|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Styx: Rook - Could it be true? hell thread
|
Patdys
Iron Wannabe
RooK-Annoyer
# 9397
|
Posted
You know, as I have said before, I think there should be an element of sadness in planking someone rather than schadenfreude.
To celebrate that the community has lost a member who simply doesn't get it, and probably doesn't have the nous to be reinstated seems sad to me.
I have never objected to a planking, but often have wondered if a different expression of it could be better. However, I fully accept that the plankings occur as a result of multiple warnings and frustration on the hosts/admins part. And I have it on good authority, but can't personally attest that the hosts/admins are human too.
quote:
I said that I hated the Ship in the post that started this whole thing off. That, I think, was rash of me. I don't hate the Ship; I simply hate some of its conventions, particularly the bullying that happens in Hell and some of the less gracious Hosting behaviours. I would like the Ship to change a bit by becoming a tad more gracious and little less tolerant of bullying.
If numpty had said this to start off, rather than a knee jerk response; heavy on the jerk; then I suspect a very different response could have eventuated. This thought could lead to discussion, whereas what was expressed cannot. Numpty, could I ask you to chill for a bit and then re-ask this question in a format, without the heat, that could lead to discussion?
Do you wish to be part of a solution, or simply more of the problem?
--------------------
Marathon run. Next Dream. Australian this time.
Posts: 3511 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
I have never objected to a planking, but often have wondered if a different expression of it could be better.
Pulling a zen veil over my misanthropic grin, I do completely agree with you. Every planking, aside from spambots and sockpuppets, is fundamentally a failure to affect sufficient change in someone's behaviour. The responsibility for that change might be up to the individual poster, but there is still the responsibility of the Crew to try to help that poster to see, understand, and agree with that change.
But all we can do is try. And we can only try so much before pragmatism tilts the scale - and the plank. So in my role as part of the Crew, I have to say that much of the expressed relief in many of these cases is in no small part due to a sense of failure to accomplish facilitating the required change. I imagine many Shipmates feel the same way, considering how most seem to be trying to be helpful even as they may be seen to be dogpiling.
Still, your thought is heard.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
A solution to which problem?
The second one has an easy fix. Hosts and Admins. could stop being jerks and instead be more gracious. Seeing as how most hosts and admins aren't jerks, it would be quite easy for those who are to stop. If how Rook handled the Evensong situation worked no better than how Alan would have handled the situation, then there really is no reason for handling the problem the way Rook handled it. I don't think its asking much for the Hosts and Admins to take the high ground. Will that ever happen? Of course it won't. However, I'm not sure what there is to talk about.
The first problem is harder to address. Most of us admit that dogpiles occur in hell. One or more shipmates will consider every dogpile bullying and others will consider it deserved. For instance, while I didn't agree with how Rook handled the Evensong situation, I don't believe she was the victim of a classic dogpile because she started the stupid thread in the first place. Hell calls will always be allowed. The only way to prevent dogpiles is to do as IngoB suggested and limit the number of shipmates allowed to participate in one. What Pyx_e's sockpuppet in hell called dogpiles plus could be prevented very easily. In all liklihood, those won't be either.
If those things bother Numpty that much, he really should leave because in all liklihood they aren't going to change. Perhaps, he has already figured that out and has left.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Geneviève
Mother-Hatting Cat Lover
# 9098
|
Posted
Patyds said;
quote:
You know, as I have said before, I think there should be an element of sadness in planking someone rather than schadenfreude.
To celebrate that the community has lost a member who simply doesn't get it, and probably doesn't have the nous to be reinstated seems sad to me.
I have never objected to a planking, but often have wondered if a different expression of it could be better. However, I fully accept that the plankings occur as a result of multiple warnings and frustration on the hosts/admins part. And I have it on good authority, but can't personally attest that the hosts/admins are human too.
To me, this is the heart of the matter. I would agree plankings are sometimes necessary, and none of us but the hosts and admins read all the relevant posts--therefore theirs is the call.
But all joking aside, this is supposed to be a Christian website, so why not do the planking simply, directly, and without any games?
In some ways this reminds me of a kindergarten sandbox--She started it, no he hit first, nyah nyah nyah. Whoever "started it", two wrongs don't make a right.
* and by "wrongs", I mean the process, not the decision that a planking is necessary.
[ 12. October 2010, 05:58: Message edited by: Geneviève ]
--------------------
"Ineffable" defined: "I cannot and will not be effed with." (Courtesy of CCTooSweet in Running the Books)
Posts: 4336 | From: Eastern US | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
So, do you think we should simply ban someone for breaking the rules, with no more than a brief post to that effect so that others know not to bother trying to get an answer from them? Should we stop the game of giving warnings from hosts, followed by adminly warnings and the odd suspension before the final planking?
About the only game I can think of is the (now very rare) changing of avatar and/or title of the banned person.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Beeswax Altar
Recognising that you cross-posted with RooK (who pretty much sums up how I feel about Numpty, Evensong, Myrrh etc. Whether they jump or get pushed).
When I first joined the Ship, I thought RooK (then HellHost) was pretty scary, but in a very perceptive sort of way. I figured his barbs probably wounded some, but to me they always had a kind of wincing accuracy. [He shared the billing at the time with Sarkycow, who IMO was even more scary, but also very perceptive. A skewering by Sarky would make the strongest quail.] I think HellHosting probably requires a combination of being able to see how it is and tell it how it is and take no prisoners.
After six years, I would probably reverse the order of my initial impressions. RooK is very perceptive, but sometimes (not always) scary with it.
Sure, some folks are likely to have issues with his style. But I am sure that his perceptiveness is a huge asset to the running of this place. I think he had Evensong bang to rights and showed her the edge of the precipice in no uncertain terms. But don't for one moment believe he really wanted to push her off the cliff. That's not the way it works around here.
Admin are tolerance limits monitors for the rest of us. It's foolish to believe the Ship doesn't need that. It's a rough job, but somebody's got to do it. RooK's style certainly has a bit of "pour encourager les autres" about it. Is that really such a bad thing given that the ethos of this place is unrestful, and deliberately so?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Geneviève
Mother-Hatting Cat Lover
# 9098
|
Posted
Alan,
I was not saying to stop warnings. I was saying, I thought quite clearly, that when a planking decision has been made, simply say so. Of course, you can say why.
And for an example, I thought it was gamey and goading for RooK to post his first comment to Evensong, as an admin, but without the admin signature.
--------------------
"Ineffable" defined: "I cannot and will not be effed with." (Courtesy of CCTooSweet in Running the Books)
Posts: 4336 | From: Eastern US | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The only way to prevent dogpiles is to do as IngoB suggested and limit the number of shipmates allowed to participate in one.
My "alternative Hell" idea worked rather well, IIRC. However, that could well have been an artifact of the novelty and the people involved. (RuthW needed to argue for my position, how could that not end up being entertaining?)
I think before this could replace Hell, it would require proper testing in a setting where it is more normal and less prominent posters are involved. In short, I would create a separate duel board, perhaps called "The Gauntlet"?, and if it turns out after a while that most people take their personal conflicts to that board rather than Hell, then one might think about replacing one with the other.
For those who have forgotten: the idea is that the gauntlet thrower and the challenged each get to pick one second. Other than the host(s) nobody gets to post on the duel thread but the principals and the seconds, i.e., four people only. To make this practical, I guess 1) there needs to be a time limit for a response of the challenged that includes naming their second (after that the thread gets closed because of non-show), and 2) it must be possible for the challenged to ask the public for a second and it must be understood that if someone answers this call, then they are not necessarily arguing their own opinion as second (this I think can be great fun and educational).
The main technical problem is the enforcing of the "four posters only", I guess. This would require much hosting, at least until most people get the idea (after a while I guess one would only have newbies wandering in that have not RTFM).
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
The thing about the dogpile is that, in my experience, a shipmate who has pissed off someone badly enough to rate a Hell call has probably pissed off at least 6 or 7 other people as well. Some of us are lazy gits and can't be bothered to form our own Hell call but happy to support someone else who does.
I do think that, occasionally, some shipmates seem to be joining in to enhance their sense of belonging or to suck up to the Powers. Such people either grow up eventually or get, in their turn, the slapping they deserve.
Having been, in a very mild way, at the bottom of a dogpile myself, I think that people need to know that they are calling forth that reaction. There is a psychologically healthy balance to be struck between Is it me? ![[Frown]](frown.gif) and It's them - the bastards! ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif) It's sad when some shipmates conclude that it is always "them" and that people dogpiling are doing so for obscure reasons that have nothing whatever to do with the victim's posting style and expressed attitudes. Because, usually, they're wrong.
[ 12. October 2010, 06:52: Message edited by: QLib ]
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Geneviève:
Alan,
I was not saying to stop warnings. I was saying, I thought quite clearly, that when a planking decision has been made, simply say so. Of course, you can say why.
Sorry, I thought you were suggesting an alternative to the way we currently handle things. Which is, as you say, to simply state that someone has been planked with a biref explanation. Our admin practice is then complicated by the fact that anyone else can come up here to the Styx and hold us to account ... but in principle there's just that simple ban post.
quote:
And for an example, I thought it was gamey and goading for RooK to post his first comment to Evensong, as an admin, but without the admin signature.
Which wasn't related to a ban, at least not until much later when Evensong decided to take the suicide by admin route in the Styx. I don't think many people would disagree that posting in Hell can sometimes be a bit of a game, for most people who post there. We can probably disagree on whether it should be.
Although I always try and put "Ships Admin" under my name on a post where I'm acting as such it's usually sufficiently clear that I'm speaking as an admin for that to be more than is needed ... the fact that everyone seemed to realise RooK was addressing Evensong as an admin in Hell despite the absense of the words "RooK, Ship Admin" at the end of the post would indicate to me that he didn't really need to be that explicit.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
For those who have forgotten: the idea is that the gauntlet thrower and the challenged each get to pick one second. Other than the host(s) nobody gets to post on the duel thread but the principals and the seconds, i.e., four people only. ...
The main technical problem is the enforcing of the "four posters only", I guess. This would require much hosting, at least until most people get the idea
As Qlib said, the biggest problem is that it's very unusual for someone to have pissed off one person sufficiently to warrant a Hell call without also pissing off more than one other person. Do you let the other pissed off start their own Guantlet threads? In which case you get the dogpile by many threads rather than contain it all in just the one thread.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Alan, I suspect she is objecting to suspension ir banning posts containing insults or sarcasm - the "enjoy your two weeks shoreleave numbnuts" variety.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
A criticism which IMO can hardly be addressed to RooK's banning of Evensong.
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
I see.
So, the options are:
- You really don't understand what I'm talking about, or,
- You're willfully mis-understanding what I'm talking about to try to stay but not modify your behaviour.
Neither is acceptable.
<splash>
Feel free to contact me, or any of the Admins, if you wish to appeal your banning off-line.
-RooK
Admin
There is the exact language for the ban on Evensong. It is accurate, factual, clear and explains a remedial course of action. What is wrong with that? The splash?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
But you recognise the variety, right ? I know I've made less than neutral host posts and hostly warnings from time to time. Main reasons usually being either mounting irritation at posting about the same issue to the same poster/s for the nth time and/ or to try to use/humour over-the-topness to take some of the heat out of a situation - or because I am hosting in hell and it is not meant to be a place where people get comfortable.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
Some of us are lazy gits and can't be bothered to form our own Hell call but happy to support someone else who does.
This is exactly why IngoB’s Gauntlet idea is so fucking good.
I think it’s fair to say I’m something of an expert dogpilee. Receiving dogpiles has taught me some surprisingly useful Truths, not just about how to live here with you degenerates, but also about life in the civilised real world. However, I sincerely believe I could just as well have learned these Truths by means of Gauntlet, and this would have spared me considerable and unnecessary distress. And here’s the thing. I’m sure it’s precisely this sort of distress that ultimately leads to many plankings and walkings round here, which is not always the most constructive result for the community.
The happiness of the lazy gits to pile in and support someone who makes a Hell call should be recognised for what it is- they just want to cause distress.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim
Ubi caritas et amor
# 256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
Some of us are lazy gits and can't be bothered to form our own Hell call but happy to support someone else who does.
This is exactly why IngoB’s Gauntlet idea is so fucking good.
I'll vote for it too - in the Inigo de Montoya sense. But please keep Hell too for the rest of us low-lives.
--------------------
Embrace the serious whack. It's the Catholic thing to do. IngoB
The Messiah, Peace be upon him, said to his Apostles: 'Verily, this world is merely a bridge, so cross over it, and do not make it your abode.' (Bihar al-anwar xiv, 319)
Posts: 7952 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
I'd go for the gauntlet idea too; the present dogpiling-encouraging (or at least -enabling) can, at times, border on cyberbullying; it's akin to a playground fight where, instead of simply standing around shouting "Fight! Fight! Fight!", the kids all jump on just one of the two participants; I find such antics of the peanut gallery at best juvenile and at worst downright and deliberately spiteful. Yes, perhaps some of the alleged 'victims' need to grow up, but so do some doing the dealing out.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
I think the Gauntlet idea is bloody stupid. Forcing everyone who is pissed off with a poster to start separate threads to tell them so is far more of a dogpile than only having one thread that they don't even have to read. I know I'd far prefer to have one Hell thread where a dozen people are having a go at me than the entire first page of Hell covered in "Marvin is a git" threads.
The only alternative is a situation where only the first person to get sufficiently pissed off gets to vent their anger at the fuckwit, and everyone else has to bottle it up and pretend things are hunky dory. Which is completely opposed to the whole point of having a board on which to vent in the first place, and would inevitably lead to people venting in Purg/Eccles/etc, with dire consequences for the standard of conversation on those boards.
And aside from any of that, I've been hosting Hell for years now and I cannot think of one Calling To Hell that has resulted in an unfair dogpiling. Not. One. Can anyone on this thread post a link to even one example? Please? Anyone?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
Tell me this dogpiling was fair.*
*Try to be neutral about it. Obviously, I cannot.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
But you recognise the variety, right ?
Sure. Which is why starting a formal post with:
Host Hat On - or similar
is helpful both as a discipline and as a reminder of personal restraint. If I'm being Hostly, but less formal (say on more general thread or behavioural guidance), I normally just put by Host title in bold at the end of the post In these situations, explaining things and offering opinion can sometimes be more helpful. And of course that's where Hostly style becomes more noticeable.
I think the same kinds of arguments apply to Admin offerings.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Tell me this dogpiling was fair.*
*Try to be neutral about it. Obviously, I cannot.
In all seriousness I would question your description of that thread as 'dogpiling'.
Yes, a lot of people are posting, some are agreeing with the OP, but some are not, and the tone in many posts is quite measured.
I would associate a dogpile with one poster after another joining in with little to add apart from posts of the 'and your mum' variety. That thread doesn't read like that to me.
I can appreciate that it isn't pleasant being the topic of such a discussion, but it appears that you had done something that was a specific breach of the rules and also made some people feel their trust had been betrayed. So a lot of people felt they had an axe to grind.
In that situation I think the 'gauntlet' idea would indeed have resulted in a lot of threads calling you on your perceived bad behaviour, which could feel even worse to be honest.
[ 12. October 2010, 10:15: Message edited by: Arrietty ]
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
Yes, actually, fuck that. I just read through a few pages, and it’s not a good example. That particular thread is almost entirely fair (though, at the time, I didn’t see it that way). There’s perhaps a bit of gratuitous dogpiling (around page 4), but in the whole it proves the very the opposite of what I was saying, above.
[ 12. October 2010, 10:29: Message edited by: Yorick ]
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
[ye olde crosse poste]
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Tell me this dogpiling was fair.*
That was the thread on which your sockpuppetry was revealed, on which you tried (poorly) to argue that it wasn't really sockpuppetry, and on which you proceeded to argue loudly that none of us could ever possibly know who you really were, so it doesn't matter which identity you actually use.
Honestly, do you expect everyone to just sit back and let you post all that without responding?
FWIW, I'll accept that unpopular posters get less latitude and more Hellish abuse from other Shipmates than popular ones. But I'll also point out that nobody achieves 'unpopular' status without merit. Many of the ones who become truly unpopular are the ones who simply cannot recognise the faults in themselves and assume it's everyone else just being mean for no reason. And finally, there have been people who have plumbed the very depths of unpopularity, "got" the reason why, amended their behaviour accordingly and restored (at least some of) their popularity. I would even class you as one of the latter, now that a few years have passed since the linked thread.
[ 12. October 2010, 10:30: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
. . . Seeing as how most hosts and admins aren't jerks, it would be quite easy for those who are to stop. If how Rook handled the Evensong situation worked no better than how Alan would have handled the situation, then there really is no reason for handling the problem the way Rook handled it . . .
Nor, on the other hand, is there any reason for NOT handling it that way. Who was without question being a jerk on that thread? The OP. I would not care to be at the pointy end of RooK's pitchfork, but there's an easy way to avoid that. The OP in that case was given numerous opportunities to modify the problematic behavior and rejected every one of them.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Yes, actually, fuck that. I just read through a few pages, and it’s not a good example. That particular thread is almost entirely fair (though, at the time, I didn’t see it that way). There’s perhaps a bit of gratuitous dogpiling (around page 4), but in the whole it proves the very the opposite of what I was saying, above.
I think it's a function online interaction that exchanges which feel quite sharp at the time read differently after the event.
Even though we only have words on the screen, there are issues like how quickly the posts are coming, who agrees with who, what else is referenced, the level of sarcasm that is being used (which might not be apparent when re-read out of context), that are often lost when re-reading it later.
I have no doubt that, at the time, that felt like being dog piled - but as you've said, it doesn't read like that with hindsight.
[ 12. October 2010, 11:04: Message edited by: Arrietty ]
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I'd go for the gauntlet idea too; the present dogpiling-encouraging (or at least -enabling) can, at times, border on cyberbullying; it's akin to a playground fight where, instead of simply standing around shouting "Fight! Fight! Fight!", the kids all jump on just one of the two participants; I find such antics of the peanut gallery at best juvenile and at worst downright and deliberately spiteful.
A counterargument is that the fact that the Caller runs such a risk is a deterrent to frivolous Hell calls.
I've been here five and a half years, made three Hell calls (two serious, one marginally less so) and received one. Of the three serious arguments, I think that they all resulted in a greater degree of understanding and clarity, and (I hope) no lasting ill feeling (at least, there's none on my side - and I don't think that any of the three others concerned are holding a grudge against me). My experience is that Hell works.
Starting a Hell thread, though, is gamble. It invites everyone on the ship who thinks that I'm an arsehole to say so. Pressing the ‘Add new thread' button risks starting something that will not be easy to stop. I'm only ever going to do that if I have both a serious issue with another poster and sufficient respect for them to want some sort of resolution (if only for them to understand why I'm pissed off). An arguing contest with one or two other people wouldn't feel the same. It isn't saying, "I want you to know that this matters enough for me to paint a target on my chest", and Hell is. The personal investment necessary to make a good Hell call should not be underestimated.
[ 12. October 2010, 11:16: Message edited by: Eliab ]
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
I don’t see that this wouldn’t apply equally to a formal Gauntlet-style approach. In fact, I’d imagine it might make people even more cautious about calling someone, arse target self-painting notwithstanding, because their complaint would certainly be scrutinised very critically, whereas in the freestyle brawling environment of Hell it might not.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
As Qlib said, the biggest problem is that it's very unusual for someone to have pissed off one person sufficiently to warrant a Hell call without also pissing off more than one other person. Do you let the other pissed off start their own Guantlet threads? In which case you get the dogpile by many threads rather than contain it all in just the one thread.
Firstly, at least in the trial phase there would be a Gauntlet board and a Hell board (or perhaps rather a way of marking specific threads in Hell as "duels"). So during trial at least people could open a Hell thread if the they are not satisfied with watching the duel.
Secondly, I suggest to limit the number of duels a person can be called to at any one time to precisely one. Thus whoever is quickest on the draw gets to throw the gauntlet at the perpetrator (and gets to invite one second). Whereas everybody else has to wait their turn.
I would consider this as a feature, not a bug. If the first duel is fought and after that one finds that neither the previous duel nor the simple passing of time has sufficiently restored balance, then one can call the same perpetrator into the next duel, possibly about the same issue.
I would assume that in most cases we would only see one duel per issue. In some serious cases perhaps two or three, but the dynamics of life moving on if the perpetrator does means that the only people in danger of having to duel endlessly are those who continue to offend grievously. Which is as it should be.
(BTW, any idea for a better "biblical" name? Is there any duel in the bible but David and Goliath? Perhaps "The Sling" instead of "The Gauntlet"?)
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
What about allowing different people to tag in and out as seconds? Other people would have the opportunity to "vent" but the numbers would stay even.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Is anyone actually going to post some evidence which stands up, or link to a thread where they can point to posts which crossed a line? If we're talking about a serious chronic problem, how hard can it be?
What I find amazing is that people complain Hell is too mean, an admin actually acts when someone badly misuses Hell for their own mean gratification, and guess what, the admin gets pilloried.
We're just going to end up with having a trolls charter where if there is a mean and manipulative person, people are left to deal with them on their own, without other people being able to add their part of evidence that there is a general problem and that you're not imagining what is going on. You really will see bullies on the ship then, because they're going to love that. The people they go for will be isolated and will be the people who don't have the confidence to know they can hold their own one on one with a malicious person.
The ship is not full of malicious people, occasionally we get a real doozy or a complete jackass. They do enough damage as it is before they are stopped and then we get the people who for their own self- glorification rush to the Styx to condemn the admins for acting. Then we get the pious sorts who take up their talking points and suddenly the problem isn't the disruptive or malicious person who got planked,instead there are vague mutters of dogpiles and the people wound up, maltreated, or who came to the support of those who were, get fingers pointed at them because they weren't meek enough to the troll or jackass for the tastes of the pious.
L
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I like the 'two sides of Hell' idea. In fact I had the same thought myself a couple of days ago.
I thought 'We need two furnaces - one for arguments and one for rants.' But, like IngoB said - only one 'Gauntlet' per person would work in the argument furnace.
I like the name too.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I would assume that in most cases we would only see one duel per issue. In some serious cases perhaps two or three, but the dynamics of life moving on if the perpetrator does means that the only people in danger of having to duel endlessly are those who continue to offend grievously. Which is as it should be.
I think I see the problem. You seem to be seeing Hell as a mechanism for admonishing someone who has been a jerk. This is not the case. Hell is a safety valve enabling the people whom the jerk has pissed off, no matter how many of them there are, to vent their anger without it affecting the other boards.
It's never been about the jerk him/herself. Not directly, anyway. That's why there's no requirement for said jerk to even read a thread where they've been called to Hell. It's all about the venting, and your proposal would seriously curtail the ability of posters to do it. In effect, you would be welding shut the Ship's safety valve.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Loquacious beachcomber
Shipmate
# 8783
|
Posted
One problem with the gauntlet "solution" is the "wrestling with a pig" syndrome; the "pig" might well enjoy it; the one attempting to deal with the perceived "pigishness" would necessarily get dirty in the exchange.
Although at times, they might deserve to.
IMHO, during most Hell calls, the one who enjoys it most is quite often the callee.
And the one who regrets it most is often the caller.
But I suppose I should offer examples; this might not be seen as self-evident to all.
--------------------
TODAY'S SPECIAL - AND SO ARE YOU (Sign on beachfront fish & chips shop)
Posts: 5954 | From: Southeast of Wawa, between the beach and the hiking trail.. | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
It seems to me that the proposed Gauntlet has an element of the "mosquito-elephant gun" approach.
If dogpiling in Hell really is a genuine problem (and it would be reasonable to ask how many members seem to have walked as the result of being piled upon), isn't there a simpler solution?
Very recently, a poster (now apparently former poster) was urged to simply show restraint if he wanted to stop posting: just stop.
We could take the same advice.
Having hosts/admins monitor Hell for evidence of dogpiling would answer this problem just as effectively as setting up a whole new board.
Have hosts/admins warn posters who make a complaint or accusation that's already been made on the thread that they're dogpiling.
I haven't seen a lot of dogpiling in my comparatively short time here; I HAVE seen evidence that posters weigh in by making comments that have already been made by others (yes, I plead guilty, though I usually add something like "As has already been said," so others know I've done a bit of homework). Isn't that what much of the dog-piling comes down to? Posters not bothering to read the thread, but weighing in anyway?
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
The biggest problem on the Ship is the occasional sociopath or trainee sociopath who maltreats swathes of other people: people who run entire collectives of socks like Eddy, people who leave trails of nastiness behind them like Evensong, obsessive lunatics who choke threads and boards like Myrrh. These people are hard enough for teams of admins and hosts to rein in, and you think the solution to that is to tie the hands of posters a bit more behind their backs when dealing with these people?
And you want to do this to solve 'bullying' which you can't even show a case of, or link to one that stands up?
I can't find a smilie when I need one with its hands in front of its eyes because it can't bear to look.
L.
[ 12. October 2010, 13:31: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
Louise, do you really think dogpiling never happens here? There seem to be enough people who think it does, so are they all deluded? The fact that nobody has (yet) given a link to a specific example doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.
Smoke and fire, and all that.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
Oh dear. I think I just broke my rational atheism. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 66
|
Posted
People say ‘dog-piling’ like it was a bad thing. Or that it’s some sort of random inexplicable event raining down on the just and the unjust alike. Or that it happens anywhere except one particular board that can easily be avoided.
If this were a Christian website one might quote scripture and say ‘for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.’ - a very unfashionable point of view in certain circles apparently.
--------------------
Precious, Precious, Sweet, Sweet Daddy...
Posts: 16639 | From: lat. 36.24/lon. 86.84 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
Or that it’s some sort of random inexplicable event raining down on the just and the unjust alike.
The problem being that all too often the unjust think they are just. And their friends, fans and sycophants think so as well. And they start screaming "unfair dogpiling" when the rest of us can see damn well that it's a well-deserved kicking they've brought on themselves with their jerkish behaviour.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
As Qlib said, the biggest problem is that it's very unusual for someone to have pissed off one person sufficiently to warrant a Hell call without also pissing off more than one other person. Do you let the other pissed off start their own Guantlet threads? In which case you get the dogpile by many threads rather than contain it all in just the one thread.
Firstly, at least in the trial phase there would be a Gauntlet board and a Hell board (or perhaps rather a way of marking specific threads in Hell as "duels"). So during trial at least people could open a Hell thread if the they are not satisfied with watching the duel.
Secondly, I suggest to limit the number of duels a person can be called to at any one time to precisely one. Thus whoever is quickest on the draw gets to throw the gauntlet at the perpetrator (and gets to invite one second). Whereas everybody else has to wait their turn.
I would consider this as a feature, not a bug. If the first duel is fought and after that one finds that neither the previous duel nor the simple passing of time has sufficiently restored balance, then one can call the same perpetrator into the next duel, possibly about the same issue.
I would assume that in most cases we would only see one duel per issue. In some serious cases perhaps two or three, but the dynamics of life moving on if the perpetrator does means that the only people in danger of having to duel endlessly are those who continue to offend grievously. Which is as it should be.
(BTW, any idea for a better "biblical" name? Is there any duel in the bible but David and Goliath? Perhaps "The Sling" instead of "The Gauntlet"?)
What happens if the person who's been challenged to a duel under your system refuses to show up?
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 66
|
Posted
Chorister never seems to get dog-piled. I wonder why?
Nor do all those shipmates playing games in The Circus or praying for one another in All Saints or doing whatever it is they do in Heaven. I venture to say 99% of all shipmates go their entire ship careers without being dog-piled.
I’ve said it before. I’ll say it again. Around here there are no victims. Only volunteers.
--------------------
Precious, Precious, Sweet, Sweet Daddy...
Posts: 16639 | From: lat. 36.24/lon. 86.84 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
How does one access old Hell pages here?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
I’ve said it before. I’ll say it again. Around here there are no victims. Only volunteers.
I think you are right - I don't see bullying around here.
But in places where bullying does go on, the word is 'target' not 'victim'. The strongest and most successful people can be targets of bullying - the word 'victim' suggests some sort of weakness.
(sorry - hobbyhorse of mine
)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
How does one access old Hell pages here?
Here you go.
Tubbs
[ 12. October 2010, 14:46: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Louise, do you really think dogpiling never happens here? There seem to be enough people who think it does, so are they all deluded? The fact that nobody has (yet) given a link to a specific example doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.
Smoke and fire, and all that.
dog-piling is a pejorative and loaded term for the phenomenon when a poster offends/hurts/maltreats a number of posters who all want a say, since they have all been affected by the offenders behaviour.
So for example if someone sockpuppets, that is a hugely corrosive thing which affects the whole community by undermining trust and a lot of people will want to point out why that behaviour is unacceptable and how, if they were taken in by it, it hurt them.
If people don't want to hear about the hurt and damage it causes then have the choice not to create and use sockpuppets in the first place. If you decide to poke people in the eye with a pointy stick, you don't get to complain when they shout back 'You bastard - that hurt!'. If you poke 30 people in the eye, then they all get to complain. That's only fair.
If those thirty people then get a tyre iron and hold the perpetrator down and beat them up then that's a different matter, and that's my point. I'm asking where is the evidence that people have gone beyond mere complaining and venting about what someone has done, into real malice which has had damaging effects? Please post links.
Nobody is compelled to answer hell calls. Racist and sexist abuse is not tolerated even in Hell. The worst threats I ever experienced in Hell in nine years of posting came from someone who likes to wrap himself in the flag of anti-bullying crusades and peel a large onion as he weeps for the 'victims' of 'dogpiles'. So pardon me if I dont take a bloody word of it at face value.
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
Clearly I'm biased, but the open-mic soapbox free-for-all action of Hell is not something that I ever would want to change. It has a bandwidth of vent possibility that IngoB's duelling method lacks.
Still, listening to Yorick extoll how he thinks he might have learned less painfully from a more closed duel-like system seems to suggest that perhaps there is something that can be added. So that, aside from the myriad of venting in Hell, there is also a forum for duelists to have it out in a manner they find more civilized - a fight to the death. Well, perhaps a fight to the clue.
Since "gauntlet" can mean facing many foes, how about something even less tasteful, like "arena"? I'll open a new purpose-built board and we can muse about the particulars then (after I finish this pesky CAD model and start the FEA grinding).
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Since "gauntlet" can mean facing many foes, how about something even less tasteful, like "arena"? I'll open a new purpose-built board and we can muse about the particulars then (after I finish this pesky CAD model and start the FEA grinding).
Now I can't get this out of my head.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Since "gauntlet" can mean facing many foes, how about something even less tasteful, like "arena"?
The Acheron.
quote:
The Roman poet Virgil called it the principal river of Tartarus, from which the Styx and Cocytus both sprang. The newly-dead would be ferried across the Acheron by Charon in order to enter the Underworld.
So, sort of next to Styx and just before Hell.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 66
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Receiving dogpiles has taught me some surprisingly useful Truths, not just about how to live here with you degenerates, but also about life in the civilised real world. However, I sincerely believe I could just as well have learned these Truths by means of Gauntlet, and this would have spared me considerable and unnecessary distress.
What were these ‘surprisingly useful Truths’?
Not to try to deceive people?
That honest interaction is better than dishonest interaction?
That people get mad if you lie to them?
If you think these are ‘surprisingly’ useful and are – say – more than 16 years old and had to learn them on an internet discussion board – I don’t know what to say other than I think the exact method by which illumination was achieved is hardly the primary issue.
--------------------
Precious, Precious, Sweet, Sweet Daddy...
Posts: 16639 | From: lat. 36.24/lon. 86.84 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
