Ship of Fools: Do I have a Divisional Officer to hear my complaint?

Thread: Do I have a Divisional Officer to hear my complaint? Board: The Styx / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=003466

Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :

If a shipmate feels hard done by by an administrator is there an official channel through which advocacy can be obtained?

As an ex Chief Petty Officer RN I was used to having a Divisional Officer to whom I could take my case if I had perhaps suffered an unjust decision from a commissioned officer.

Is there a similar system aboard this Ship of Fools or would it just be foolhardy to ask?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

The Styx is the place where shipmates can dispute host rulings, with admins having the final say.

If you have something to complain about, this is the place to do so.

I suggest you read the 10 Commandments and relevant Guidelines before jumping in with both feet, though.

Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :

I just wonder what the procedure is. In the RN one had to put in a request to see one's Divisional Officer who would hear your case and decide if it needed to go forward for review by senior officers.

What happens here?

Bellyaching about things in the Sytx forum seems to be a bit mutinous to me, as well as being pretty ineffective. About as much notice is probably taken by authority of ratings dripping with each other in The Styx, dhobeying their dirty washing, as politicians take any notice of comedy satire like Spitting Image or The Mash Report.

[ 16. February 2018, 10:19: Message edited by: RdrEmCofE ]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

RdrEmCofE

With the best will in the world I think there is a heap of differences between Her Majesty's ships (be they afloat or Stone Frigates) and an on-line forum like this.

My only experience of HM Forces is as a RAF Brat but the clearest impression I ever received was that orders are to be carried out immediately and without question (unless otherwise stated). I don't think anyone here has ever been ordered to do anything, although we are sometimes asked to desist.

The worst that can happen is that one might be bowler-hatted, but even that's unlikely.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
If a shipmate feels hard done by by an administrator is there an official channel through which advocacy can be obtained?

As an ex Chief Petty Officer RN I was used to having a Divisional Officer to whom I could take my case if I had perhaps suffered an unjust decision from a commissioned officer.

Is there a similar system aboard this Ship of Fools or would it just be foolhardy to ask?

Hi, friendly SoF Admin here to answer your query.

The Styx (i.e. this board) is the place where complaints about Host/Admin rulings can be made. We don't provide you with an advocate, lawyer, counsellor or anything - we just let you make your case.

The intention is for it to be a co-operative process rather than a confrontational one. It's certainly not analogous to a trial or disciplinary hearing.

quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
I just wonder what the procedure is. In the RN one had to put in a request to see one's Divisional Officer who would hear your case and decide if it needed to go forward for review by senior officers.

What happens here?

Far less bureaucracy, for a start. You just raise your issue on this board and the Admins ("senior officers", as you put it) will review it. One of the "privileges" of our position is that we review all cases and queries, however big or small.

quote:
Bellyaching about things in the Sytx forum seems to be a bit mutinous to me,

It's not mutinous, because that's what the Styx is for.

quote:
as well as being pretty ineffective. About as much notice is probably taken by authority of ratings dripping with each other in The Styx, dhobeying their dirty washing, as politicians take any notice of comedy satire like Spitting Image or The Mash Report.

As I'm sure every other long-standing Shipmate would tell you, that is not the case at all. We do take notice of all issues raised in the Styx, and we always provide an answer. Granted, it's not always the answer the thread starter wanted, but that's a different thing.

So please do feel free to raise your issue on this thread, or on a new one if you prefer. We'll deal with it.

Marvin
Admin

[ 16. February 2018, 10:46: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]

Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :

quote:
As I'm sure every other long-standing Shipmate would tell you, that is not the case at all. We do take notice of all issues raised in the Styx, and we always provide an answer. Granted, it's not always the answer the thread starter wanted, but that's a different thing.

That sounds encouraging. No more could be expected.

quote:
So please do feel free to raise your issue on this thread, or on a new one if you prefer. We'll deal with it.

I am waiting to see if a recently temporarily suspended thread is eventually re-activated, before airing a complaint if it isn't. I feel it right to allow the Administrator to follow the procedure he has deemed necessary and simply trust, for the time being, that a just decision will be the eventual outcome.

[ 16. February 2018, 11:29: Message edited by: RdrEmCofE ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Total waiting time: 3 minutes.

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

Apropos of nothing specific, I’d like to express my sincere gratitude for the work done by the H&As on this Styx board, and in particular the extraordinarily consistent patience and clemency manifest here.

You’re very good people.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
Bellyaching about things in the Sytx forum seems to be a bit mutinous to me, as well as being pretty ineffective.

As Marvin said, it's not mutinous because that's what we ask people to do if they have an issue with any official ruling. Taking it up on the thread where it was raised is problematic because it then makes the thread one of "was it right that I got told off?" rather than discussing whatever the thread was supposed to be about. So, bring all and any questions of whether you feel that you have been unfairly criticised here to the Styx. And, you don't need to wait for the original thread to be reopened, since the discussion about the ruling is going to happen here and only here.

As for effectiveness, I would add that we find it very effective. The hosts called you in public on something you said in public, and it's only reasonable that the discussion of that also happens in public. This has the effect of

a) giving the hosts a chance to explain their reasoning (generally host rulings are short because they don't want to disrupt discussion more than necessary - and, anyone who wants more information about why the call was made can always ask in the Styx),

b) giving whoever was told off the chance to explain why they didn't think they were doing anything wrong,

c) by doing all that in public there is less scope for accusations of bias, and everyone else can chip in with why they think the hosts are wrong (or otherwise), so that

d) this becomes a community discussion, with the community having a chance to comment freely, leading to

e) often an agreement and understanding without the admins having to wade in with a ruling. We like that, not because we're lazy and it saves us work (it doesn't really, because we still think about the issues raised and that's far more work than typing a post) but because it means that the community is working. And, finally

f) Styx threads become a record of past questions that can serve as a useful guide to others (not just those directly involved in a particular query) to what does and does not improve the quality of discussion on our boards.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

In case it is needed soon, ITTWACW stands for I Thought This Was A Christian Website.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

And there is a process, if you feel you need it. You can take a complain to Simon, the captain.

Personally, your chances of getting Simon to overrule the hosts is slightly lower than a redshirt surving to the end of an episode, but it is up to you.

If you don't like Simons ruling, you can go away. It is his ship. It is not the navy, it is not a democracy, it is a commercial (ha!) website.

Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :

Expressing my gratitude and thanks to you all. 3 minutes was indeed a prompt response. It remains to be seen whether other shipmates will consider my most recent epistle in the thread in question, worth ploughing doggedly through. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

If you don't like Simons ruling, you can go away. It is his ship. It is not the navy, it is not a democracy, it is a commercial (ha!) website.

I'm not sure of the legalities, but ISTM this is more a private website. Not only is there no commercial gain, that is not the intention.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

quote:

quote:
as well as being pretty ineffective.
As I'm sure every other long-standing Shipmate would tell you, that is not the case at all.

For the sake of pedantry and full disclosure, there are some seasoned Shipmates who are (sometimes / frequently / persistently) not fully satisfied with the efficacy or impartiality of the Styx. These instances are also available for public review and comment, to help anyone ascertain to their own satisfaction the degree to which the Crew attempt to be open, honest, and occasionally even fair regarding all issues raised.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

If you don't like Simons ruling, you can go away. It is his ship. It is not the navy, it is not a democracy, it is a commercial (ha!) website.
I'm not sure of the legalities, but ISTM this is more a private website. Not only is there no commercial gain, that is not the intention.

We mean the same thing - it is not a money making site, but it is open to the public.

And yes, the hosts, admins, techy people, everyone who makes this place function rock. They are not always right - IMO - but they are always fair, they are always sensible and consistent. That is -kin hard to do.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:

quote:

quote:
as well as being pretty ineffective.
As I'm sure every other long-standing Shipmate would tell you, that is not the case at all.
For the sake of pedantry and full disclosure, there are some seasoned Shipmates who are (sometimes / frequently / persistently) not fully satisfied with the efficacy or impartiality of the Styx. These instances are also available for public review and comment, to help anyone ascertain to their own satisfaction the degree to which the Crew attempt to be open, honest, and occasionally even fair regarding all issues raised.

All that is nice, but impossible to expect in a practical sense. Is it generally true that the crew attempts that standard? I think so. However, the practical realities of running a site such as this will result in failures to adhere to that. One could argue that bias is fair due to those realities, I suppose.
The largest factor in dissatisfaction with rulings is a disconnect between what the complaintent wants v what is fair.
However, stating that the intention is always fair is inaccurate and unrealistic.
I do think the balance is more towards fair and open than otherwise.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

No Host or Admin deliberately stirs up trouble. IME there are two types of Styx thread. The first type contains threads about whether the Hosts have applied the guidelines correctly. The second type contains threads which question the continuing fairness of the guidelines. Threads in this second category have led to some major changes e.g to the Dead Horse guide lines. Threads in the first category normally boil down to differences of opinion about the guideline boundaries e.g. is that statement a criticism of post (legitimate) or a criticism of person (C3 offence). Good people can differ honestly about individual cases, even after explanation and discussion.

Speaking as someone who has Hosted for almost a decade now, I've always found Styx threads illuminating. The general discovery is that what seems obvious to me doesn't always appear that way to other people!

[ 16. February 2018, 18:16: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
No Host or Admin deliberately stirs up trouble. IME there are two types of Styx thread. The first type contains threads about whether the Hosts have applied the guidelines correctly.

Other than adding 'and fairly' to the end of the third sentence, I would agree with your post. I do not think it contradicts mine, however.
Also, the context of my post is larger than just the Styx.

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

I would like to offer up my thanks to the H&As as well. It's a tough job, and although no process is perfect, this process seems to me open and fair.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
No Host or Admin deliberately stirs up trouble.

I really don't think that's fair to RooK. It may be true, but it rather tells against the image he has taken such great pains to perfect.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
No Host or Admin deliberately stirs up trouble.
I really don't think that's fair to RooK. It may be true, but it rather tells against the image he has taken such great pains to perfect.

Don’t listen to the meanies, Rook. You are truly mean and vicious!
Who is the evil one? You are, you are!

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Promoted HellHosts, like RooK and Marvin, are a special breed. But I don't think they stirred up trouble. Their verbal assaults were always corrective. Even if they didn't leave a lot of skin on your back.

But I'd be careful if I were you. The My Little Pony avatar lies in wait for the provocative.

[ 16. February 2018, 21:01: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
It remains to be seen whether other shipmates will consider my most recent epistle in the thread in question, worth ploughing doggedly through.

The answer to that appears to be a resounding "no".

These are discussion boards, not blogs. Long posts may be interesting to read, but they're difficult to respond to. Even more so when they're delivered in a proclamatory style. Long, detailed posts tend to shut down discussion rather than enable it. If you were talking to friends over a few beers in the pub, you would consider it a very strange discussion if everyone sat and listened to someone talk for 10 minutes.

My advice, cut out the epistles and post things that are easier to engage with. Keep posts reasonably short. Don't respond to multiple points in a single post. State your position as clearly and concisely as possible, you don't need to labour the point too much - you don't need to provide all the supporting material (of course, provide more information if asked). Leave an opportunity for others to comment and question.

You've started this thread to question how we do things here. Take the opportunity to learn from those of us who have been here a while, we've learnt (often the hard way) what does and doesn't make for good discussion.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
Expressing my gratitude and thanks to you all. 3 minutes was indeed a prompt response. It remains to be seen whether other shipmates will consider my most recent epistle in the thread in question, worth ploughing doggedly through.

I didn’t. I can find no end of sermons online if that’s what I’m looking for. I come here for interesting discussions (plus fun in the Circus, plus support in All Saints etc etc)

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Promoted HellHosts, like RooK and Marvin, are a special breed. But I don't think they stirred up trouble. Their verbal assaults were always corrective. Even if they didn't leave a lot of skin on your back.

I wish RdrEmCofE could have ‘met’ Erin. She was a master at specialised, informative and corrective verbal thwacks.

[ 17. February 2018, 13:38: Message edited by: Boogie ]

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
Expressing my gratitude and thanks to you all. 3 minutes was indeed a prompt response. It remains to be seen whether other shipmates will consider my most recent epistle in the thread in question, worth ploughing doggedly through.
I didn’t. I can find no end of sermons online if that’s what I’m looking for.

I saw how long it was and didn’t even try reading it. The underlying theme of all these massive posts seems to be “you clearly don’t understand, but if I explain it in enough detail, you will and you’ll admit I’m right.” That’s not discussion. That’s lecturing.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Exactly. Far too prolix.

OTOH, a good subject for discussion ...

IJ

Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The My Little Pony avatar lies in wait for the provocative.

Or the willing.

Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :

Referring to the thread closure in Re-Baptism:

I'm back in the sin bin again it seems for complying with the commandment to quote scripture in full rather than just giving the chapter and verse. (keeping one commandment apparently infringes another it seems).

I could have answered each and every point in separate posts I suppose but that would probably have infringed some other commandment as well.

What is one supposed to do when dealing with multiple ripostes in a single reply?

Answering in short trite sound bites, with no supporting scripture is not debate, its more like arguing the toss.

Scripture, (according to scripture), is "useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness," yet I am told that, by using it for those express purposes, "I am imposing a particular view on others."

I don't think I'm "imposing" anything of the sort. I am simply declaring what scripture actually states, (in an educational kind of way), with reference to the objections to the long established practice of paedo-baptism raised by another in the course of debate, about the subjects of covenants and baptism.

I am accused of posting " Preachy postings ".

Perhaps, if I did not justify my views, by citing the scriptures that cause me to hold those views, I would be considered less "preachy' and simply unjustifiably opinionated. I can't see how that would be preferable though, since the other debater supposedly bases his own argument upon his understanding of scripture also. Except in his case it is mostly what is NOT in scripture that supposedly reinforces his position on the subject, so he obviously has no need to quote his sources in full, since by his own admission, they simply don't exist.

Now, if my fellow debater would care to marshal his arguments one point at a time, rather than come at me with a Gish Gallop of multiple objections in a single post, I will endeavour to answer them, each in turn, and support my position by appealing to the scriptures, (and not just snippets of verses or supposed 'proofs' by what is not to be found in The New Testament).

Long posts will then be unnecessary and the debate can then proceed civilly and in an orderly manner, as is fitting among fellow disciples of Christ.

The Covenant and its Central Sacrament, Baptism are advanced doctrine. We are not dealing here with a milk snack meal for infants from a left or right teat. We are talking about the Meat of the Gospel and a supper in the Kingdom of God. 1 Cor.3:2, Heb.5:12-13, Luke 14:23-24.

I would much appreciate it if the overly long posts could be left in place so as not to disrupt the debate completely.

I shall restrict my replies in future to cover only one or two points per post as I am fully in agreement with the unwieldy appearance of very long replies. Walls of text are unsightly and I hope will be no longer necessary in answer to multiple ripostes in a single post.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

It is called effective communication.
Which means long enough to make your point without being too long for the given audience. In this medium, that is typically shorter than the novellas you have posted.
Many people here manage complex discussions without lengthy dissertation.
It isn't rocket surgery.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Maybe look and read how other people post. Most of us have fairly good brains and can formulate arguments that other people can follow - but most of us recognise that being long-winded, posting in capitals and generally acting like one is broadcasting rather than engaging is not how we discuss things in Purgatory.

The Bible passages thing is hard to understand for new people, but generally speaking the culture of Purgatory is to nod towards Bible passages rather than attempt to dissect them. This is largely because, I think, we recognise that there are sincerely held alternative views - and asserting that one is correct because of X y and z Bible passages is often boring, not to mention self-defeating if other people don't accept the first principles of your view of the Bible anyway.

Also we have a whole other board where one can have that kind of detailed discussion.

(X-post)

[ 17. February 2018, 16:13: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

I think this gets to the heart of it:

quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
Perhaps, if I did not justify my views, by citing the scriptures that cause me to hold those views, I would be considered less "preachy' and simply unjustifiably opinionated. I can't see how that would be preferable though, since the other debater supposedly bases his own argument upon his understanding of scripture also. Except in his case it is mostly what is NOT in scripture that supposedly reinforces his position on the subject, so he obviously has no need to quote his sources in full, since by his own admission, they simply don't exist.

For one thing, you're simply trying to carry the argument on here by stealth. That is not what the Styx is for, as has been patiently explained to you.

If you can't take the time or effort to fit into the culture here - and this has nothing to do with your views, theological or otherwise - then don't expect to get a hearing.

For another, the Ship, as has also been pointed out to you several times, is a place for discussion. There's no problem with you holding strong views and defending them robustly, but if all you can do is trash other people's - as you have done above - and post walls of text, you are not discussing.

What's not coming across here is any sort of respect for your environment or the people you're interacting with.

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

Clarity is proportional to thought given beforehand

Brevity requires clarity of thought

Number of persons who read the whole post is proportional to clarity and brevity

Number of people who agree with you is irrelevant as long as you have followed these dictates

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
I'm back in the sin bin again it seems for complying with the commandment to quote scripture in full rather than just giving the chapter and verse. (keeping one commandment apparently infringes another it seems).

I don't recall an instruction to quote Scripture in full. It would be an odd instruction to give here. If you can tell us when and where a host gave such an instruction that it would help.

Remember, most people here would likely know what the words of the Bible are, or can very easily look them up. In Kerygmania, where we discuss specific passages of Scripture, we ask people to help others by giving a link to an online Bible for passages people want to discuss, the link helps those who want to double check their memory of the verses.

Generally speaking, citing Scripture doesn't add to a discussion. We all know what the words are. What we want to know is what you think those words mean, because your interpretation is something we can discuss.

quote:
I could have answered each and every point in separate posts I suppose but that would probably have infringed some other commandment as well.

What is one supposed to do when dealing with multiple ripostes in a single reply?

The answer is simple, keep the structure of posts simple. If you're replying to lots of people put each reply in a separate post (unless they're so closely related that it's simpler to answer several people at the same time). It makes it much easier for someone to find your reply to them if it's in a separate post. Make life as easy for others to follow your argument as possible.

quote:
Answering in short trite sound bites, with no supporting scripture is not debate, its more like arguing the toss.

No one is asking for trite sound bites. But, there's a lot of space between a sound bite and an essay. Aim for somewhere in between. Plus, of course, support would be more than citing Scripture - use Scripture as appropriate, but just citing Scripture is not supportive of an argument, we need to know how you interpret it (which may be different from how others interpret it).

quote:
I shall restrict my replies in future to cover only one or two points per post as I am fully in agreement with the unwieldy appearance of very long replies. Walls of text are unsightly and I hope will be no longer necessary in answer to multiple ripostes in a single post.

That sound like a good place to start.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

RdrEmCofE said -

quote:
Long posts will then be unnecessary and the debate can then proceed civilly and in an orderly manner, as is fitting among fellow disciples of Christ.

IITWACW again.

Just to point out that by no means everyone here is a ‘fellow disciple of Christ’.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Indeed, and quite a few of us also have Real Lives, and not a great deal of time to read lectures.

IJ

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I wish RdrEmCofE could have ‘met’ Erin. She was a master at specialised, informative and corrective verbal thwacks.

May she rest in peace and rise in resplendently sharp-fanged glory.

[ 17. February 2018, 19:15: Message edited by: Rossweisse ]

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE
...to quote scripture in full rather than just giving the chapter and verse.

You can provide a link to the text at one of the online Bible sites. My favorite site is Oremus Bible Browser.

Moo

Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :

Thanks Moo.

Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on :

I did read the post in question - more than once, as it was unusually long - and was just formulating some comments in response when the thread closed. Just to let you know that not everyone abandoned the post after the first paragraph!

Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :

Thanks Aravis.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Aravis

You can always continue dialogue by PM. Purg Guideline 6 is in the interests of the many.

Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :

re: verbosity

When I first began posting on a discussion board that covers a different field from SoF's, I often used most posts as a format for "thinking out" my positions. As a result they were long and often convoluted.

An administrator gave me two very useful pieces of advice.

1) think it out before you write
2) don't wear out your readers with a "wall of words"

Practicing this was actually difficult for me. But in time it sunk in.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

On the other hand, "thinking out" posts are often the most interesting and lead to the best discussions. They do benefit from careful thought in crafting, and of course some detail can be left to follow-up posts as the discussion progresses.

Though I find the vast majority of my personal posts are "thinking out" positions to a greater of lesser extent. And, I tend to read everyone else as though they're also thinking out their position - which makes posts that appear to be a proclamation of settled position much harder to discuss, if the post doesn't include any implicit questions what do we get to try to answer?

Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :

I agree, Alan, that a carefully crafted thinking-out post can enhance discussion. Your own posts on the Brexit thread were excellent examples of that. They developed out of a clearly expressed commitment that served as a platform from which to enquire, expand, and explore.

My own thinking out writing typically meandered on and on with many subordinate clauses, and either/of and "on the other hand" statements.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Sigh. We all can't be Alan Cresswell. [Disappointed]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Promoted HellHosts, like RooK and Marvin, are a special breed. But I don't think they stirred up trouble. Their verbal assaults were always corrective. Even if they didn't leave a lot of skin on your back.
I wish RdrEmCofE could have ‘met’ Erin. She was a master at specialised, informative and corrective verbal thwacks.

Well, plenty of posts in Oblivion and Limbo still have her posts/toothmarks.
[Smile]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
What's not coming across here is any sort of respect for your environment or the people you're interacting with.

Old adage from Internet communities:

Know the culture, and respect the "gods".

Basically, pay attention to what's going on, and learn from it. Learn about the people and structure of the community. The rules and etiquette may not be what you're used to--just as if you moved to a new place or another country.

Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Sigh. We all can't be Alan Cresswell.

Lyda Rose, thank you for my new (and possibly last ever) sig!

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

You're all Fools.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Why is Alan Cresswell always right? (The title of a plaintive, tongue in cheek 'moaning' Hell thread from a decade ago. Very funny thread).

Because he is! Get over it.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

A thread that's fortuitously vanished. Unless someone can find it in Oblivion ... if someone can find anything in Oblivion.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

It isn't in Limbo and predates the big Oblivion Purge, so it is gone for good. Only the memory remains ..

Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :

Purgatory guideline 6 states nothing about length. This seems a case of an arbitrary imposition of this guideline. Styx rarely functions well because the powers that be rarely acknowledge that they have made a mistake. Culture evolves.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
Purgatory guideline 6 states nothing about length. This seems a case of an arbitrary imposition of this guideline. Styx rarely functions well because the powers that be rarely acknowledge that they have made a mistake. Culture evolves.

None of the Commandments mentions length explicitly, but verbosity and repetition can easily contravene Commandments 1, 2, 5, 6 and 9 in Spirit.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
Purgatory guideline 6 states nothing about length. This seems a case of an arbitrary imposition of this guideline.

Referral to admins in this case followed multiple host posts and extensive explanations and suggestions of how to adapt to board culture, specifically including recommendations on post length, so it was anything but arbitrary.

quote:
Styx rarely functions well because the powers that be rarely acknowledge that they have made a mistake.

You only have to scroll up this thread to see that a willingness to reverse an initial thread closure was enacted in a matter of minutes. The other party promptly squandered that gesture of good faith.

quote:
Culture evolves.

Yes. Evidence.

[ETA also, the Styx doesn't work when people try to use it as a proxy theatre to carry on an argument from another board, as was done in this case]

[ 20. February 2018, 13:33: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :

The two posts after mine are illustrative of my point.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

How? I've provided a rebuttal backed by evidence. Simply rejecting it without arguing your case is not compelling.

Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :

Yes, and there was a "need" to suspend someone during that discussion.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
The two posts after mine are illustrative of my point.

If your point is that SOF admin and hosts are capricious in their rulings, you picked the wrong hill to charge up.

RdrEmCofE was warned and then went against that warning almost immediately.
You might wish to challenge the grounds for the initial warning, but his suspension was justified in the warning itself.

There was an explicit "If you do X, Y will happen." He did X, so Y are you complaining?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
Yes, and there was a "need" to suspend someone during that discussion.

The suspension was not the result of that discussion. It followed on from behaviour on another thread, following this warning, which could not be clearer.

(Also, "yes" is not an intelligible answer to a "how" question).

[ 20. February 2018, 15:36: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :

Thanks for your feedback on what is or is not an intelligible answer. [Biased]

My thoughts are that the crew of the ship have little tolerance in general for dissent. Glad to see they are considering changing the guidelines for DH. This hardly demonstrates a general willingness to change. Their default mode tends to be "the rules forbid it," IMHO. YMMV.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

I don't really have a horse in this race, but, FWIW, I think we do well to remember that The Ship is not a democracy....

IJ

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
My thoughts are that the crew of the ship have little tolerance in general for dissent.

It depends what you mean by dissent. The 10 commandments and associated guidelines have stood the test of time as creating a constructive framework for sensible discussion among people of wildly varying opinions. Take away the 10 commandments and you have something like a YouTube comment thread.

If "dissent" means "persistently flout hostly advice and ignore hostly warnings" then yes, a suspension or banning is on the cards.

We have to weigh the value of disruptive voices against the need to preserve the integrity of the community. One way of doing that is to nurture conversations - which posts over 1500 words long don't.

In my experience, suspensions are always a next-to-last resort and not after some agonising, and I can't recall anyone being banned here other than for the likes of blatant sockpuppetry, being a bot, etc. since I began as a host, several years ago now.

Finally, as you appear to acknowledge, this is and always has been a benevolent dictatorship. That's what you signed up to.

If you knows of a better 'ole...

Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :

I don't believe I acknowledged that it was benevolent. [Biased]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

It's benevolent until it isn't. RdrEmCofE had a lot of warnings and forbearance before RooK finally lowered the boom.

Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :

I thought it was a plank?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I don't know! I think "planking" is reserved for indefinite suspension or outright banning.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

I thought the boom was the pole at the bottom of a sail, which sweeps across the deck when the ship changes direction, such as when tacking against the wind. It is named after the noise it makes when it hits you on the head.

[Edit bicoss mi speelling sucs.]

[ 22. February 2018, 12:00: Message edited by: balaam ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

It does have nautical origins, but as a metaphor it means take decisive punitive action.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Just so - as in being hit across the head...

IJ

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

When you're not looking!

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
My thoughts are that the crew of the ship have little tolerance in general for dissent.

If that was true you'd have been banned years ago.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
My thoughts are that the crew of the ship have little tolerance in general for dissent.

What an odd thing to say.

There is no other forum which requires less conformity than the Ship! If you find one, send me a link. I remain here because I can’t conform - and have never felt anything but accepted.

Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :

A plethora of FB groups that I belong to require much less conformity, Boogie

Was that threat, Marvin?

[ 22. February 2018, 15:22: Message edited by: Caissa ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

What do you mean by "less conformity"?

If there's something you think we could do better, then let us know more specifics.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
A plethora of FB groups that I belong to require much less conformity, Boogie

Was that threat, Marvin?

I wasn't on Facebook for years and recently joined, mostly to talk about local history and vegetable growing.

It is true, there are less rules about discussion in those Facebook groups than here, if that is what you mean about "less conformity".

But in all my long years here - even though I've been frequently wrong, bad tempered and crap at putting across ideas in a logical way - nobody has ever suggested that my qualifications are fake or that I was some kind of government stooge. Nobody has ever suggested to me that I shouldn't be part of this forum because I had an unpopular idea.

I was a week on Facebook when both of those things happened to me. And, let me repeat, the groups I belong to are about vegetable gardening and local history.

This forum requires conformity: conformity to doing what you are told when you are told it. Facebook groups don't usually have that requirement, and that's the reason why this forum is the way it is and why Facebook usually is not.

Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :

That was Boogie's phrase. You should ask her what she meant.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

The trouble with very long posts is that they do tend to look like a 'preach' rather than part of a conversation - particularly is there is a tone of "listen up everyone, I'm telling it how it is".

That, however, was not why RdrEmCofE was suspended. It was an obviously (to my eyes at least) unwise, boundary-testing post (which was not about the subject of the Styx thread on which it was posted) immediately after a hostly warning which said

quote:
Knock off the personal insults, or anything that might be construed as such … there will be no more warnings.

(my emphasis)

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
That was Boogie's phrase. You should ask her what she meant.

She was paraphrasing your discontent. It is up to you to explain what you mean.

What do you mean by "little tolerance of dissent"? If you can't come up with specifics, you can't expect any changes.

Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :

Well for example, the person in question was being baited in that thread after rook called for no personal insults. Is Styx really a location for baiting?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

The Styx is not a place for personal insults. It should not require a host to point that out, that we do tend to warn people when they're encroaching a line is a mechanism that usually results in people backing off and engaging with others constructively. Is that really such a difficult concept?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
Well for example, the person in question was being baited in that thread after rook called for no personal insults. Is Styx really a location for baiting?

It strikes me that RdrEmCofE was the one doing the baiting there.

[x-post]

[ 22. February 2018, 16:19: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
I thought the boom was the pole at the bottom of a sail, which sweeps across the deck when the ship changes direction, such as when tacking against the wind. It is named after the noise it makes when it hits you on the head.

I shall assume you are being humorous and not bore you with the actual etymology of the term.

Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :

RdrEmCofE was clearly not without sin and others were trying to push RdrEmCofE over the line. Much of the thread could have been avoided if there was more tolerance of RdrEmCofE behaviour in the Re-Baptism thread. YMMV. We differ on how we perceive the limits of tolerance for dissent on this site.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Tolerance of their behaviour was not aided by the fact that having been warned about preachy posts in Purgatory, within hours of the thread being closed on that basis, they promptly went and posted 745 words most of which appear to be a potted sermon in Kerygmania, with the introduction

quote:
One of the best sermons I have ever delivered was

I for one don't spend time and energy moderating on these boards to then watch people shit all over them.

[ 22. February 2018, 16:30: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
Well for example, the person in question was being baited in that thread after rook called for no personal insults. Is Styx really a location for baiting?
It strikes me that RdrEmCofE was the one doing the baiting there.

[x-post]

Certainly it didn't look to me as though Boogie's two posts following Rook's warning were in any sense 'baiting', and IMO they were fair comment about what RdrEmCofE had posted on that same thread. FWIW (just about zilch actually) I think the post of mr cheesy's that was then quoted was also a personal attack (albeit from a closed thread on another board), but quoting it in that context was very hard not to construe as a personal attack on mr. cheesy.

Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :

I never said Boogie baited (try saying that 5 times quickly.) For the record, she was not the person i am thinking of. Read the thread closely and see which posts were egging him/her on.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Caissa

I don't see why you can't quote directly what you see as provocative, rather than encouraging BroJames (and the rest of us) to play hunt the thimble. (I read the thread on which the suspension occurred in the same way as BroJames.)

(There was indeed some provocation and mutual insulting on the Re-Baptism thread, but that 's a different matter. In any case, the Hosting in that thread named both parties.)

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
I never said Boogie baited (try saying that 5 times quickly.) For the record, she was not the person i am thinking of. Read the thread closely and see which posts were egging him/her on.

I have reread the thread and I have no idea which ones you are talking about. I do note, however, that RdrEmCofE's very first post on it was a personal insult veiled so thinly as to be blindingly obvious.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

It occurs to me that saying people were deliberating baiting someone is an accusation of trolling. Of course, calling someone a troll is a personal attack. But, if you don't name names then you stay just within the line of C3. Though those being accused of trolling probably know who they are.

Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :

So how would I appropriately inform one of the powers that be to whom I was referring?

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
So how would I appropriately inform one of the powers that be to whom I was referring?

I would suggest using clarity. Like specifically quoting the words you think are problematic and state why. If you are uncomfortable doing so in public, feel free to PM or email.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
Was that threat, Marvin?

No, a statement of fact presented as evidence to disprove your claim.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:

quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
So how would I appropriately inform one of the powers that be to whom I was referring?
I would suggest using clarity. Like specifically quoting the words you think are problematic and state why. If you are uncomfortable doing so in public, feel free to PM or email.

You have grown so sensible and mature since the years when I used to send you chocolate body parts in the mail.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
You have grown so sensible and mature since the years when I used to send you chocolate body parts in the mail.

Oh, I'm still bribable with chocolate and cash. The majority of the Crew are honest folk who work to be objective. I balance them out.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0