|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Styx: Rook - Could it be true? hell thread
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
I foresee two scenarios: one, there are, as I said previously, fifteen threads about the asshole du jour. The other would be a "duel" thread on this new board and your standard garden variety Hell call running parallel.
However, and this is a big however, how do you plan to keep other people from putting their two cents in?
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Yeah, the problem with optimism is that one is so often disappointed in people.
That's because you're trying to control the outcome.
Outcome? There's gonna be an outcome?
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
What does MAAN stand for?
Much Ado About Nothing.
I have to say, engaging one-to-one, in public, with everyone who's ever disagreed with me, strikes me as unbearably tedious. In fact, I think M. Satre has already written a play about it.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 66
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
"The reason you don't like me is because you don't really understand me. Let me explain myself to you at great length, and justify my actions, then you'll understand, forgive and like me."
Yes, that appears to be Yorick’s point-of-view. IngoB, on the other hand, is more of the “I can beat you down as long as other people don’t interfere.” school.
One has to wonder how these behaviors play out in real life.
I seem to remember that one of the reasons for the private boards was so like-minded people could flock together without being challenged by those who disagreed with them. Somehow, in some way, this reminds me of that same desire for protection, that same sort of virtual gated community.
--------------------
Precious, Precious, Sweet, Sweet Daddy...
Posts: 16639 | From: lat. 36.24/lon. 86.84 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gurdur
Shipmate
# 857
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Outcome? There's gonna be an outcome?
No. I've seen this all before elsewhere. A mass of rules trying to make for some aggro but formal duel (as opposed to genuine, non-personally-hostile debates) ends up being the rage for one month, then dying a natural death --- unless someone tries playing manipulate-the-rules, or endless argue-about-the-rules.
Informal handlings of the situation based on clearly defined and shown principles work far better than anything else.
Often, another thing that prevents any outcome is also that the conflicts are sometimes about certain rockbottom principles of the board in question; i.e., either you can:
1) tell the flamers to back off or else (and back it up)
2) see a board take-over
3) see the board destroyed
Most of the time, it gets to be option (1); but that then is subject to a pseudo-cyclical surge in arguing about creating such things.
I.e., no outcome. Just every now and then a surge in arguing the whole business back and forth.
Plus the major thing is, some just don't want an outcome. In management (or as a trade-union rep), you learn that there are two sorts of people:
a) those that complain just for the sake of complaining; they end up happy if everyone listens gravely, and they don't really care if anything changes or not.
b) those that complaining because they bloody well want to see something done, and won't rest till it is done.
Group A is always much bigger than Group B. Be wary of camouflage.
[ 13. October 2010, 18:06: Message edited by: Gurdur ]
Posts: 380 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Then you still haven't countered Tubbs' basic objection.
I have. The duel board would work just as Hell does now.
No it wouldn't, because of the limitation on participants. Also the continuing existence of Hell. Anybody who doesn't like the duelling board can either ignore the call (leaving the would be dueller all dressed up with nowhere to go). Or call the dueller to Hell on the grounds that "this is a free country, why don't the rest of you join in?" Which kind of defeats the object of the exercise, doesn't it. As well as wrong-footing the would-be dueller.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
People who don't respond are cowards, are they? But perhaps you didn't mean to say that either? Otherwise Erin was spot on about "coward" shit.
The theme here is a duel and I was talking in theme. Tubbs called them "cad" and "bounder".
I've had a lovely day in the Yorkshire Dales, so I'll let you off a little. Plain meaning, IngoB. Erin saw it, I saw it. I know a good wriggle when I see one.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
(and it was not me who dragged it up from the dregs of time, incidentally),
I didn't dreg it up as a suggestion - I was *trying* to demonstrate that worked examples of other ways of doing Hell have been given, therefore it would be good if numpty summarised what he actually wanted to change,. AND that the duel idea had been too complicated and impractical, therefore he might want to try to come up with a principle or rule that could be summarised in a sentence or two like the rest of the commandments rather than an over complicated instruction manual.
I note that what I originally posted was: quote:
I am interested in Call Me Numpty's critique of hell. If hell is to be a vent space, how would you want multiple reponses to one poster regulated ?
There was a period a few years ago when we had a long discussion about hell should operate. IRRC IngoB suggested a 'duel' format with only caller, callee and two seconds permitted to participate. But when the idea was explored in detail on the thread - aside from philosophical objections - it became clear that it was going to be v impractical to implement. Nonetheless, it was the most worked through example of how to do Hell differently I have seen thus far.
Most ship commandements and board parameters are easy to understand - even if the exact line is subject to interpretation. Call me numpty, how woould you summarise the rule you want for hell in one sentence ?
And not "that duel idea could work really well with the odd tweak, numpty, do you think it would solve the problem you say you have identified"
Think² (Not at all miffed at being completely misinterpreted for pages and pages for no obvious reason, honest, guv.)
--------------------
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
|
|
Rosa Winkel
Saint Anger round my neck
# 11424
|
Posted
Meant to write a point a few hours ago but needed to go out, and a few more pages have appeared. I've read through them all, and believe this point to have been not made:
I see another problem with the 'Much Ado about Nothing' idea. If someone has a second, that surely means that the second needs to always be in the role as the second, in other words, as the supporter. What happens then, if the second happens to change their mind, or wants to disagree with the person they are supposed to be supporting? Will they need to retire and find a third, or a fourth, etc. ? Being in the role of second will, in my opinion, hinder their ability to be objective.
Of course, hindrances to objectivity afflict us all, and people can tend towards supporting someone very subjectively because of various ties (same denomination, sex, ideology, etc.) but I believe that the seconding system would make this worse for the individual involved.
[ 13. October 2010, 19:05: Message edited by: Rosa Winkel ]
--------------------
The Disability and Jesus "Locked out for Lent" project
Posts: 3271 | From: Wrocław | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scarlet
Mellon Collie
# 1738
|
Posted
I want to return to the issue of PM's, in a couple of comments. Sorry, this thread has grown by many pages since I logged off last night and returned from church today. So I'm probably way behind in context.
First, settling disagreements involving anger between shippies would never be something I would get involved in. I have been abused badly in PM disagreements. If you think bullying can look, sound and feel cruel in posts in Hell, they can get even more terrifying when they are not seen by others. (And yes, this is something I have discussed in the past with the PTB.)
To me, it is passive/agressive behavior at it worst. What was happening was the people involved were pretending to be nicer and more concilitory on the thread in question and eating me alive in PMs. It was deceptive, mean and back-stabbing.
Secondly, for this reason I have several Shipmates on ignore to block their potential PM's and will do so for others anytime I feel threatened in any thread by anyone. If I'm gonna fight it will be on a thread in Hell and for all to see the actual dialogue.
Therefore I probably could never be contacted by an enemy to come to the Duel thread. A host would have to let me know or it would wait until I signed on again.
I must be insane for posting this...
--------------------
They took from their surroundings what was needed... and made of it something more.
—dialogue from Primer
Posts: 4769 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scarlet
Mellon Collie
# 1738
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scarlet:
First, settling disagreements involving anger between shippies would never be something I would get involved in.
Sorry, I missed the edit time. This should say that I would never settle disagreements in PMs if a shipmate/s was angry with me.
--------------------
They took from their surroundings what was needed... and made of it something more.
—dialogue from Primer
Posts: 4769 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
I foresee two scenarios: one, there are, as I said previously, fifteen threads about the asshole du jour. The other would be a "duel" thread on this new board and your standard garden variety Hell call running parallel.
My suggestion was to never allow more than one duel thread for one person (just as it is not allowed to have more than one thread with the same topic in the other boards). So at worst there would be 15 sequential duels. I could name a couple of Shipmates that conceivably might pull this off, but I don't think that it will be a common problem.
That duel and Hell threads might run in common is unavoidable if one want to keep the duel board as an "opt in trial".
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
However, and this is a big however, how do you plan to keep other people from putting their two cents in?
Well, it should be clearly announced on the thread who the participants are. Then whoever else starts posting on the thread will get warned by the board's host(s). The usual consequences ensue if those warnings are ignored.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
No it wouldn't, because of the limitation on participants.
Yes, it would. The only difference is that Hell offers you the opportunity to bitch in chorus about a non-show, and a duel board doesn't. Thus if your main goal never actually was to interact with the person you are bitching about, then Hell is more entertaining. But if you actually wanted to deal with that person, then a non-show in Hell is just as frustrating as a non-show on a duel board.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Or call the dueller to Hell on the grounds that "this is a free country, why don't the rest of you join in?" Which kind of defeats the object of the exercise, doesn't it.
Not really, no. The dueler can then refuse to show on that Hell thread. Of course people can play silly games, so what? For the duel you need two people agreeing on the venue of conflict. For a Hell call you do as well, unless you are happy with an unilateral bitchfest. That's all there is to it.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I've had a lovely day in the Yorkshire Dales, so I'll let you off a little. Plain meaning, IngoB. Erin saw it, I saw it. I know a good wriggle when I see one.
How nice. You say you'll let me off a little, and then you don't. I'll just place this one right next to your use of mock-German in my little "why I don't like Barnabas62 anymore" box, shall I? ... There. ... How pretty it twinkles in the sunlight.
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
Being in the role of second will, in my opinion, hinder their ability to be objective.
No. It will merely hinder their ability to say all that they think. Signing up as second is like signing up as a lawyer. You don't have to, but if you do, then you support your principal. As I've said, I think it should explicitly say in a duel board's description that seconds do not always speak their own mind. So if I second say Numpty, I may end up defending TULIP - though I personally think it is wrong. (I think this is a very educational aspect of seconding: trying to argue well what others believe but oneself doesn't.) That said, nobody forces me to say the same things in support of the principal as the principal does. If a second feels that the principal really has gone beyond the pale, then he can of course simply fall silent. I suggest that the principal can not pick someone else, so that they will be stuck with a silent second if they become truly unsupportable.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) (xposted)
[ 13. October 2010, 20:02: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Sine Nomine
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 66
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
Are you saying that public silence will go together with negative feedback via PMs between the dueler and second?
I believe that’s on page 3 of the duel instructions. Towards the bottom. In the fine print.
--------------------
Precious, Precious, Sweet, Sweet Daddy...
Posts: 16639 | From: lat. 36.24/lon. 86.84 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scarlet:
I must be insane for posting this...
Not at all, I thought it was a very helpful contribution. I think the best way to conflict resolve by pms is to not be abusive. I can see why it would be better to have that in public, where the community can comment on the abuser's behaviour.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
I consider a good friend to be one who will stand up for me, as well as offering negative feedback. Are you saying that public silence will go together with negative feedback via PMs between the dueler and second?
That may well be the case.
Having thought about this some more, I think now that it is way too much of a bother to restrict the actions of the second explicitly. So, I would say the only power a principal in fact has is to choose whether they want a second, and if so, then whom. If their chosen second later happens to attack them, rather than the opponent, then that's too bad. That the second will usually be supportive is better regulated by manners than rules.
--------------------
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
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
Are you saying that public silence will go together with negative feedback via PMs between the dueler and second?
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
I believe that’s on page 3 of the duel instructions. Towards the bottom. In the fine print.
And to think how much discussion is generated over ten commandments. Even "don't be a jerk" seems to get complicated.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
Are you saying that public silence will go together with negative feedback via PMs between the dueler and second?
I believe that’s on page 3 of the duel instructions. Towards the bottom. In the fine print.
Lud, sirrah, I think that thou hast mightily confused ye Rules with ye Guidelines (Seconds, for the use of. Paragraph 4, sub-section 10). And methinks thou mayest have done so with Mischeevous Intente, thou cheeky varlet. Have at thee, sirrah - Ha!
--------------------
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
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
However, and this is a big however, how do you plan to keep other people from putting their two cents in?
Well, it should be clearly announced on the thread who the participants are. Then whoever else starts posting on the thread will get warned by the board's host(s). The usual consequences ensue if those warnings are ignored.
I have a philosophical objection to a public board where people are not allowed to contribute. You have yet to convince me.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
?A brake on the supposed decline of the Unrestful™ ethos of the boards, due to the supposed loss of interesting shipmates, due to the supposed failings of current institution- particularly in regards to the effects of the patterns of usage of the Styx and Hell boards...
I didn't want to start a de-railing tangent, but this provoked a certain amount of thought. If anyone else cares to comment, I've opened a thread here.
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liberty
ship's football fanatic
# 713
|
Posted
I am not suggesting that the PTB should do something just because a lot of shipmates want them to, this is not a democracy after all. But RooK did ask how many people liked the duelling idea. My summary is:
Intellect by Proxy
Matt Black
Scarlet
IngoB
Yorick
Call me Numpty
MDijon.
Am I right? Because some of you seemed to suggest the idea had merits - which is different from actual agreement. I have erred on the side of assuming that if someone likes part of the idea, they want a duelling board. And even with that generosity, we still only get 6 people.
(Please not that Think2 is NOT on the above list!)
Liberty
Oh, and Scarlet, if someone is abusing you by PM you should tell one of the H&As, just because it happens in private, doesn't mean its allowed.
--------------------
"I'ma be what I set out to be, without a doubt, undoubtedly"
Posts: 1879 | From: SW2 to 20009 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liberty:
Intellect by Proxy
Matt Black
Scarlet
IngoB
Yorick
Call me Numpty
MDijon.
Am I right?
No, I'm not very keen at all.
I read Numpty as being less than luke-warm from his contribution on his hell thread. And I'm not sure Scarlet's support was unequivocal either. But they can comment for themselves.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scarlet
Mellon Collie
# 1738
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liberty:
I am not suggesting that the PTB should do something just because a lot of shipmates want them to, this is not a democracy after all. But RooK did ask how many people liked the duelling idea. My summary is:
Intellect by Proxy
Matt Black
Scarlet
IngoB
Yorick
Call me Numpty
MDijon.
Am I right? Because some of you seemed to suggest the idea had merits - which is different from actual agreement. I have erred on the side of assuming that if someone likes part of the idea, they want a duelling board. And even with that generosity, we still only get 6 people.
Place me among the bifurcated. I can see merit, but I did say in my post that I would prefer a battle I was involved in to take place in Hell (as we now define it) so all could witness and partake as defender or attacker.
On the other hand, I have been dogpiled in Styx and it was an unhappy day or two...
So there is good that could come from alleviating that painful aspect of angry disagreements by having a Duel board.
OK, so I'll stay in the approval list.
quote:
Oh, and Scarlet, if someone is abusing you by PM you should tell one of the H&As, just because it happens in private, doesn't mean its allowed.
The best one is aware. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
They took from their surroundings what was needed... and made of it something more.
—dialogue from Primer
Posts: 4769 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liberty
ship's football fanatic
# 713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
No, I'm not very keen at all.
I read Numpty as being less than luke-warm from his contribution on his hell thread. And I'm not sure Scarlet's support was unequivocal either. But they can comment for themselves.
Thanks mdijon, like I said, I was erring on the side of 'if you vaguely praised it you like it' caution.
OK, so we're down to 5 people...
Anyone I have missed?
--------------------
"I'ma be what I set out to be, without a doubt, undoubtedly"
Posts: 1879 | From: SW2 to 20009 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
I have a philosophical objection to a public board where people are not allowed to contribute. You have yet to convince me.
It is good that your objections are philosophical. As soon as you state your principles and reasons, I'll be able to argue them.
In the meantime I note that everybody is equally allowed to contribute to a duel board. Just not all at the same time. (Actually, right now the main argument against the board seems to be that too few people will want to participate anyhow...)
--------------------
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
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liberty:
I am not suggesting that the PTB should do something just because a lot of shipmates want them to, this is not a democracy after all. But RooK did ask how many people liked the duelling idea. My summary is:
Intellect by Proxy
Matt Black
Scarlet
IngoB
Yorick
Call me Numpty
mdijon.
Am I right?
Liberty
I posted this in Hell earlier. quote:
I don't expect to see a Duel Board happen, and I'm not convinced it would work either.
As a solution to the dog-piling culture goes it seems a bit legalistic to me and I'd much prefer a polite agreement from Shipmates, Hosts and Admins to exercise a bit more restraint and mutual accountability concerning the nature and content of their Hell posts, particularly during so-called "dog-piles".
Yes, I'd like to see it as an experiment, but I don't think it would actually work well in practice.
I think a duelling board would make for an interesting experiment, even if it just encouraged a period of community restraint from the more mass verbal attacks that can characterise the Hell Board.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liberty
ship's football fanatic
# 713
|
Posted
So 4 and a half...
I know it isn't all about numbers, but I did want to point out just how in the minority the minority is.
--------------------
"I'ma be what I set out to be, without a doubt, undoubtedly"
Posts: 1879 | From: SW2 to 20009 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liberty:
Anyone I have missed?
Duo Seraphim.
But since you have taken onto you the most grievous responsibility of the official tally keeper, I'm afraid you will have to read through every single post of the Styx and Hell threads to make sure that the tally you report is just and proper. No more frivolous asking, we are all relying on you to do your job with the utmost diligence. Go forth and tally.
--------------------
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
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
(Actually, right now the main argument against the board seems to be that too few people will want to participate anyhow...)
Only coz you've ignored all of mine.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I think a duelling board would make for an interesting experiment, even if it just encouraged a period of community restraint from the more mass verbal attacks that can characterise the Hell Board.
The Hell board currently comprises three pages, which contain all the threads going back to June 10th - four months ago. A third of a year.
How many threads does anyone suppose there have been in that time that could be called "mass verbal attacks"? I make it three, and all three were IMO well deserved.
But the record of that third of a year is there for anyone to see. It's the work of a few moments to produce links to threads from that period that demonstrate the extensive problem that some people keep claiming exists. Why don't they?
[ 13. October 2010, 21:56: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liberty
ship's football fanatic
# 713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But since you have taken onto you the most grievous responsibility of the official tally keeper, I'm afraid you will have to read through every single post of the Styx and Hell threads to make sure that the tally you report is just and proper. No more frivolous asking, we are all relying on you to do your job with the utmost diligence. Go forth and tally.
Thanks IngoB, it means a such a lot that you believe in me. I will do my best. I have been pretty open that I am miserably living in a country I do not want to live in, with no particular friends and no job, so I can't say I have much of a life. I shall try not to be too distracted by Farmville, re-reading the Twilight books or the impending Mascot launch for Euro 2012 (launch only 34 days away! Yay!). But I can't make you any promises.
Your faith in me, and giving me a reason to get up in the morning (or to keep the laptop by my bed) means the world.
Oh, and please don't think that my tally indicates that low numbers is the only reason why this is a bad idea.
--------------------
"I'ma be what I set out to be, without a doubt, undoubtedly"
Posts: 1879 | From: SW2 to 20009 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
(Actually, right now the main argument against the board seems to be that too few people will want to participate anyhow...)
Only coz you've ignored all of mine.
All your arguments would be the main one if I only reacted to them? Anyway, I last reacted to your arguments here. The arguments you likely whine about are presumably these here.
In that post - after calling my idea "bloody stupid" just to set an amicable tone - you first consider a scenario that is never going to happen in practice. Next you consider a more realistic scenario. You then realize that a duel board would not work like Hell, and decide that this insight is a counterargument. Given that Hell was anyhow slated to remain in place, it's hard to see against what precisely, but let's not be too picky. You then finish with the nice weasel word challenge for anyone to find an occasion of unfair dogpiling in Hell.
Now, in response I'm sure that I should have held your hand and murmured sweet nothings in you ear. However, I was being a bit distracted by being buried under a dogpile in Styx. A fair one, of course. There are only fair dogpiles on the Ship, as we have learned. Nobody could have a problem with a Gatling gun negativity if only every single shot is sincere, well, would be defended as sincere when challenged. There are also no group dynamics, e.g., no poster would try to suck up to the dominant side by counting and naming the dissenters. Such boot licking never had any place on the ship.
Anyway, in long-awaited answer, let me point you to the second paragraph of this insightful post. Now, for some of us it always has been about the jerk him/herself. Directly. And not primarily about venting. Now, I'm happy to leave you to your Tourette therapy. Can you in return perhaps provide some headspace for people that tick differently? That would be great...
--------------------
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
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I've had a lovely day in the Yorkshire Dales, so I'll let you off a little. Plain meaning, IngoB. Erin saw it, I saw it. I know a good wriggle when I see one.
How nice. You say you'll let me off a little, and then you don't. I'll just place this one right next to your use of mock-German in my little "why I don't like Barnabas62 anymore" box, shall I? ... There. ... How pretty it twinkles in the sunlight.
Well, having got the laugh out of my system re your twinkly box metaphor ...
Here is what I let you off, since you don't think I did. Here is your explanation which I described as a good wriggle.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
People who don't respond are cowards, are they? But perhaps you didn't mean to say that either? Otherwise Erin was spot on about "coward" shit.
The theme here is a duel and I was talking in theme. Tubbs called them "cad" and "bounder".
1. The theme in the exchanges with Tubbs was not "duel". The theme was non-participation in duel.
2. To which you replied as follows here.
3. And Tubbs was not satified as she pointed out here.
It is in the second post that you used the description "coward" to apply to non-participants.
And it is in the third post that Tubbs, picking up on your second post, uses the terms "cad and bounder". But she is simply echoing your insulting language. Which does not in itself confirm either that she thought you were talking "in theme" or approved of or acquiesced in any way the use of such language. Her post does not support your "in theme" assertion. I read it as irony myself.
Here again are your words.
quote:
The same that happens to a person who's been called to Hell and refuses to show up. I suggest that after a suitable time the thread is closed. (And thus in principle someone else can try to challenge the same coward.)
I continue to believe that the most obvious interpretation of that text is that you believe that those who refuse to participate in a call to a duel are cowards. That might have done for the era when duelling was commonplace and honour was thought to be at stake. The best I can say is that it is a very unfortunate use of language.
Erin's description of this use in context as "'cowardice' shit" strikes me as well justified and her "no more of that" strikes me as both principled and fair.
I also believe you damaged the credibility of the proposal by this use of language. "These people are cowards and duellists must reserve the right to pursue them sequentially". Even in the light of your explanation, this is a very aggressive and demeaning view of non-participants. I'm surprised you seem unable to see that.
I really thought you might see the paper-thin nature of your defence without me having to spell it out. I was wrong about that.
I do however regret the use of "You vill.." in my earlier post. That was a piece of misplaced humour. But I do not regret in any way renewing a criticism of your use of the word "coward" to describe non-participants. I think you should reflect again on what you said, and the effects of what you said. This proposal is not attracting all that many supporters anyway. Without you shooting yourself in the foot.
--------------------
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
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
OK then. In addition to having repented of my flippant use of duel talk in talking about duels, and having accepted Erin's ruling, I now solemnly declare that I will never ever consider Barnabas62 to be a coward, cad and/or bounder no matter how many challenges to a duel he refuses. I hope we can all move on now. I sure have.
--------------------
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
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I think a duelling board would make for an interesting experiment, even if it just encouraged a period of community restraint from the more mass verbal attacks that can characterise the Hell Board.
The Hell board currently comprises three pages, which contain all the threads going back to June 10th - four months ago. A third of a year.
How many threads does anyone suppose there have been in that time that could be called "mass verbal attacks"? I make it three, and all three were IMO well deserved.
But the record of that third of a year is there for anyone to see. It's the work of a few moments to produce links to threads from that period that demonstrate the extensive problem that some people keep claiming exists. Why don't they?
Possibly because they'd find gems like this from the people who complain most about the tone of Hell
quote:
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on 28 June, 2010 19:47 :
Originally posted by Yorick:
Whether you’re able to have no children or twelve children, you cannot imagine what it’s like to have children until you have at least one of them.
You twat.
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on 28 June, 2010 19:54 :
Started reading the thread. Found your apology. Still stand by my last post. You sorry twat.
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on 29 June, 2010 13:30 :
Yorick,
Read the whole thread. Found your self-justifying post-apologetic shite-meistery, you insincere, recidivistic, petty little twat.
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on 29 June, 2010 17:28 :
Oh, thanks Matt.
But I was posting purely for my own satisfaction on this particular occasion. I just enjoyed calling Yorick a twat simply because he really is an utter twat. I really do think that what he said on this thread is the most singularly offensive thing that I have ever read on the Ship of Fools. Hence my calling him a twat. Oh, and by the way everyone. I think Yorick is a twat.
--------------------
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
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
I have a philosophical objection to a public board where people are not allowed to contribute. You have yet to convince me.
It is good that your objections are philosophical. As soon as you state your principles and reasons, I'll be able to argue them.
I see that I'm going to have to spell it out. You need to convince me. I do not have to state jack shit to you. Is that clear?
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
... Nobody could have a problem with a Gatling gun negativity if only every single shot is sincere...
I prefer to use the sniper rifle from a hedgerow. The sincere head shot is most efficient. This 'twenty paces at dawn' thing died with frilly silk shirts and snuff boxes.
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Far be it from me to repeat myself, but:
How would you phrase a meaningful "no dogpiling rule ?
How do you define a dog pile ? How is it distinct from more than one poster posting with the same opinion, for example ?
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
What exactly counts as a "dogpile"? If 2 people say negative things about the callee? 10? 15? How do we determine if a negative comment is a well-deserved comment and hence not part of a dogpile, or an undeserved comment and hence is part of a dogpile?
Or is it always a dogpile if more than one person calls someone to task for their assholity?
If the latter then dogpiles aren't always bad, clearly. If the former (in some manifestation) then why hasn't anybody been able to produce an example of a dogpile? None of the four and a half persons who seem to favor the MAAN board can produce one single example of a dogpile. Conclusion: it's a solution in search of a problem. Obvious course of action: If it ain't broken, don't fix it.
[x-post with Think2. Should have reloaded the page before posting.]
[ 14. October 2010, 00:20: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
You know, I can almost connect the dots there. But I'm too busy right now dealing with a wave of negative responses.
You say that like it's a bad thing. Like if you propose a new idea, nobody should say why they think it won't work or isn't necessary or could cause harm.
But in general, not responding to any one poster: This whole "duel" idea presupposes that what is the issue between the participants is a strongly felt disagreement. Nearly always, when someone finally gets flustered enough to call somebody to hell, it's because they feel the call-ee is being a jerk and/or pain in the ass. What is wanted (and the explicit explanation for the existence of Hell) is venting of emotions. The caller may be looking for a resolution of disagreement about ideas or facts. But that is rarely the case so far as I can see. What they want is to say, "you are a total was of leptons as is shown by the fact that you did this and this and this".
What happens next depends in large part on what the "peanut gallery" (a derisive term for the members of the community who feel strongly enough about the issue in the OP to comment) thinks about the accusation. If some think it has no merit, they are hardly slow to say so. Others may chime in with "yes not only did they do THAT but they also did THIS" with the (usually) unspoken thought that this shows even more why the Hell call was justified.
The call-ee of course will either sit it out, or come back with "you're right, I was a jerk", or with "you're wrong I didn't do that" or "you're wrong, that doesn't mean I'm a jerk." Sometimes they will move from one to the other; most times this will be in the diretion of "you're right, I was a jerk" although I've seen it move the other way as well. The caller an also move from "you're a jerk because of blah" to "okay you're not a jerk" but that is also less usual than both sides just holding their ground and the thread fizzling out into a party thread because the major disputants are talking past each other, or have ceased to talk at all.
But in all of this the purpose is not conflict resolution. The purpose of Hell is conflict containment. And it does that admirably. Which is why actually replacing Hell with a Fool Duel (excellent suggestion, GK) isn't useful or ultimately productive. It presupposes something that isn't true. As for the conflict resolution, if both sides are civil enough to do so, the whole thing can be carried off strictly by PM. Which is a good thing. But again it's not what Hell is about.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
mt: quote:
What exactly counts as a "dogpile"? If 2 people say negative things about the callee? 10? 15? How do we determine if a negative comment is a well-deserved comment and hence not part of a dogpile, or an undeserved comment and hence is part of a dogpile?
Or is it always a dogpile if more than one person calls someone to task for their assholity?
So it sounds.
But I have to agree with Marvin: I haven't seen a case of dogpiling where something hasn't been going on that hasn't seriously gotten on a number of people's nerves. I don't see it as "What's going on? Whatever- let's join the fun!". And sometimes it's the OPer's attitude, not the callee's that strikes a chord. I do sympathize that such a groundswell of feelings bursting out might often feel scary-crazy to the receiver. That's why my particular style of throwing peanuts often involves affectionate exasperation, a sort of Hell/All saints tough-love. I'm seldom pissed-off enough to want to pound someone into the ground. I just want them to get it, dammit!
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
Well, clearly we all fail at convincing each other of anything. Time to step up and see if we can instead discover something by virtue of direct experimentation: Much Ado About Nothing is hereby conditionally open for those intrepid souls who care to volunteer to show us how it's done.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scarlet
Mellon Collie
# 1738
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
None of the four and a half persons who seem to favor the MAAN board can produce one single example of a dogpile.
An example wasn't required to give assent.
There was discussion up the thread a ways back regarding the tentative desirability of hashing out grievances in Private Messages, thereby skipping the need for a full-blown Hell call.
I joined this thread to comment against this. I gave an example from personal experience to substantiate my reasons. Any further information from these experiences...just suffice it to say that telling an admin is evidence enough.
In a later post, I mentioned that I had been dogpiled in Styx. Consider that an example. Curiously enough, I believe there are H&A's who still remember it, and as long as they are aware, I see no need to reiterate here.
--------------------
They took from their surroundings what was needed... and made of it something more.
—dialogue from Primer
Posts: 4769 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
I see that I'm going to have to spell it out. You need to convince me. I do not have to state jack shit to you. Is that clear?
That's fine. But there is no point in asking me to square a circle. If your objection is a principle itself, then how am I supposed to change your mind? In particular, since you are in power, not me. One of the few ways to change someone's principles is to force them to experience contrary ones. Then sometimes experience will soften their stance. But I cannot do that here at all.
If your objection is not a principle, then I can try to convince you. However, to do so effectively, I need to know how you came to your conclusion. How did you arrive at your opinion? If I don't know that, I can only wildly guess and will likely end up barking up the wrong wood. I don't think that you find my arguing that entertaining...
I have provided one general argument: in fact, everybody can post, just not at the same time, and everybody can read all the time. Even if there are long queues for say a concert, we do not say that the concert organizers are impeding the public from attending. And that is the case even if it is a one time event and lots of people will miss it. Here they are merely not able to all actively engage at the same time. And the event is in principle repeatable (at least in the sense that one can call the same person to a duel again, it's not the same duel of course). So everyone can - in due time - have an active go.
--------------------
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
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Well, clearly we all fail at convincing each other of anything. Time to step up and see if we can instead discover something by virtue of direct experimentation: Much Ado About Nothing is hereby conditionally open for those intrepid souls who care to volunteer to show us how it's done.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) We asked for an apple and got a pear, but I think that's peachy. Thank you, sir.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Remains to be seen who's going to use this new mongrel. I predict that somebody will "call" somebody else they're not really angry with, just to test it out. But even if not, hell calls aren't exactly daily events; we may have to wait a while to see how it plays out. Glad I brought cashews.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
I freely admit that I am a boring old dinosaur, contentedly wandering in predeluvian mists. As such I am very happy with the Ship as it is; I read it almost every day, although I do not post as much as I used to. However, some young and energetic types seem to want more experimetation on board, and have even volunteered to put up good money to support this.
Therefore (and this is a serious suggestion) why not spend a little bit of that money on opening a new private board? Other like minded souls could join you, you could share new ideas and try them out, as was described somewhere above. That way, when you have an idea you really like, that you think would benefit the whole Ship, you would be able to say to the PTB, "Here's our idea, and here is evidence that it works". Does that sound attractive?
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Robert Armin
This way we can kibbitz. On a special Hell-type board hosted by RooK and Erin. Brings a whole new meaning to the term peanut gallery.
Liked the strict opt-in rule. That gets round my own objections to the "apple" as previously conceived. Doubt whether I'll try the "pear" but it might be fun seeing if it grows.
I'm inclined to wish it well. It's sufficiently well ring-fenced to allow such development as can take place without buggering up the rest of the Ship. I don't think it will go anywhere but I'm willing to be surprised.
RooK is one smart cookie.
--------------------
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
I am unconvinced, but have opted in for experimental purposes.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
