Ship of Fools: Post-ironic hosts?

Thread: Post-ironic hosts? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029441

Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on :

I am relatively new here. Do the hosts always win every argument on the Ship? Hosts in other places used to be really cool in that they let other people win debates. That was the coolness of it all - that it wasn't about brinkmanship or looking good for hosts. The job of the hosts was to make other people look cool and in that deference they became cool too. In getting taken for granted they transcended cool. And people were grateful for it.

Something tells me it is different here.

I await responses with a kind of fearful trepidation. It's not a criticism, it's just an observation.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Most of the time, the volunteers who host these boards post with the same authority as any other Shipmate. In which case they're trying to express their opinions such that others will understand, raise interesting questions, make comments etc , basically to engage in serious discussion (obviously that's for the discussion boards, the emphasis in Heaven, Hell, AS and the Circus is a bit different). If you think their position is crap, then just explain why you think they should re-evaluate their opinions, same as would be the case for anyone else.

These individuals will occasionally have to act in an official manner, to direct threads away from fights or potential legal problems for example. In that case they will clearly indicate that they are posting as a host. If you have a question about a specific hosting decision, then feel free to ask it here in the Styx. The aim of the hosts in taking official action is not to win points over others, it's to stop the Ship descending into chaos with fights all over the place and potential illegal posts abounding.

Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Most of the time, the volunteers who host these boards post with the same authority as any other Shipmate. In which case they're trying to express their opinions such that others will understand, raise interesting questions, make comments etc , basically to engage in serious discussion (obviously that's for the discussion boards, the emphasis in Heaven, Hell, AS and the Circus is a bit different). If you think their position is crap, then just explain why you think they should re-evaluate their opinions, same as would be the case for anyone else.

These individuals will occasionally have to act in an official manner, to direct threads away from fights or potential legal problems for example. In that case they will clearly indicate that they are posting as a host. If you have a question about a specific hosting decision, then feel free to ask it here in the Styx. The aim of the hosts in taking official action is not to win points over others, it's to stop the Ship descending into chaos with fights all over the place and potential illegal posts abounding.

See? You just can't help yourselves. Over-competitive is what it is.

Posted by Ann (# 94) on :

In my experience, hosting is fairly light here. If a host intervenes on a thread, it's for a reason* and they will sign off as a host. If anyone wants to challenge a host's post, it can be done (in the Styx) and the hosts will consider other views. Often, a hostly decision has been discussed by several hosts on their own board. These decisions are matters of procedure, not part of the discussion and, yes, the hostly warnings are to be adhered to.

If a host is taking part in a discussion, which they do - they joined the boards for this anyway, they don't sign off as a host and can be argued with like anyone else. If something happens on the thread requiring hostly intervention, a different host will post - so a host won't trump an argument with an official pronouncement.

*Reasons are almost always when posters get close to or step over the lines drawn by the ten commandments (of the board) which are part of the terms and conditions of signing onto these boards.

Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on :

Well if they're volunteers, they're going to make mistakes or feel aggrieved. Someone pay them.

[ 02. June 2015, 15:17: Message edited by: Alyosha ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

It is absolutely impossible to address this accusation without actual evidence.

Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It is absolutely impossible to address this accusation without actual evidence.

I think my point is made.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Bullshit.

Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Bullshit.

Bless you too, Sir. Although, maybe you are doing what I asked here?

[ 02. June 2015, 15:24: Message edited by: Alyosha ]

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Most of the time, the volunteers who host these boards post with the same authority as any other Shipmate. In which case they're trying to express their opinions such that others will understand, raise interesting questions, make comments etc , basically to engage in serious discussion (obviously that's for the discussion boards, the emphasis in Heaven, Hell, AS and the Circus is a bit different). If you think their position is crap, then just explain why you think they should re-evaluate their opinions, same as would be the case for anyone else.

These individuals will occasionally have to act in an official manner, to direct threads away from fights or potential legal problems for example. In that case they will clearly indicate that they are posting as a host. If you have a question about a specific hosting decision, then feel free to ask it here in the Styx. The aim of the hosts in taking official action is not to win points over others, it's to stop the Ship descending into chaos with fights all over the place and potential illegal posts abounding.
See? You just can't help yourselves. Over-competitive is what it is.

Alan's answer sounded to me like a clear, concise, and polite answer to your question. And why you think that hosts should try to make us "look cool" is beyond me. It reminds me of parenting where you let your five-year-old win at checkers to keep up their self-esteem. None of us is five around here, or so I believe.

[ 02. June 2015, 15:30: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Alyosha: why your post is bullshit: your OP reminds me of people who complain, in a hand-wavey sort of manner, that there "is not enough love in the church". If asked for examples, they don't give any, but just say "and a lot of other people feel that way too".

This is absolutely hopeless in terms of addressing any actual issue.

If you have a complaint about how hosts are acting in their capacity as hosts, then you need to argue your case based on evidence. If you don't have any evidence, don't be surprised if you don't find much support for your views. And if you aren't willing to bring any evidence, don't be surprised if nothing changes.

[ 02. June 2015, 15:30: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

When I post anywhere but Hell, I post as a shipmate and am subject to the same rules and regulations as you.

When I post in Hell without Host tags, ditto.

When I post in Hell with Host tags, and you disagree with that ruling, you have the option to bring it to Styx where we can discuss matters.

So, in answer to your question, no: hosts don't have to win every argument, nor do they expect to, nor do they even want to - though occasionally would be nice.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It is absolutely impossible to address this accusation without actual evidence.
I think my point is made.

No, it isn't. You have not brought any example of your point.

As far as paying people to eliminate mistakes made; can you name a profession which achieves this?

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

@OP
Some things are discussions, some things are arguments, some things are discipline/legalities. From my experience hosts do not win all the arguments nor provide the best discussion. They do win all the situations where the basic rules of the forums are violated and where there are legalities or safety issues. But they don't do it alone. They discuss among the host group, and then consult the administrators. Thus, a collective decision making seems to how it works.

If you wish to see this in power dynamic terms you can, but I don't think it really works that way.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
Well if they're volunteers, they're going to make mistakes or feel aggrieved. Someone pay them.

I've yet to meet an employed person who is flawless.

Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :

Alyosha - sounds like you need a break.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
Well if they're volunteers, they're going to make mistakes or feel aggrieved. Someone pay them.

So, you want the hosts to be paid to let you win an argument kind of like the mafia used to pay boxers to take a dive or the White Sox to throw the world series?

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

"Some day, and that day may never come, I will call upon you to do a service for me. But until that day, consider this justice a gift on my daughter's wedding day."

[ 02. June 2015, 17:34: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Fascinating. The Styx exists, amongst other reasons, precisely to provide a means for any Shipmate to take any Host orAdmin to task for any perceived fault in carrying out their responsibilities. So none of us is above criticism.

Personally, I don't think arguments get won or lost here. Differences of opinion get explored, some folks stick to their ground, some folks move their understanding. Personally, I don't keep any kind of score. Someone can post absolutely terrible arguments here - and get shot down for it - but that's not really my concern as a Host. All that matters when I'm Hosting is whether Shipmates "play nicely" in accordance with the 10Cs and guidelines. Making a terrible argument is not against the guidelines, nor is shooting down a terrible argument.

And in general, when I'm posting as a Shipmmate to the extent that I get engaged in the discussion, I recuse myself from Hosting in that thread while I'm active.

So none of my own behaviour is predicated on the thesis that I have to win any argument. I'd be a pretty terrible Host if that was my primary motivation.

It's certainly true that a lot of H & A argue cogently and well for their respective points of view, but then so do a lot of Shipmates. Bad arguments often get shown up here, basically because the collective nose for bullshit is pretty sensitive. But that's just one of the prices you pay for taking part in the threads.

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

quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
Do the hosts always win every argument on the Ship?

Simple answer is no. I am speaking as a private board host, a one-time 8th day host and a shipmate.

Hosts - when posting as shipmates - are sometimes wrong, sometimes on the wrong side of arguments and sometimes mistaken.

When posting as a host, they represent the authority of the boards, and are always right by definition - they are defining the rules in a case. The Styx is here for occasions where this needs further clarification and refinement.

However, shipmates tend to get asked to be hosts if they behave in a reasonable way, they understand the way that the ship works. All of which means they are liable to be on the winning side of arguments, because they realise what the winning side is liable to be.

It is sometime difficult to distinguish between people who are always agreed with and people who know what side to be on.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
See? You just can't help yourselves. Over-competitive is what it is.

Alan's answer sounded to me like a clear, concise, and polite answer to your question. And why you think that hosts should try to make us "look cool" is beyond me. It reminds me of parenting where you let your five-year-old win at checkers to keep up their self-esteem. None of us is five around here, or so I believe.

It should be clear to everyone that what this situation calls for is a SoF Official Host Cagematch.

I'm willing to host, but everyone will be responsible for their own travel arrangements.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
I am relatively new here.

See, there's your problem, right there. You haven't been here long enough for the conclusions you've leapt to bear up under the weight you're trying to pile on them.

OTOH, if you don't care for the moderation here, you aren't required to tolerate it. As you note, "Hosts in other places used to be really cool in that they let other people win debates. That was the coolness of it all - that it wasn't about brinkmanship or looking good for hosts."

Of course, the Ship is also not particularly about "coolness," either (though a little spontaneous coolity has been know to erupt occasionally), and it certainly isn't a Hostly function to make Shipmates look cool. That's up to Shipmates themselves.

You could try it.

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
Do the hosts always win every argument on the Ship?

A non-host here! The hosts don't even participate in every argument on the Ship, so they can hardly win them all. Of course, a host may participate, but when they do they do so as a shipmate. Hosting has nothing to do with arguing a point in a discussion. It has to do with making sure the Ship operates within its stated commandments and steers clear of treacherous legal waters that could sink it.

And while I am on the topic, I am amazed that you seem to think that arguments are "won" here, by anybody. How do you define that? I cannot recall any discussion thread (at least, not any vigorous one) that ended with all concerned in complete accord. Discussions are not about "winning" but about discussing. You may be persuaded by what another says, but merely because you agree does not mean that the person making the point "won." Merely because you disagree with the majority does not mean you "lost." It is a discussion. The concept of keeping score and declaring a winner and a loser is not applicable in any sensible way. If you are going to use terms like "win" you really should define the term so that we are all discussing the same thing. It obviously means something different to you than to me.

quote:
Hosts in other places used to be really cool in that they let other people win debates.

What usefulness is that to a discussion? So, if I were a host, and you maintained that turtles were part of the equine family, I as host should agree with you to make you happy? That perverts the point of open discussion.

quote:
That was the coolness of it all - that it wasn't about brinkmanship or looking good for hosts.

Again, perhaps you should define your terms. I don't think "brinksmanship" means what you think it does. "Looking good" for the host or anybody seems to get us back to your (in my opinion) misguided belief that there is such a thing as a "winner" in a discussion. As long as we have free and open discussion to make points and respect the points of others, we are all winners. It does not mean we all bow down to one person's view and declare that all must hold the same opinion.

quote:
The job of the hosts was to make other people look cool and in that deference they became cool too.

Nobody's job on the Ship is to make others "look cool"--indeed, I suspect many Shipmates have never even considered the question of whether they were or were not "cool" when posting. The job of a host is as stated before: make sure everybody stays within the Ship's commandments (and avoid legal liability). Unlike many boards, if you disagree with a host's ruling, the Ship, wonder that it is, actually provides a place for one to air grievances. Here in Styx. That is so cool!

quote:
In getting taken for granted they transcended cool. And people were grateful for it.

Although I don't think we say it enough (and I know I don't) I think many Shipmates are immensely grateful to the hosts and admins for all they do. I try to show my gratefulness each year by making a contribution to the Floating Fund. But, while I have the opportunity, let me say here and now: Thank you all for the job you do. I am grateful to you.

quote:
It's not a criticism, it's just an observation.

Well, that is good to know. I am glad that you are not criticizing them. I, in turn, am not criticizing you, but I do think you are mistaken.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I don't think I've ever seen a host or admin here do anything for brinkmanship. Except maybe RooK but he's earned it. This Styx thread isn't even worth popping corn for.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Alan's answer sounded to me like a clear, concise, and polite answer to your question.

Well, that was what I was aiming at. I was also aiming at general because I didn't know whether there was any particular example to be addressed.

I'm always willing to try and clarify further, but only if I'm told what wasn't clear the first time around.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
Well if they're volunteers, they're going to make mistakes or feel aggrieved. Someone pay them.

I don't agree with much else you've posted on this thread, but this right here is a fabulous idea.

How much are you going to chip in? Daddy needs a new DB9.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

Why waste money on a posermobile when you can buy a real Porsche?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Why waste money on a posermobile when you can buy a real Porsche?

Tsk. Brinkmanship.

PS: Thank you.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Why waste money on a posermobile when you can buy a real Porsche?

I prefer to buy British.

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

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Why waste money on a posermobile when you can buy a real Porsche?

I prefer real sports cars.

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
I await responses with a kind of fearful trepidation. It's not a criticism, it's just an observation.

Alyohsa, I am not a host, but I'm very curious about your posts. What sort of responses were you expecting or wanting? Why were you making the observation that this site isn't like the cool sites where people were grateful for their hosts' coolness, and that hosts here can't help themselves and are always over-competitive? As there were not not criticisms, do you see them as neutral observations, like observing that someone has long hair, or brown eyes? Were you wanting a simple 'Oh', or 'Thanks for the observation', rather than hearing people's thoughts on what you said?

Also, did you mean 'brinkmanship' or did you mean 'oneupmanship'? This is confusing me, because the rest of your post seems to be talking about oneupmanship, and the brinkmanship bit doesn't really fit.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Why waste money on a posermobile when you can buy a real Porsche?
I prefer to buy British.

Ah - your lover must be a garage mechanic.

Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :

I'd be delighted to be paid in DB9s. [Big Grin]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Furreal.

Posted by Carex (# 9643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Piglet:
I'd be delighted to be paid in DB9s.

Here you go!

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Vehicle fun aside, I think Fineline's thoughtful post asked a good question as well as making a good point. The brinkmanship thing had puzzled me, too.

Aloysha, if you haven't given up on us as incorrigible, maybe you could clarify?

Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Vehicle fun aside, I think Fineline's thoughtful post asked a good question as well as making a good point. The brinkmanship thing had puzzled me, too.

Aloysha, if you haven't given up on us as incorrigible, maybe you could clarify?

Hi all, I was just listening to your comments and nursing my sore head.

Yes, I got the word wrong, I meant oneupmanship rather than brinkmanship. Doh.

I wasn't deliberately trying to rock the ship and meant no harm in the observation. Where I come from people are allowed to make comments and ask questions and not really feel that it is an awful thing that they have just uttered. But like most of you, I am used to being browbeaten too.

Some of you (in between calling me uncool and childish) were asking for my motives in making the comment. I think (and a person can never be sure with motives) that it was just an idle, good natured observation. I hadn't really intended for it to offend anyone or make anyone feel bad. I thought it would make the hosts think a little more and be a little more considerate. I had intended it as a kind of gentle nudge. Is that allowed?

I understand that the hosts and Admin's roles seem to be voluntary (but, I mean, is that fair on you?).

So, Godfather quotes aside (and worried about receiving a horse's head in my bed) I did feel a little browbeaten by the responses. If you find this response from me a personal fault (a user error) in the face of 'rubust debate' then it does really prove my point. I know you are not stupid and most of you are able to see the irony in such a thread as this.

But I do defer to you all and as a result I apologise for being an arse. I am sorry.

Or maybe I'm just trying to make you all look cool?

[ 04. June 2015, 07:09: Message edited by: Alyosha ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:

I understand that the hosts and Admin's roles seem to be voluntary (but, I mean, is that fair on you?).

Oh, absolutely unfair, but we do get chocolate once a year.

But seriously, this place is run on a shoestring, by volunteers. Not sure about the others, but over the years I've developed both affection and respect for the value of our idiosyncracies. Doing it for nothing is still a privilege for me.

Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
I understand that the hosts and Admin's roles seem to be voluntary (but, I mean, is that fair on you?).

If you, or anyone else, knows of a place that actually pays a decent wage to forum hosts, please let me know.

Seriously, the economics of web forums - even those operated by relatively large organisations, which SoF isn't - are such that almost all mods everywhere are volunteers.

t

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

Alyosha, a lot of groups that are set up for sharing a mutual interest, both online and in real life, are run by volunteers - they don't make profit. I've been a volunteer host on a different site, and volunteered in a local 'real life' group too. In my experience, people volunteer because the group is important to them, and they want to give to it and keep it going.

In my experience, too, people can feel very resentful of hosts, because they are seen as having a position of 'power' - on the site where I was a host, we hosts had all kinds of bizarre accusations hurled at us. The one thing people seemed to resent the most was that we were friends - that we were a 'clique' as they saw it, and we stood up for each other, and we laughed at some of the silly accusations (as well as doing our hostly duties to assist people when they had a genuine problem with the site). But then hosts on a site often are people who have been on the site a while and have got to know each other and started to form a rapport. And of course that rapport is strengthened when working together, especially if you are all receiving a lot of weird accusations!

What I find here on the Ship, as someone who does not post regularly and has never been one of the 'cool' ones (or even the coolly uncool ones!), is that there are a lot of people (not all hosts) who have been here ages and have formed a good rapport, and they banter a lot, and sometimes refer to in-jokes. I find this is common on online groups where a core of people have formed a good rapport, and it can of course make newcomers feel like an outsider, especially when the rapport is a bit of a 'one-upmanship' rapport. I do see one-upmanship here, not particularly in hosts, but in general, but I think it's largely a banter thing, that everyone knows they are doing. Like a kind of fun game. At the same time, I think sometimes people do show off, and try to show how clever they are. Or how tough they are. But there are always people who show off, or try extra hard to be accepted, in any group, and they generally look to display whatever qualities the group seems to value.

As for your intentions with your posts, well, if I were a host, I think I would find it odd to be compared to hosts from other sites, who, unlike me, were so cool that they didn't need to make themselves look cool, and that they thus 'transcended cool' - and then to be told that was not a criticism but just an observation. It would be quite hard to read that as anything other than a criticism! And if I, as a host who in your judgement clearly didn't transcend cool, were to try to engage with you and explain to you the intentions of the hosts, and you were to reply with 'See? You just can't help yourselves. Over-competitive is what it is.' I would find that a bit hostile, and a bit competitive in itself (the 'See?' suggests 'I'm right! You've proved it!' rather than a genuine desire for discussion and to understand the values of the ship).

See how I quoted you and gave some specific examples there, of how your posts might come across a bit rude. If you could do that with the posts you are referring to in your original post, then the hosts would better be able to address your concerns. It's hard to know how to address a vague accusation. When Eutychus said 'It is absolutely impossible to address this accusation without actual evidence' I understood where he was coming from and I genuinely didn't understand your reply of 'I think my point is made.'

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

I love to knit. Would I knit you a woollie for money. No way. a) you wouldn't pay me the real value of my time and skill ( That much? But I could buy one for that!) b) I wouldn't enjoy doing it because it would no longer be a free choice.

Same thing with The Ship. What we give to it - as either Shippies or Crew - is not for sale.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
I understand that the hosts and Admin's roles seem to be voluntary (but, I mean, is that fair on you?).

Of course it is. It's not as if we didn't know beforehand.

Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :

I want to look cool. Just once ever. Please, nice hosts, can one of you make me look cool? Please?

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
(though a little spontaneous coolity has been know to erupt occasionally)

Where?

Can you provide links to back up that assertion?

Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :

How about trying The ice bucket challenge [Big Grin]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

luvanddaisies, we are not equipt with magic wands.

Alyosha, that was banter.

All kidding aside, Fineline once again sums it up with her excellent post, particularly this:

quote:
As for your intentions with your posts, well, if I were a host, I think I would find it odd to be compared to hosts from other sites, who, unlike me, were so cool that they didn't need to make themselves look cool, and that they thus 'transcended cool' - and then to be told that was not a criticism but just an observation. It would be quite hard to read that as anything other than a criticism! And if I, as a host who in your judgement clearly didn't transcend cool, were to try to engage with you and explain to you the intentions of the hosts, and you were to reply with 'See? You just can't help yourselves. Over-competitive is what it is.' I would find that a bit hostile, and a bit competitive in itself (the 'See?' suggests 'I'm right! You've proved it!' rather than a genuine desire for discussion and to understand the values of the ship).

See how I quoted you and gave some specific examples there, of how your posts might come across a bit rude. If you could do that with the posts you are referring to in your original post, then the hosts would better be able to address your concerns. It's hard to know how to address a vague accusation. When Eutychus said 'It is absolutely impossible to address this accusation without actual evidence' I understood where he was coming from and I genuinely didn't understand your reply of 'I think my point is made.'

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
Where I come from people are allowed to make comments and ask questions and not really feel that it is an awful thing that they have just uttered. But like most of you, I am used to being browbeaten too.

Alright, this is too provocative to pass.
Where are you coming from, if you please?
This very board is one to allow questioning of hosting, so how do you reconcile this with the statement we're not allowed to question?
The browbeaten bit has me scratching my head. Genuinely so.
I've a few sensitive spots, and bullying is one of them. So I tend to notice.
Again , I am genuinely curious to see what you think qualifies as the behaviour you describe.

Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :

quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
I want to look cool. Just once ever. Please, nice hosts, can one of you make me look cool? Please?

I'm deeply uncool, so come and have your photograph taken with me, L-and-D, and you'll look cooler than an iceberg.

Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :

quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
I want to look cool. Just once ever. Please, nice hosts, can one of you make me look cool? Please?

Your coolness is not in doubt.

[I have considerable concerns about the post-posting message under these circumstances]

[ 06. June 2015, 01:15: Message edited by: Patdys ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Anyone who thinks the authorities here post to "win arguments" has not posted much on any other hosted discussion forum.

On the hosting: try posting this shit on the Guardian's CIF and see what happens: instant deletion of post, sometimes instant deletion of account, no discussion or appeal.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Eutychus:If you have a complaint about how hosts are acting in their capacity as hosts, then you need to argue your case based on evidence.

As it happens I do have a problem.

After a reasoned discussion IMV in Kerg, between Steve Langton and others on canonicity,

eg Steve over several posts writes:

"Extant copies of most of the New Testament", if I remember rightly, would be the Chester-Beatty papyrus collection dated to the mid-200s. I'm not sure, mind, how relevant 'extant copies' are to the argument. I believe until the Dead Sea Scrolls discovery there were no known 'extant copies' of the Hebrew OT prior to 1000CE; and the same also applied to most Western literature such as Caesar's writings. Clearly the NT documents existed by mid-2C (mid-100s) at latest even on a cynical view of their origin.

You may recall that one of the causes of the 'Donatist' dispute was the unwillingness of the Donatists to forgive, and accept as bishops, the 'traditors' who had too readily surrendered scriptures. This argues again that at least the main outline of what was 'scripture' was known at the time of the persecutions shortly before Constantine's time.

Again, "you can easily get access to other scriptures by traveling long distances (and convincing your friend who can read to come with you)" is not what I said, is it? I simply reminded you of the obvious that there was considerable contact between early churches and they were not necessarily limited by their immediate resources. I don't even begin to be interested in a discussion you carry on in this way.

And BTW I have been thinking about your list of possible resources for an early church and wondering how likely it is that of all the possible OT books they might have, they'd have Esther !!

I made a modest statement based on what I had read of Anabaptist practice and suggested a similarity to the possibilities in the early church; limited literacy, limited physical copies, but great concern to be biblical, in essence. End of; not interested in your further nit-picking....

Mousethief then posts this.

quote:
Mousethief
Dismantling stupid comparisons is not nitpicking. It's discussion or if you like debate. Statements that cannot stand scrutiny have no business in this kind of discussion, and "la la la la la" is not a viable defense of an otherwise indefensible claim.

Now how, with the use of pejorative terms such as 'stupid', and 'indefensible'is that not an implied ad hominem comment? Steve is clearly neither ill informed nor stupid. Nor does he engage in any refusal to respond to counter argumenmts or 'lalala' behaviour. His view of a historical situation contained the kind of evidence one could present in a historical argument Why is it then acceptable to allow a comment like Mousethief's?
Is he not for want of as better term 'being a jerk', simply because he has a contrary view but fails to defend it himself?

Now you can say as I expect you will, 'Call him to Hell if you have an issue'. However, I have no problem with him only with the rather grey borders of where disagreement deteriorates into abuse. I know all the hosts are volunteers but I personally have been the subject of plenty of vitriolic comments from people here outside Hell and find hostly intervention slow and mostly ineffectual and usually backing a majority view.

What you are doing as hosts has the net effect of driving contrary views off the ship leaving a majority of members to pee in each others pockets.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Would it perhaps not be unreasonable to allow the hosts time to log in and read the comment in question, let alone decide what actions (if any) are needed, before you complain that they haven't acted?

It has been less than 5h, I don't know what time zone you're in but for many people on the Ship that's been 5h during the middle of the night.

Normal protocol in the event of someone spotting something that warrants immediate action is to locate a host for that board who may be online, and failing that an admin, and send a PM to raise the issue. If you think it's that urgent and demanding adminly attention, send an email to the board admins address (it's on any email that comes from the Ship, eg: notification of PMs and acknowledgement of registration).

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Just a note to folks of Alyosha's point of view:

There *are* debate sites, with formal one-on-one debates, and a winner.

The Ship doesn't work that way, but a real debate site might be a better fit for you.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Have you entered a time-warp? Hosting is heaps less dominant than in years gone by. I remember being a host during the transition to 'host lite' - something that took a while because the old original light touch got walked all over very heavily by a small number of nuisance posters who almost brought the ship to its knees - when that immediate threat was over, there was understandably some reluctance to risk it all again. Now, as far as I can see, it's back to a light touch again for the most part, but with a sterner hand when necessary. I think you'd need to look at the overall History of the Ship to understand this fully. Otherwise, you'll just have to trust me. (I was the one with the squirty flower.)

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I think you'd need to look at the overall History of the Ship to understand this fully. Otherwise, you'll just have to trust me. (I was the one with the squirty flower.)

[tangent]I know I have suggested it before, but could the Ship History thread please be pinned to the top of Styx? I think it would be instructive to newer Shipmates.[/tangent]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

It took some finding but in the FAQs I eventually found this "What is Ship of Fools about?"

"The subtitle of the site is the magazine of Christian unrest, and Christian unrest is the flag we sail under. The ship is here to provide space for Christians to look at their faith critically: attacking and ridiculing the things that go wrong; and recommending the things which go right. Since there are a million and one websites cheerleading for the church, our special calling is the Christian faith doing self-criticism."

The concept of "unrest" is what this place is about and the inevitable outcome is that it is a rather disputatious place. Hosts don't "win arguments" but if they are acting as hosts (on a board which they host) then what they say goes. That isn't the end of it though because The Styx is there to query rulings and other actions by hosts and admins. Having been a host I know this only too well!

btw, do remember that these boards are hosted, not moderated.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:
Mousethief
Dismantling stupid comparisons is not nitpicking. It's discussion or if you like debate. Statements that cannot stand scrutiny have no business in this kind of discussion, and "la la la la la" is not a viable defense of an otherwise indefensible claim.

Now how, with the use of pejorative terms such as 'stupid', and 'indefensible'is that not an implied ad hominem comment? Steve is clearly neither ill informed nor stupid.

If one can't see the difference between "that is a stupid thing to say" and "you are stupid" then it seems to me one doesn't understand one of the primary tools the ship uses to judge whether something belongs in purg or hell. I agree that Steve is not stupid. But that doesn't stop him from occasionally saying stupid things, just as my not being stupid (stop laughing) doesn't keep me from saying stupid things.

The intro to the purg board says, "All views are welcome – orthodox, unorthodox, radical or just plain bizarre – so long as you can stand being challenged." Steve can stand being challenged, and he holds up his end of the exchange admirably and without whining (even if I disagree with him up one side and down the other).

In short, I plead not guilty to ad hominem.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

I hear you. Technically,you are not guilty and my issue is not with you personally but that tone and terminology can also send an ad hominem message albeit implied. It is obviously too hard basket for hosting though.

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
[tangent]I know I have suggested it before, but could the Ship History thread please be pinned to the top of Styx? I think it would be instructive to newer Shipmates.[/tangent]

Ahh-men.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
tone and terminology can also send an ad hominem message albeit implied. It is obviously too hard basket for hosting though.

We do not require Hosts to employ telepathy or clairvoyance.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:

quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
[tangent]I know I have suggested it before, but could the Ship History thread please be pinned to the top of Styx? I think it would be instructive to newer Shipmates.[/tangent]
Ahh-men.

OK.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
tone and terminology can also send an ad hominem message albeit implied. It is obviously too hard basket for hosting though.
We do not require Hosts to employ telepathy or clairvoyance.

Perhaps clairvoyance was not needed on the occasion below?

quote:
From Croesus,2 Oct 2012 from DH thread Scientific dating methods p 8 "And no, the sarcasm is not necessary. It's a service thrown in free of charge. The contempt, on the other hand, is something you've definitely earned. I wouldn't want to deprive you of that".

That remark was to me. If you forbid attacking the person outside of Hell, then enforce the fucking rule!

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

And, to find an example of the rules not being enforced you have to go back three years? If you want to try and establish a case that personal attacks outside Hell are not called on by the Hosts then you need to do better than that.

You may have noticed our hosts are volunteers. So in addition to clairvoyance and telepathy, there are some other things we don't expect of our hosts. These include not requiring them to be online 24h a day, 7 days a week to respond within a nanosecond of a questionable post. And, we don't expect total infallibility and accept that sometimes minor infringements of the Commandments will slip past them.

And, there is one more important thing to remember about the art* of hosting. That is to provide space for people to behave like adults and sort out minor disagreements themselves without having to step in to address every little incident.

* it is an art rather than a science.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

When a host has made a wrong call, as occasionally happens, they are quick to apologise. I have received such an apology.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I wasn't a DH Host at the time but out of curiosity I did review the post to which Jamat refers, and also the context. TonyK and Louise's non-call seems edto me to be right. Croesos clearly asserts contempt for the quality of the argument you advanced; in particular the nonsense you wrote about relativity. What he was saying that your posts in that context deserved to be treated with contempt because of their content. That's allowable in Dead Horses. It is simply the equivalent of saying "your post is stupid".

Here is the post in question.

[ 18. October 2015, 16:09: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
If you forbid attacking the person outside of Hell, then enforce the fucking rule!

It is clear that you are frustrated by this, and feel that the rules are applied unfairly.

Sadly, no amount of consistent ruling can make everything feel fair to everybody. Instead we hope that most people are adults and are capable of dealing with the world as it is.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

There is optimism and then there is unwarranted optimism...

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I wasn't a DH Host at the time but out of curiosity I did review the post to which Jamat refers, and also the context. TonyK and Louise's non-call seems edto me to be right. Croesos clearly asserts contempt for the quality of the argument you advanced; in particular the nonsense you wrote about relativity. What he was saying that your posts in that context deserved to be treated with contempt because of their content. That's allowable in Dead Horses. It is simply the equivalent of saying "your post is stupid".

Here is the post in question.

If you reviewed it you will also note I acknowledged that my comment re relativity was uninformed and misapplied. If you want to spin it to make Croesus' comment, about my comment, to justify the hosting non-call, then fine. The comment was a personal attack nevertheless.

@ Allan: That comment stopped me posting for almost 2 years. I know hosts are volunteers not on-line 24/7 and do their best, and that mostly their calls are fair. Perhaps, that can be an end of this particular discussion.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I wasn't a DH Host at the time but out of curiosity I did review the post to which Jamat refers, and also the context. TonyK and Louise's non-call seems edto me to be right. Croesos clearly asserts contempt for the quality of the argument you advanced; in particular the nonsense you wrote about relativity. What he was saying that your posts in that context deserved to be treated with contempt because of their content. That's allowable in Dead Horses. It is simply the equivalent of saying "your post is stupid".

Here is the post in question.
If you reviewed it you will also note I acknowledged that my comment re relativity was uninformed and misapplied. If you want to spin it to make Croesus' comment, about my comment, to justify the hosting non-call, then fine. The comment was a personal attack nevertheless.

@ Allan: That comment stopped me posting for almost 2 years. I know hosts are volunteers not on-line 24/7 and do their best, and that mostly their calls are fair. Perhaps, that can be an end of this particular discussion.

I'm certainly not going to call an end to that particular discussion. Because, I've also now reviewed that post. First, I note that you were still posting on that thread a month later ... which seems discordant with your statement that that comment stopped you posting for 2 years.

More importantly, I find this post by Louise with all the usual identifications as host a mere 8 hours after the post you quoted

quote:
Some of this is getting unduly personal and insulting - if you get into a personal conflict with another poster your option is to start a Hell thread.

This is followed up by a post from TonyK.

You do not get to say the hosts have failed to do their job at a distance of three years, and you most certainly don't get to do that when the evidence is clear that both hosts on the board at the time had issued very clear instructions to cut out the inappropriate personal attacks.

I'm going to remind you of our Ten Commandments, in particular
6. Respect the Ship's crew. The next post from you on this thread had better be an apology for your attack on the DH hosts. Or, your next break from posting on the Ship will not be voluntary.

Alan
Ship Of Fools Admin

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

I'm going to remind you of our Ten Commandments, in particular
6. Respect the Ship's crew. The next post from you on this thread had better be an apology for your attack on the DH hosts. Or, your next break from posting on the Ship will not be voluntary.

Alan
Ship Of Fools Admin [/QB]

Hi Allan,
With respect, I am afraid I cannot apologise with integrity for the statements I have made. You will obviously ban me but please consider the following parting comments.

The 2 year comment was misleading but was not intended as a precise statement but to point out my posting record has been minimal between then until recently.

The hosting comment you quoted did not confront the other poster on ad hominem but both of us and I never was deliberately offensive to anyone.

I thought the Styx existed for this kind of discussion.

I do not disrespect Louise/Tony K but was pointing out an anomaly

I have obviously stressed you out a bit so I apologise for that.

Because it is only a historical matter that I used to comment on Rook's point about 'clairvoyant' hosts, I have no personal stake in pursuing it further. I am sorry that it seems to have escalated somewhat.

Regards,
Jamat.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
With respect, I am afraid I cannot apologise with integrity for the statements I have made. You will obviously ban me but please consider the following parting comments.

An honest "I can't apologise" shows more integrity than some "I'm sorry, but ..." non-apologies. Our normal protocols for showing disrespect to the hosts is a two-week suspension, a ban would be overly harsh.

To that end, it may be worth clarifying some issues from your 'parting comments' for you to consider should you decide to return in November.

quote:
The 2 year comment was misleading but was not intended as a precise statement but to point out my posting record has been minimal between then until recently.

It is generally a good idea to avoid misleading comments, especially when they imply critcism of the hosts. Your comment misled me into believing that as a result of a personal attack on one thread, and your perception that the hosts had not intervened, you had walked away from the Ship entirely. Which was contradicted by
a) your continued posting on the same thread for some time after the post in question, implying that you had not been unduly offended, and
b) your failure to raise the question of the hosting of that thread at the time - although I admit I may be mistaken on that point (I have had a review of the old Styx threads in Oblivion, but I do not see anything there, and also I do not remember any criticism of hosting on that thread).

quote:
The hosting comment you quoted did not confront the other poster on ad hominem but both of us and I never was deliberately offensive to anyone.

quote:
I do not disrespect Louise/Tony K but was pointing out an anomaly

Two points here. One, it is common when multiple people are involved in a personal argument not to name individuals but offer general instructions to everyone, and likewise when the personal comments are spread across several posts by different people it is not our practice to quote all the relevant posts - it would be a substantial undertaking for our volunteer hosts and yield little gain because most people know if they're likely to be among those getting told off. And, second, as already stated hosts aren't clairvoyant and so therefore cannot judge by intent - so some inept attempts at deliberate offense won't be called because there was no offense, but offensive posts will be called whether they're deliberate or not.

Put simply, there was no anomaly, just normal hosting practice.

quote:
I thought the Styx existed for this kind of discussion.

It does. But bringing up 3 year old grievances is not helpful. Especially when in doing so you fail to relate events accurately when anyone here can check the posts in question - in this case omitting to mention the hostly response to a series of posts including the one you quoted, thus implying that there had been no response from the hosts.

quote:
Because it is only a historical matter that I used to comment on Rook's point about 'clairvoyant' hosts, I have no personal stake in pursuing it further. I am sorry that it seems to have escalated somewhat.

It only escalated because you introduced it. And, then commented further before unilaterally deciding it wasn't up for discussion despite missing out the crucial part of the thread in relation to the discussion here - the fact that the hosts did intervene, leaving it implied that they didn't intervene in response to a personal attack. If Erin was still with us you would be experiencing the pain of gator teeth in delicate places. She had a very low tolerance for people attacking the hosts here.

One final parting remark before I give you your shore leave. It is considered a matter of common courtesy to address people by the screen name they have chosen, or some version of that they have indicated they are comfortable with.

Alan
Ship of Fools Admin

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If Erin was still with us you would be experiencing the pain of gator teeth in delicate places. She had a very low tolerance for people attacking the hosts here.

No, no, no - it should be in the subjunctive: "If Erin were here ...". Tsk, tsk!

Aren't grammatical pedants really annoying? [Cool]

[ 19. October 2015, 06:59: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

Aren't grammatical pedants really annoying?

Isn't they just.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0