|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Post-ironic hosts?
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Would it perhaps not be unreasonable to allow the hosts time to log in and read the comment in question, let alone decide what actions (if any) are needed, before you complain that they haven't acted?
It has been less than 5h, I don't know what time zone you're in but for many people on the Ship that's been 5h during the middle of the night.
Normal protocol in the event of someone spotting something that warrants immediate action is to locate a host for that board who may be online, and failing that an admin, and send a PM to raise the issue. If you think it's that urgent and demanding adminly attention, send an email to the board admins address (it's on any email that comes from the Ship, eg: notification of PMs and acknowledgement of registration).
--------------------
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
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Just a note to folks of Alyosha's point of view:
There *are* debate sites, with formal one-on-one debates, and a winner.
The Ship doesn't work that way, but a real debate site might be a better fit for you.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Have you entered a time-warp? Hosting is heaps less dominant than in years gone by. I remember being a host during the transition to 'host lite' - something that took a while because the old original light touch got walked all over very heavily by a small number of nuisance posters who almost brought the ship to its knees - when that immediate threat was over, there was understandably some reluctance to risk it all again. Now, as far as I can see, it's back to a light touch again for the most part, but with a sterner hand when necessary. I think you'd need to look at the overall History of the Ship to understand this fully. Otherwise, you'll just have to trust me. (I was the one with the squirty flower.)
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I think you'd need to look at the overall History of the Ship to understand this fully. Otherwise, you'll just have to trust me. (I was the one with the squirty flower.)
[tangent]I know I have suggested it before, but could the Ship History thread please be pinned to the top of Styx? I think it would be instructive to newer Shipmates.[/tangent]
--------------------
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'
Posts: 2740 | From: Delaware, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
It took some finding but in the FAQs I eventually found this "What is Ship of Fools about?"
"The subtitle of the site is the magazine of Christian unrest, and Christian unrest is the flag we sail under. The ship is here to provide space for Christians to look at their faith critically: attacking and ridiculing the things that go wrong; and recommending the things which go right. Since there are a million and one websites cheerleading for the church, our special calling is the Christian faith doing self-criticism."
The concept of "unrest" is what this place is about and the inevitable outcome is that it is a rather disputatious place. Hosts don't "win arguments" but if they are acting as hosts (on a board which they host) then what they say goes. That isn't the end of it though because The Styx is there to query rulings and other actions by hosts and admins. Having been a host I know this only too well!
btw, do remember that these boards are hosted, not moderated.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Mousethief
Dismantling stupid comparisons is not nitpicking. It's discussion or if you like debate. Statements that cannot stand scrutiny have no business in this kind of discussion, and "la la la la la" is not a viable defense of an otherwise indefensible claim.
Now how, with the use of pejorative terms such as 'stupid', and 'indefensible'is that not an implied ad hominem comment? Steve is clearly neither ill informed nor stupid.
If one can't see the difference between "that is a stupid thing to say" and "you are stupid" then it seems to me one doesn't understand one of the primary tools the ship uses to judge whether something belongs in purg or hell. I agree that Steve is not stupid. But that doesn't stop him from occasionally saying stupid things, just as my not being stupid (stop laughing) doesn't keep me from saying stupid things.
The intro to the purg board says, "All views are welcome – orthodox, unorthodox, radical or just plain bizarre – so long as you can stand being challenged." Steve can stand being challenged, and he holds up his end of the exchange admirably and without whining (even if I disagree with him up one side and down the other).
In short, I plead not guilty to ad hominem.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
I hear you. Technically,you are not guilty and my issue is not with you personally but that tone and terminology can also send an ad hominem message albeit implied. It is obviously too hard basket for hosting though.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
[tangent]I know I have suggested it before, but could the Ship History thread please be pinned to the top of Styx? I think it would be instructive to newer Shipmates.[/tangent]
Ahh-men.
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
tone and terminology can also send an ad hominem message albeit implied. It is obviously too hard basket for hosting though.
We do not require Hosts to employ telepathy or clairvoyance.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
[tangent]I know I have suggested it before, but could the Ship History thread please be pinned to the top of Styx? I think it would be instructive to newer Shipmates.[/tangent]
Ahh-men.
OK.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
tone and terminology can also send an ad hominem message albeit implied. It is obviously too hard basket for hosting though.
We do not require Hosts to employ telepathy or clairvoyance.
Perhaps clairvoyance was not needed on the occasion below?
quote:
From Croesus,2 Oct 2012 from DH thread Scientific dating methods p 8 "And no, the sarcasm is not necessary. It's a service thrown in free of charge. The contempt, on the other hand, is something you've definitely earned. I wouldn't want to deprive you of that".
That remark was to me. If you forbid attacking the person outside of Hell, then enforce the fucking rule!
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
And, to find an example of the rules not being enforced you have to go back three years? If you want to try and establish a case that personal attacks outside Hell are not called on by the Hosts then you need to do better than that.
You may have noticed our hosts are volunteers. So in addition to clairvoyance and telepathy, there are some other things we don't expect of our hosts. These include not requiring them to be online 24h a day, 7 days a week to respond within a nanosecond of a questionable post. And, we don't expect total infallibility and accept that sometimes minor infringements of the Commandments will slip past them.
And, there is one more important thing to remember about the art* of hosting. That is to provide space for people to behave like adults and sort out minor disagreements themselves without having to step in to address every little incident.
* it is an art rather than a science.
--------------------
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
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
When a host has made a wrong call, as occasionally happens, they are quick to apologise. I have received such an apology.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I wasn't a DH Host at the time but out of curiosity I did review the post to which Jamat refers, and also the context. TonyK and Louise's non-call seems edto me to be right. Croesos clearly asserts contempt for the quality of the argument you advanced; in particular the nonsense you wrote about relativity. What he was saying that your posts in that context deserved to be treated with contempt because of their content. That's allowable in Dead Horses. It is simply the equivalent of saying "your post is stupid".
Here is the post in question.
[ 18. October 2015, 16:09: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
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
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
If you forbid attacking the person outside of Hell, then enforce the fucking rule!
It is clear that you are frustrated by this, and feel that the rules are applied unfairly.
Sadly, no amount of consistent ruling can make everything feel fair to everybody. Instead we hope that most people are adults and are capable of dealing with the world as it is.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
There is optimism and then there is unwarranted optimism...
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I wasn't a DH Host at the time but out of curiosity I did review the post to which Jamat refers, and also the context. TonyK and Louise's non-call seems edto me to be right. Croesos clearly asserts contempt for the quality of the argument you advanced; in particular the nonsense you wrote about relativity. What he was saying that your posts in that context deserved to be treated with contempt because of their content. That's allowable in Dead Horses. It is simply the equivalent of saying "your post is stupid".
Here is the post in question.
If you reviewed it you will also note I acknowledged that my comment re relativity was uninformed and misapplied. If you want to spin it to make Croesus' comment, about my comment, to justify the hosting non-call, then fine. The comment was a personal attack nevertheless.
@ Allan: That comment stopped me posting for almost 2 years. I know hosts are volunteers not on-line 24/7 and do their best, and that mostly their calls are fair. Perhaps, that can be an end of this particular discussion.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I wasn't a DH Host at the time but out of curiosity I did review the post to which Jamat refers, and also the context. TonyK and Louise's non-call seems edto me to be right. Croesos clearly asserts contempt for the quality of the argument you advanced; in particular the nonsense you wrote about relativity. What he was saying that your posts in that context deserved to be treated with contempt because of their content. That's allowable in Dead Horses. It is simply the equivalent of saying "your post is stupid".
Here is the post in question.
If you reviewed it you will also note I acknowledged that my comment re relativity was uninformed and misapplied. If you want to spin it to make Croesus' comment, about my comment, to justify the hosting non-call, then fine. The comment was a personal attack nevertheless.
@ Allan: That comment stopped me posting for almost 2 years. I know hosts are volunteers not on-line 24/7 and do their best, and that mostly their calls are fair. Perhaps, that can be an end of this particular discussion.
I'm certainly not going to call an end to that particular discussion. Because, I've also now reviewed that post. First, I note that you were still posting on that thread a month later ... which seems discordant with your statement that that comment stopped you posting for 2 years.
More importantly, I find this post by Louise with all the usual identifications as host a mere 8 hours after the post you quoted
quote:
Some of this is getting unduly personal and insulting - if you get into a personal conflict with another poster your option is to start a Hell thread.
This is followed up by a post from TonyK.
You do not get to say the hosts have failed to do their job at a distance of three years, and you most certainly don't get to do that when the evidence is clear that both hosts on the board at the time had issued very clear instructions to cut out the inappropriate personal attacks.
I'm going to remind you of our Ten Commandments, in particular
6. Respect the Ship's crew. The next post from you on this thread had better be an apology for your attack on the DH hosts. Or, your next break from posting on the Ship will not be voluntary.
Alan
Ship Of Fools Admin
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm going to remind you of our Ten Commandments, in particular
6. Respect the Ship's crew. The next post from you on this thread had better be an apology for your attack on the DH hosts. Or, your next break from posting on the Ship will not be voluntary.
Alan
Ship Of Fools Admin [/QB]
Hi Allan,
With respect, I am afraid I cannot apologise with integrity for the statements I have made. You will obviously ban me but please consider the following parting comments.
The 2 year comment was misleading but was not intended as a precise statement but to point out my posting record has been minimal between then until recently.
The hosting comment you quoted did not confront the other poster on ad hominem but both of us and I never was deliberately offensive to anyone.
I thought the Styx existed for this kind of discussion.
I do not disrespect Louise/Tony K but was pointing out an anomaly
I have obviously stressed you out a bit so I apologise for that.
Because it is only a historical matter that I used to comment on Rook's point about 'clairvoyant' hosts, I have no personal stake in pursuing it further. I am sorry that it seems to have escalated somewhat.
Regards,
Jamat.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
With respect, I am afraid I cannot apologise with integrity for the statements I have made. You will obviously ban me but please consider the following parting comments.
An honest "I can't apologise" shows more integrity than some "I'm sorry, but ..." non-apologies. Our normal protocols for showing disrespect to the hosts is a two-week suspension, a ban would be overly harsh.
To that end, it may be worth clarifying some issues from your 'parting comments' for you to consider should you decide to return in November.
quote:
The 2 year comment was misleading but was not intended as a precise statement but to point out my posting record has been minimal between then until recently.
It is generally a good idea to avoid misleading comments, especially when they imply critcism of the hosts. Your comment misled me into believing that as a result of a personal attack on one thread, and your perception that the hosts had not intervened, you had walked away from the Ship entirely. Which was contradicted by
a) your continued posting on the same thread for some time after the post in question, implying that you had not been unduly offended, and
b) your failure to raise the question of the hosting of that thread at the time - although I admit I may be mistaken on that point (I have had a review of the old Styx threads in Oblivion, but I do not see anything there, and also I do not remember any criticism of hosting on that thread).
quote:
The hosting comment you quoted did not confront the other poster on ad hominem but both of us and I never was deliberately offensive to anyone.
quote:
I do not disrespect Louise/Tony K but was pointing out an anomaly
Two points here. One, it is common when multiple people are involved in a personal argument not to name individuals but offer general instructions to everyone, and likewise when the personal comments are spread across several posts by different people it is not our practice to quote all the relevant posts - it would be a substantial undertaking for our volunteer hosts and yield little gain because most people know if they're likely to be among those getting told off. And, second, as already stated hosts aren't clairvoyant and so therefore cannot judge by intent - so some inept attempts at deliberate offense won't be called because there was no offense, but offensive posts will be called whether they're deliberate or not.
Put simply, there was no anomaly, just normal hosting practice.
quote:
I thought the Styx existed for this kind of discussion.
It does. But bringing up 3 year old grievances is not helpful. Especially when in doing so you fail to relate events accurately when anyone here can check the posts in question - in this case omitting to mention the hostly response to a series of posts including the one you quoted, thus implying that there had been no response from the hosts.
quote:
Because it is only a historical matter that I used to comment on Rook's point about 'clairvoyant' hosts, I have no personal stake in pursuing it further. I am sorry that it seems to have escalated somewhat.
It only escalated because you introduced it. And, then commented further before unilaterally deciding it wasn't up for discussion despite missing out the crucial part of the thread in relation to the discussion here - the fact that the hosts did intervene, leaving it implied that they didn't intervene in response to a personal attack. If Erin was still with us you would be experiencing the pain of gator teeth in delicate places. She had a very low tolerance for people attacking the hosts here.
One final parting remark before I give you your shore leave. It is considered a matter of common courtesy to address people by the screen name they have chosen, or some version of that they have indicated they are comfortable with.
Alan
Ship of Fools Admin
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If Erin was still with us you would be experiencing the pain of gator teeth in delicate places. She had a very low tolerance for people attacking the hosts here.
No, no, no - it should be in the subjunctive: "If Erin were here ...". Tsk, tsk!
Aren't grammatical pedants really annoying? ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
[ 19. October 2015, 06:59: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Aren't grammatical pedants really annoying?
Isn't they just.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
