of a type of system reaching equilibrium.
As you acknowledge, however, you had a bad experience on the RKMBs, which has firmed up your views. Fair enough.
Despite my initial disinterest in the matter, it'll be mildly interesting to see if you or I am ultimately right.
Thanks for your thoughts anyway - they are actually very persuasive.
quote:Originally posted by Kid Prime: [QUOTE]If any actual emotional hurt had been done you by Grey's use of the word "nonsense," then there would be cause for the mods to look into it.
Clearly, in this case, no such hurt exists, as it is clearly your intent in posting to this thread to be an iconoclast to TPTB on this message board.
I see...so "emotional hurt" is now a criteria for trolling? As long as there is no "emotional hurt", I can call people names and pick fights with whoever I like? With respect, I think you're missing the point. Trolling is the conduct, not the reaction.
I raise this with you in particular because I have also just noticed you are in fact a moderator of this particular board. So calling my views "specious, grossly hyperbolic, and unwarranted", as well as iconoclastic, is your version of non-partisan moderation, as well as your observance of rule #1?
Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I think you are using hyperbole in an attempt to be obtuse.
Let me ask you this... is it your desire for the administrators on this board to ban Greybird because he called an opinion of yours "nonsense?" Do you want to ban me next because I called your criticism "specious?" Or maybe I should censure myself for all to see?
Or is your goal simply argument for argument's sake?
-------------------- White. A blank page or canvas. His favorite. So... many... possibilities.
From: Birmingham, AL | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
Hyperpath: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic | Subscribe To Topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Oh well. At least for the most part people are being level-headed about it.
