quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
I'm just getting a bit confused here on the personal/hosting bit. The lines are getting a bit blurred.

---

If you're confused, then you're an idiot.

Change my opinion of your posting style (by virtue of your future posts), or you will be banned. Is that clear enough for you?

-RooK
Admin

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Can you clarify what you mean by my posting style please?

---

quote:

---

May I ask how this different from any other poster in Hell?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Can you clarify what you mean by my posting style please?

---

Certainly. My perception is that your primary interest is purely in generating conflict, completely without any ameliorating engagement. Which, frankly, is additionally soured by your own crowing about winding people up.

---

quote:

---

And, here we are: at the edge. Care to pick a direction?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jlg:
Evensong doesn't know enough to back off a bit when the hosts and admins bark. (One of the traits that seems to lead to ending up with permanent shore leave.)

You don't have to agree with hostly or adminly rebukes (I didn't agree with a lot of what Erin slapped me and others for way back when), but a simple "Yes ma'am, sorry ma'am" or an even more simple silence, combined with letting it drop and getting on with your life works wonders.

The H&As are happy, you don't end up wasting a bunch of time (yours and others') arguing, nobody's blood pressure goes up, you go into the collective consciousness as an OK person, and are perhaps free to sin again.

C'mon people, it's a discussion forum on a website. Save your crusading and self-immolation energy for Real Life situations where it might really make a difference!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jlg:
Evensong doesn't know enough to back off a bit when the hosts and admins bark. (One of the traits that seems to lead to ending up with permanent shore leave.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cadfael:
2) I cannot understand why it would be appropriate to agree with opinions you believe to be wrong, for the sake of convenience. Every sentiment revolts against it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jlg:
Cadfael, you just proved my point.

A former host tried to explain how things work here and invoked one of the people who created this place. And that person showed up and posted.

Your response was "big deal".

This isn't some fly-by-night website and if you can't be bothered to learn something about the old-timers, then perhaps you might think about whether we should spend time learning about you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:

quote:

---

May I ask how this different from any other poster in Hell?

---

Most poignantly, any other poster in Hell winding people up will get my very unsubtle hints about the fact that they're heading too close to the realm of unacceptability. There's more than a couple regulars who are notorious wind-up merchants, but they've demonstrated the desired ilk of self-control that lets Hosts and Admins tolerate them venturing near the edge. Every single time I noted my discomfort with your apparent jerkishness, you took that opportunity to take another step closer to the edge. This is the classic behaviour of a not-uncommon self-destructive sort that's best to heave overboard before they go exponential and make a mess.

And, here we are: at the edge. Care to pick a direction?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Threat Number Three.

---

You know, if you weren't so fucking stupid, you might recognize these as "fair warning". You will get no more warnings.

-RooK
Admin

---

That's the first time you've put on your official Host hat by writing Admin under your name.

It would have helped to clarify whether they were fair warning if you had included that in the previous posts.

For example:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
The dictionary definition of words mean nothing to her - we're all expected to abide by her arbitrary associations.

The simplest explanation of what anybody else writes isn't hardly ever her chosen interpretation - even after they try to clarify that it really was.

Any act of noting her sense-mangling posting style is interpreted as a "bite", which then is used as justification for any and all forms of shitty behaviour (which she refers to as "biting back").

Congratulations, Evensong, you're one of the least valuable not-quite-commandment-violating posters on the Ship in quite a while. My tolerance of your shit is, as an unofficial comment, attenuated. Should I be required to review your status subsequent to any Hostly admonitions, this subjective experience will be taken into account.

Just thought I'd mention that.

---

No hostly hat on there. I thought it was personal.

Same could go for this one:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
You know, I'm kind of looking for an excuse to make my recent suspension-spree a hat-trick. And here we have Evensong asking incredibly annoying stupid shit in the same Eddy-esque vein as Fulrad, and defending it with the same idiotic trollery as Myrrh.

Go ahead, Evensong, say something more.

---

It matters not if you're being official or not I assume?

Although the 10C's seem to think it does matter:

quote:

---

Personal attacks on hosts, admins and editors for their official actions [my emphasis] will be treated as an attempt to disrupt the Ship itself.

---

My mistake. I forgot the ship was a Theocracy and you run it.

As you were.

---

I respect the fact that you believe I am too nasty and hellish in hell Rook. Fair enough.

In any further dealings, could you please be clear you are being a host and telling me to tone it down? (i.e. by saying Rook Admin or Rook, Lord of hosts, The Holy one of Israel?)

Otherwise I just think you're baiting me on a personal level.

Cadfael. Thanks.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:

And, here we are: at the edge. Care to pick a direction?

---

quote:

---

Otherwise I just think you're baiting me on a personal level.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grits:

quote:

---

Otherwise I just think you're baiting me on a personal level.

---

I can hardly wait for a response to this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
I respect the fact that you believe I am too nasty and hellish in hell Rook. Fair enough.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
What am I supposed think????

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
if you’re cunning enough to avoiding overstepping a certain line, you can behave highly subversively without actually getting planked.

---

Devant Toi, Ô Maître Suprême, je m'incline.

FD
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
Oh go on FD. Translate for the Philistines please.
 

---

Posted by Foaming Draught (# 9134) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Oh go on FD. Translate for the Philistines please.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
* Wonders idly if the prayer of humble access was efficacious for Damocles.*

---

I'm sure if Damocles had had the same choice you have in the matter he would've done the intelligent thing and stepped away from the sword.

As for thinking that Rook considers you too hellish and nasty? If you genuinelly think that Rook is disturbed by nastiness and hellishness on the Hell board, and somehow you've flipped his switch by being excessively so, you're proving you just don't know how the board works.

For goodness sake, Evensong, just be your natural self* - as evidenced, I presume, in how you post elsewhere - check out some of the past Hell threads to see how they read; and let's all move on.

*And I am presuming that your Hell persona isn't your natural self!
 

---

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
Evensong,

Let's give this a whirl and see how far we get.

When I made my bet with you it was on the (mistaken) impression that you had decided to climb down off your high horse and actually engage in the discussion. I was certain that you would not get banned for posting anything else because you had already posted several times after RooK's warning and had not been banned.*

Instead you continued to engage upon a posting style that spoke much more of an effort to wind people up than anything else. Personally, I was enjoying myself as it gave me room to vent off steam. That does not mean it was acceptable behavior.

What evidence do I have for my assertion? Re read Liberty's post directed to you. Read RooK's posts. Surely, those are pretty broad "hints."

You seek absolutes in this thread and everyone else is talking in impressions. That is because behavior is all about impressions. Not your impressions, but the impressions others have of what you post. This is the essence of human interaction. If you are old enough to have children, you are old enough to understand this concept.

I actually like you. My guess is that you feel strongly that you have made yourself a mark on the Ship as a warm and helpful poster, someone willing to be nice to newbies. The evidence is that you have. And now, you feel bewildered by RooK's statements to you.

Caution, I am not an official here and what I say is not on behalf of the admins.

Hell is not about winding people up and getting them upset. It is not about how infuriated you can get someone as a way of amusing yourself. Hell is a steam valve designed to let posters let off steam about - whatever is bothering them. It can be about another poster, a current event, a politician, anything. It is also a place where the rules of debate in Purgatory are relaxed by allowing personal attacks. Again, this is part of the letting off steam idea.

At it's heart though, Hell is still about engaging in a discussion. Winding people up to see how mad you can get them, or any other behavior designed to manipulate a response from others, is not engaging in a discussion. It is a violation of the first commandment.

You state you are bewildered by RooK's statements to you. Everyone else is bewildered by your seeming inability to "get it."

I don't really know what to suggest, except that you act like you are in Purgatory when you are in Hell for a while. You know how to behave in Purgatory. If you feel the need to tell someone they are an idiot, tell them. Just refrain from deliberately winding them up.

You are intelligent. You can manage this.


_________________
*There was, and is, no need for me to go into the fact that RooK is a highly intelligent person who was actually trying to help you, not ban you.
 

---

Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :
 
I genuinely do like you Evensong (outside of Hell) and hope you stay on the ship. You add a lot to the other boards.

I'm a brand spanking newbie and even I know that if Erin shows up it's time to shut up and pay attention.
 

---

Posted by 205 (# 206) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
Hence even netural posts get bizaare or insulting responses from her. I had rather hoped she would see this after a while. I personally have no wish to see her planked.

---

1. You really don't understand what I'm talking about, or,
2. You're willfully mis-understanding what I'm talking about to try to stay but not modify your behaviour.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:
I'm a brand spanking newbie and even I know that if Erin shows up it's time to shut up and pay attention.

---

The Force is strong with this one.
 

---

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :
 
OK - I understand about Evensong, but what did FD do? Was it the French?
 

---

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
Could be.

BTW, translated it is:

Before Thee, O Supreme Master, I bow.
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
<ETA: crosspost Tortuf>

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:
OK - I understand about Evensong, but what did FD do? Was it the French?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:
OK - I understand about Evensong, but what did FD do? Was it the French?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
What am I supposed think????

---

You’re being disingenuous.<snip> If you were really that cool, you’d walk.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:
Me too - I also like Evensong and what Evensong posts often!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Benny Diction 2:
In other words, my experience, on brief visits to hell, is that Hosts can be as vitriolic and at times nasty as they wish but it seems in this case at least Shipmates aren't allowed to be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by North East Quine:
I hope Evensong does appeal and come back to the other boards. I agree she didn't seem to "get" Hell, and I see why she was planked, but she certainly "got" the ethos of the other boards and I, for one, will miss her.

---

quote:

---

I think there is considerable discussion in scholarly circles about whether Jesus was literate or not. If he was literate, then he wasn't likely a peasant.

---

quote:

---

As far as Jesus's literacy is concerned, I noticed in Luke 4:16-20 that when Jesus was handed the scroll of Isaiah, he unrolled it and found the place he wanted. He either could read or he was putting on an act. I don't believe he was the type to put on an act.

---

quote:

---

I think the argument for texts like Luke is the evangelists poetic license when it came to Jesus' literacy. *shrug*. Dunno. Doesn't really matter.

---

quote:

---

Well, it matters in a discussion of why Jesus apparently did not choose to write himself!

---

quote:

---

How do you determine what is and what is not "poetic license" in the gospels?

---

quote:

---

Hard question. Probably in a similar way you do.

---

quote:

---

Poetic license isn't the license to write a patent un truth. Its a license to build believable representations based on relatively few known facts. So it must be believable that Jesus as a Jewish rabbi would be able to read from Hebrew scrolls in a synagogue from people who weren't too distant from the synagogue.

---

quote:

---

I don't think anything in the gospels is poetic license.

---

quote:

---

No? So you think they are purely historical documents?

I think they are a mix of history and theology.

---

quote:

---

I agree.

However, poetic license is not proper in history or theology.

---

quote:

---

Maybe not. But those evangelists weren't like us proper types.

---

quote:

---

And if you regard any evidence of him reading as authorial intent or "poetic license," then how can you tell you're not eisogeting according to your own prejudice?

---

quote:

---

I can't. I just don't think there is conclusive evidence either way. And like I said before, I don't really think it matters.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
Keryg sounds cool. Where the hell is it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Benny Diction 2:
I have had no experience of Evensong's postings so make no specific comment.

My observation on this in general though is "sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes" ("Who guards the guards?" "Who watches the watchmen?")

In other words, my experience, on brief visits to hell, is that Hosts can be as vitriolic and at times nasty as they wish but it seems in this case at least Shipmates aren't allowed to be.

Yes we need moderators. But do Shipmates get egged on by the very outspoken behaviour of the Hellish hosts I wonder? In other words, if Hell Hosts reined themselves back would that set the standard they are now trying to enforce?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Benny Diction 2:

In other words, my experience, on brief visits to hell, is that Hosts can be as vitriolic and at times nasty as they wish but it seems in this case at least Shipmates aren't allowed to be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dark Knight:
an admin like RooK...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dark Knight:
...is of a considerably higher status than a host

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
Oh, I'm sorry. Er. Yes, I wholeheartedly agree with everything you said, totally sans vitriolicness.

There.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
He wrote 'sans' without translating.

---

quote:

---

Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
ghastly croissant!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Apocalypso:
1. "Guarding the guardians" is an important issue in democracies.

2. The Ship isn't one.

3. Example-setting is vital in child-rearing.

4. The Ship's Officers don't stand in loco parentis -- urk, sorry, in place of parents.

5. Deal with it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
If Shakespeare thought ‘sans’ was an English word, that’s good enough for me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Campbellite:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:
I'm a brand spanking newbie and even I know that if Erin shows up it's time to shut up and pay attention.

---

The Force is strong with this one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I myself am fond of "vitriolity".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
He's the de-fucking-fenestrator for crying out loud...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
What's wrong with just plain vitriol?

---

It needs a splash of lemon to add flavour.
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Vitriol, vitriolicity, vitriolesse. Meh. Use whichever you like.

Very like a writer I edit who loves to write on the subject of serving God instead of pleasing yourself. At least, I think that's what he means. He has a taste for longer words, and always writes "pleasuring yourself."

I haven't yet thought of a way to let him know that... um... never mind.


 

---

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
Perhaps it was what it actually said, not only the Frenchness of the phrase.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Vitriol is the thing. Vitriolity is the property of the thing that has vitriol. They're performing two different linguistic tasks.
 

---

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
Keryg sounds cool. Where the hell is it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Campbellite:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:
I'm a brand spanking newbie and even I know that if Erin shows up it's time to shut up and pay attention.

---

The Force is strong with this one.

---

Respectfully begging your pardon, Campbellite, it is not as strong as it might be.

---

quote:

---

The metaphysical lesson here, as the world turns, is that when RooK turns up, without or with an Ecotopian analogue of the Rusty Farm Implement, it's time to shut the fuck up. The part about paying attention seems to be highly desirable, but not strictly necessary.

He's the de-fucking-fenestrator for crying out loud—whatever language that is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Campbellite:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:
I'm a brand spanking newbie and even I know that if Erin shows up it's time to shut up and pay attention.

---

The Force is strong with this one.

---

Respectfully begging your pardon, Campbellite, it is not as strong as it might be.

The metaphysical lesson here, as the world turns, is that when RooK turns up, without or with an Ecotopian analogue of the Rusty Farm Implement, it's time to shut the fuck up. The part about paying attention seems to be highly desirable, but not strictly necessary.

He's the de-fucking-fenestrator for crying out loud—whatever language that is.

And this sparkling lesson is set next to the dreariest, eye-crossingest meta-whingeing on the adjacent threads on the meta-topics of tolerance, trolling, and planking.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
Damn. That shoots my theory right out of the water. Now I’ll have to see how many Danish words Hamlet uses. And how many Yiddish for Shylock.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
Damn. That shoots my theory right out of the water. Now I’ll have to see how many Danish words Hamlet uses. And how many Yiddish for Shylock.

---

Touché. We seem to have reached an impasse, à propos of the foreign words patois debacle. It’s a fait accompli, but although I’m au fait with that, I’m not blasé. I know it’s a cliché, and I don’t wish to be a provocateur here, but I feel we can enjoy a good rapport without sabotaging the raison d'être of this unique venue (and the café). Although we cannot have total carte-blanche, it would be nice to have a fairly laissez-fair- nay, avant-garde- attitude en route, and permit a little soupcon of mots juste for the sake of the joie de vivre. So! Let us ignore the façade of hauteur amongst the bourgeois clique! Let us celebrate the foreignness of the œuvre, without fear of gaffe or faux pas! Quelle horreur! Let us abandon this malaise and ennui! Raise your aperitif, my dear friend and raconteur extraordinaire! To English!

---

I am reminded* of the commentator during the Cold War who informed TV viewers that the Russians have no word for détente.

*but not sufficiently to remember his name.
 

---

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I think it was Reagan.
 

---

Posted by Rev per Minute (# 69) on :
 
Didn't W say that the French had no word for entrepreneur?

And Yorick, you should remember to get your endings to agree...
 

---

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
Enough jokes in the Styx. Feel free to test the humour of the Hosts on a more-appropriate board.

-RooK
Styx Host
 

---

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
I read it all.

Rook, you said you were out to get Evensong from the very outset.

And you, along with your perverse and simpering coterie of voyeurs got her. Well done.

I hate this website.
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Why are you still here then?
 

---

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Rook, you said you were out to get Evensong from the very outset.

---

quote:

---

I hate this website.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I read it all.

Rook, you said you were out to get Evensong from the very outset.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Organ Builder:
I've written many a post which, while previewing it, I decided to kill. I've never once regretted what I failed to say in those posts.

---

quote:

---

"I would say to Robertson what an old tutor of a college said to one of his pupils:'Read over your compositions, and where ever you meet with a passage which you think is particularly fine, strike it out.'"

Boswell: Life of Johnson

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Organ Builder:
I've written many a post which, while previewing it, I decided to kill. I've never once regretted what I failed to say in those posts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arrietty:
The pattern of being warm and supportive in some circumstances and towards certain people, and being rude and abusive in others (and particularly anyone who is trying to impose rules and modify the bad behaviour) is one that I recognise.

If someone is being given wriggle room and the benefit of the doubt, and uses that to disrupt a community, in the end someone has to call time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kingsfold:
We had the very thing, Dear Sine

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
You know, I have seen that kind of behaviour before in churches but never connected it to behaviour on the ship.

---

And how. And so very how.

As a great fan of evensong (the service) I have had to remind myself not to get paranoid when reading this thread, with its criticism of evensong at approximately every other post.
 

---

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Why are you still here then?

---

On the one hand I'm here in the hope that things will improve. I'd genuinely like to see the high-jacking of Hell for the practice of gang bullying and ostracism being discouraged as strongly as other offences such as trolling.

On the other hand I'm just sort of hanging about in a state of curious irritation as I wait for my membership of the Ship of Fools to be deleted as per my email and pm request to you shortly after my first post on this thread.

I asked for my membership to be deleted for a number of reasons. Firstly, it will help me to draw a line under my time here on the Ship and prevent me from the entirely erroneous - but somehow weirdly appealing - idea that 4000 + posts is some kind of investment in something.

Secondly, it will discourage me from lurking with intent to post, which for some peculiar reason - no doubt due to my own inadequacies - is what I'm often tempted to do.

Thirdly, it will enable me to finally disassociate myself from an online community that I once really enjoyed but has, IMO, allowed itself to be hijacked by a co-dependent federation of abusive forum bullies.

[ 09. October 2010, 21:27: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
If the Ship is really the besetting sin you make it out to be for yourself, having someone else delete your account is going to be about as effective as emptying the bottles of booze from an alcoholic's house when there's an off-licence next door.

The solution to your professed problem involves you taking responsibility for posting - or refraining from doing so, whether temporarily or indefinitely.
 

---

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
Possibly. But sometimes it's possible for such gestures can take on sacramental significance Eutychus.

[ 09. October 2010, 22:02: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
 

---

Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
Asking the Admins to provide the Ship equivalent of suicide-by-cop is bad enough.

Trying to claim it would be something sacramental is really over the top.
 

---

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
We don't usually delete accounts. I see no reason to delete in this case.
 

---

Posted by Carex (# 9643) on :
 
Just change your password to something long and cryptic that you can't remember. It should work just as well (as long as you actually log out at some point.)
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Block the site from your firewall.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
So in the space of two posts the Ship has gone from being "hijacked by a co-dependent federation of abusive forum bullies" to being capable of administering something of "sacramental significance"?

My next move would have been to suggest the same solution as Carex. But this little exchange suggests to me that Sine is right.

[ 10. October 2010, 06:01: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 

---

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
No.
 

---

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
We don't usually delete accounts. I see no reason to delete in this case.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
So in the space of two posts the Ship has gone from being "hijacked by a co-dependent federation of abusive forum bullies" to being capable of administering something of "sacramental significance"?

My next move would have been to suggest the same solution as Carex. But this little exchange suggests to me that Sine is right.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jlg:
Asking the Admins to provide the Ship equivalent of suicide-by-cop is bad enough.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Also, the fact that you see 'no reason' to delete my membership despite the fact that I've personally and politely asked for my membership to be deleted in a PM to the head honcho is an example of exactly what's gone wrong with the Ship of Fools.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I'd genuinely like to see the high-jacking of Hell for the practice of gang bullying and ostracism being discouraged as strongly as other offences such as trolling.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Also, the fact that you see 'no reason' to delete my membership despite the fact that I've personally and politely asked for my membership to be deleted in a PM to the head honcho is an example of exactly what's gone wrong with the Ship of Fools.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
The PTB treating us as adults (e.g. not playing net nanny for us, but expecting us to have the backbone to stop posting if that's what we want to do) is something that's very right about the ship.

---

So, refusing to cancel memberships for people that expressly want to formally disassociate from the Ship is a Good Thing&trade? I'm sorry Mousethief I just don't get that.
 

---

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
Trying not to be cynical here, but maybe Numpty wants to be able to say that the decision to leave was taken out of his hands; he was 'deleted' by the Admins, even though he hadn't done anything to be legitmately planked. 'Look, I told you they were tyrants and despots - they cancelled my membership!'

Surely integrity alone would prevent someone sincere about giving up the Ship from relinquishing the exercise of their own choice; whether by abdicating their own adult free will, or attempting to manipulate Admins into doing what they want.

I'm in thrall to Mars Bars but I'm not blaming the chocolate company for not coming round to my house and tying me to the sofa every time I want to pig out! And certainly not for existing in the first place.

Come on, Numpty. By all means complain about the system, but if you've no intention of giving the Ship up, just get used to the idea that as well as those who agree with you, some won't.
 

---

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
You want to 'formally' disassociate yourself from the Ship?

Take out an ad; buy airspace on commercial radio. Send in copy to any one of a hundred thousand free advertizers and newspapers, that'll print your rant FOC.

Follow the example of the folks who have 'unbaptism' services. Write a liturgy; have a service in your church. Blog. Put up a banner across your front door. Create your own bumper sticker. Go on community TV.

Or how about just not associating yourself with the thing you don't want to be associated with? The power is with you, Numpty. No-one else.
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
The only reason I can see for needing to cancel a membership is if it costs you money.

If I want to leave a club, I cancel - so that I don't need to pay into it any more.

The Ship costs you no money - just leave.

I know it's not easy. As I said before, I left a site I was very deeply involved with. It took me a month or two to stop reading it entirely - but I never visit at all now - and I am in touch with the good friends I made there on Facebook. So no loss.

It can be done.


 

---

Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on :
 
As a relative newcomer, I don't know Call Me Numpty, though he seems to have chosen an apt screen name. The problem here is simple: he doesn't want to leave. He wants to be abused.

And all you lovely people with your helpful suggestions aren't cooperating.
 

---

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
We don't usually delete accounts. I see no reason to delete in this case.

---

If that really is the case, then Simon and Alan should have said that in reply to my PM.

---

quote:

---

Unsubscribe and data removal policies – If you would like to remove your name and email address from our bulletin board registration database, you can request removal by sending a private message to one of the Member Admins.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by wilson:
Just as a point of information, from the Ship's Privacy Statement:

quote:

---

Unsubscribe and data removal policies – If you would like to remove your name and email address from our bulletin board registration database, you can request removal by sending a private message to one of the Member Admins.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
I think the issue is that Numpty sees membership of the ship as similar to membership of the Labour Party - i.e. it implies agreement with a particular ethos or set of objectives.

As he is no longer in sympathy with the Ship's ethos (as he sees it), therefore he wants to formally sever himself.

The question is therefore membership of the Ship does imply anything about the values you hold.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by wilson:
Just as a point of information, from the Ship's Privacy Statement:

quote:

---

Unsubscribe and data removal policies – If you would like to remove your name and email address from our bulletin board registration database, you can request removal by sending a private message to one of the Member Admins.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Also, the fact that you see 'no reason' to delete my membership despite the fact that I've personally and politely asked for my membership to be deleted in a PM to the head honcho is an example of exactly what's gone wrong with the Ship of Fools.

---

What you mean is, they don't do as you tell them, and others think differently than you do, and that is what is wrong about SOF.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
We don't usually delete accounts. I see no reason to delete in this case.

---

If that really is the case, then Simon and Alan should have said that in reply to my PM.

---

The only real effect of deleting your account would appear to be give you an excuse to disassociate yourself from your own comment history. That's not really in anyone's interests, as far as I can tell.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by wilson:
Just as a point of information, from the Ship's Privacy Statement:

quote:

---

Unsubscribe and data removal policies – If you would like to remove your name and email address from our bulletin board registration database, you can request removal by sending a private message to one of the Member Admins.

---

---

His name is no where on his registration. He can update his e-mail to something invalid himself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
I understand. A previously used e-mailed address does not remain in our database. But that doesn't matter; he is lying about wanting his information removed. If he did, he would stop posting. As long as he continues to do so, I will continue to regard it as some kind of bizarre "gotcha ya" that only makes sense in his mind.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
And I think that you're lying when you say that if I stop posting you'll do what I've asked you to do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spiffy:
There are ways to block your computers from accessing certain web sites.

Matter of fact, here is what I found when I typed "how do I block my computer from certain web sites" into Google.

---

But that's not on his terms, Spiff. It's now not about saving himself from the temptation of posting again as he first maintained. We now see that it is all about wringing the last harrah out of making the PTB bend to his will.

A poor victory but his own.
 

---

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 
It seems Numpty wishes not merely to shake the dust from his sandals, but also to insist that those he is about to shun should sterilize his footwear before he leaves.
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Off to the quotes file!
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
I understand. A previously used e-mailed address does not remain in our database. But that doesn't matter; he is lying about wanting his information removed. If he did, he would stop posting. As long as he continues to do so, I will continue to regard it as some kind of bizarre "gotcha ya" that only makes sense in his mind.

---

And I think that you're lying when you say that if I stop posting you'll do what I've asked you to do. I can't understand why you're so blinded by some bizarre "we-don't-do-anything-we're- asked-to-by-people-who-we-don't-like" attitude that prevents you from just doing what you've been politely asked to do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Then go on your way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Even if Numpty stops posting the PTB may not delete the account. Numpty, just because you ask politely is not necessarily a reason for people to do what you ask. Can you conceive that the PTB might decline to delete an account regardless of their feelings about a poster?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I don't want to disassociate myself from my comment history, but I do want to disassociate myself from yours, and the people like you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I can't imagine why they might decline such a request though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Even if Numpty stops posting the PTB may not delete the account. Numpty, just because you ask politely is not necessarily a reason for people to do what you ask. Can you conceive that the PTB might decline to delete an account regardless of their feelings about a poster?

---

Yes, of course I can conceive of that possibility. I can't imagine why they might decline such a request though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Catch 22.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Catch 22.

---

The only catch 22 here is of your own making, because you are continuing to post whilst simultaneously claiming you want to stop.

Here's what to do:

1. Write a suitable post explaining you are leaving.

2. Post.

3. Lock yourself out of your account as explained above.

4. Wait x months to allow the dust to settle.

5. E-mail a member admin asking for your details to be removed (if that's still important to you by then). I should think this would then happen quite straightforwardly.

Again, if you don't do something along those lines, people will continue to assume, on the basis of the available evidence, that your expressed wish to be out of here simply isn't true.

[x-posted with Alan]

[ 11. October 2010, 07:52: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 

---

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Catch 22.

---

If you'd made your request and not posted anything you would have quietly disappeared and there would have been no Hell thread or continued Styx discussion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Catch 22.

---

The only catch 22 here is of your own making, because you are continuing to post whilst simultaneously claiming you want to stop.

Here's what to do:

1. Write a suitable post explaining you are leaving.

2. Post.

3. Lock yourself out of your account as explained above.

4. Wait x months to allow the dust to settle.

5. E-mail a member admin asking for your details to be removed (if that's still important to you by then). I should think this would then happen quite straightforwardly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Catch 22.

---

The only catch 22 here is of your own making, because you are continuing to post whilst simultaneously claiming you want to stop.

Here's what to do:

1. Write a suitable post explaining you are leaving.

2. Post.

3. Lock yourself out of your account as explained above.

4. Wait x months to allow the dust to settle.

5. E-mail a member admin asking for your details to be removed (if that's still important to you by then). I should think this would then happen quite straightforwardly.

---

Very good Euthychus, did you find that somewhere in the Ship's small print, or did you just make it up?

For what it's worth it's a pretty good model from the Ship's point of view because it ensures that public criticism is limited if not entirely curtailed, and the right to reply disappears as a value of the forum.

In other words, why are you (and others) asking me questions if you think I should just go quietly?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
For what it's worth it's a pretty good model from the Ship's point of view because it ensures that public criticism is limited if not entirely curtailed, and the right to reply disappears as a value of the forum.

---

quote:

---

In other words, why are you (and others) asking me questions if you think I should just go quietly?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Nump: You want to be removed from the database AND have the right to reply?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I would like the Ship to change a bit

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

The idea that I don't want to leave is, in part, correct. Being in two minds about something isn't that uncommon is it? 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.

I guess the desire to Make A Point&trade by resigning my membership is being denied to me precisely because it would actually make a point. I find that irritating, but that could be down to my pride. Or a mixture of both. I don't know. What I do know is that some of the stuff that happens here on the Ship ain't good, and I wanted to call it for what it is - bullying.

---

Nice one for admitting that pride may be a factor in your decision (as you see it).

Perhaps a step forward for you would be to answer Think's question as to how to regulate Hell.

Perhaps a few examples (other than the one you mentioned) of bullying would enable others to engage more concretely with you.

[ 11. October 2010, 09:14: Message edited by: Rosa Winkel ]
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Call Me Numpty:

Do you have any idea how much more approachable you come across as in that last post (to me, anyway)? A post to interact with

Just one thing, though: if you're serious about making allegations of cyber-bullying, you're going to be asked for some pretty firm and specific evidence. If you go public with it (not your only available option and, dare I say it, perhaps not the most biblical first option), bear in mind that not everybody may see it the way you do and that not everyone who differs is necessarily sucking up to the PTB.

For instance, this, to my mind, might work as an enraged Hell comment, but it doesn't get anywhere near the standard of evidence required to make a proper case.

[x-post with Rosa and Yorick]

[ 11. October 2010, 09:14: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 

---

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I would like the Ship to change a bit

---

Why do you care, if you're leaving?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I guess it's because I think the bullying will continue

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
There must be some worse injustice to more profitably rail against elsewhere in the world, surely?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Even if Numpty stops posting the PTB may not delete the account. Numpty, just because you ask politely is not necessarily a reason for people to do what you ask. Can you conceive that the PTB might decline to delete an account regardless of their feelings about a poster?

---

Yes, of course I can conceive of that possibility. I can't imagine why they might decline such a request though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Catch 22.

---

If you'd made your request and not posted anything you would have quietly disappeared and there would have been no Hell thread or continued Styx discussion.

---

False dichotomy. There's no reason why I shouldn't be able to express disquiet - even disgust - concerning certain aspects of the Ship's culture before I leave. Such action isn't wrong simply because you say it is. In my view it's a valid option and one that I'm choosing to exercise.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Can we just accept that he feels it matters, and move on?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Apocalypso:
… I submit that nobody else here -- fellow poster, host, admin -- CAN stop you from behaving this way.

---

Well, it is possible to stop him behaving that way here. And, FWIW, I have been sorely tempted. Mainly because a) it would prevent him from making an even bigger fool of himself than he already has done and b) it means that no one has read any more of his self glorifying twaddle. But I suspect that preventing someone from posting here at their own request would just prove their point. Instead I offer some unsolicited advice. The hole is big enough. Stop digging.

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
...Can we just accept that he feels it matters, and move on?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
I think the logical criticism you're making applies to when one is apparently denied permission to even make the observation that x exists because y is worse. That's not what I'm saying. I'm making the observation that devoting such time and energy to solving bullying on the ship is misdirected. (Particularly when it's probably insoluble insofar as it exists anyway).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by duchess:
Help a weaker brother out; he is tempted beyond his means to quit posting on a board he feels is sinning to post on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
How retro. Numpty is conducting a virtual flag-burning. It takes me back to the days of my youth in the turbulent late 60s and early 70s. If only I had kept my beaded headband...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by duchess:
Looking at the bible, there are two verses that spring to mind, to paraphrase...

Help a weaker brother out; he is tempted beyond his means to quit posting on a board he feels is sinning to post on.


...

Okay, my work is done here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple Tiara:

Bullying suggests a weak, unequal victim. Whenever bullying is alleged around here, my observation is that the "victims" have usually been anything but weak and defenceless.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
...andreas the Greek would always mount his white charger to defend Myrrh the Myrrhciless when people grew fed up with her unerring hijacking of threads by introducing Augustine and Pelagius.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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).
 

---

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :
 
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? and It's them - the bastards! 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 ]
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 

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.

---

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.

---

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
I see.

So, the options are:

1. You really don't understand what I'm talking about, or,
2. 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

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
But you recognise the variety, right ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
Tell me this dogpiling was fair.*

*Try to be neutral about it. Obviously, I cannot.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
Tell me this dogpiling was fair.*

---

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 . . .

---

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.

---

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.

---

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"?)
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
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
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
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.



 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

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.
 

---

Posted by Silver Faux (# 8783) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on :
 
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?
 

---

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
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 ]
 

---

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
Oh dear. I think I just broke my rational atheism.
 

---

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

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.

---

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"?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:
What happens if the person who's been challenged to a duel under your system refuses to show up?

---

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
)
 

---

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
How does one access old Hell pages here?

---

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.

---

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).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:

Since "gauntlet" can mean facing many foes, how about something even less tasteful, like "arena"?

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:
What happens if the person who's been challenged to a duel under your system refuses to show up?

---

quote:

---

Strange utterances, horrible pronouncements,
accents of anger, words of suffering,
and voices shrill and faint, and beating hands -
all went to make a tumult that will whirl
forever through that turbid, timeless air,
like sand that eddies when a whirlwind swirls.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
I suppose ‘Much ado about Nothing’ would be too long.

---

 

---

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
We tried duels once in Hell some years ago - I can't remember when, exactly - after IngoB had been saying in the Styx that we ought to have a one-to-one method of solving disputes, following a Hell call where the peanut gallery had got too involved. He then invented a rule system for it and it was tried out. It starred IngoB v someone else, both had picked seconds, and it got complicated enough for all the contestants to slip up and was then abandoned as a general principle.

I remember it because I somehow ended up as the referee. (And I think Rat was the girl selling oranges at the interval.) The duel idea is not new.
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 

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).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:
... it got complicated enough for all the contestants to slip up and was then abandoned as a general principle.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:
What happens if the person who's been challenged to a duel under your system refuses to show up?

---

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.)

...

---

• No sane person would willingly host a board allowing a malicious poster to play games for many times longer than on the current Hell board (and the board would need hosting of some sort).
• Posters either not confident of holding their own against a disingenuous, fluent troll, who have too much going on IRL to wait around, or who simply would get fed up with not having their say would just be out of luck, I guess.
• If the posters are in different time zones, the process would be even more tediously drawn-out.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:
It starred IngoB v someone else, both had picked seconds, and it got complicated enough for all the contestants to slip up and was then abandoned as a general principle.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Organ Builder:
This is exactly what seems to me to make the idea unworkable. It will require more steps than a Renaissance court dance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:
But if only the caller, the called and the seconds are allow to post on the duel thread and one of them doesn't turn up - because they are a cad and a bounder, obviously - then aren't you going to get the online equivilent of someone howling at the moon? Ho hum.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Only two people are required.

The challenger must open the duel thread, explicitly naming the challenged
(presumably a PM would be a good idea).

The challenged must respond by joining the thread.

Then the duel is already on.

If you like it simple, just don't ask for seconds.

If one wants seconds, they can be acquired any time later:
either by inviting someone per PM, or by making an open call to the public for support.

In the former case, the second simply starts posting at some point
(presumably by saying something like "I've been invited by...").

In the latter case, I would say one is stuck with whichever Shipmate reacts first and joins as second one one's side.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
Lion's Den would be in keeping with the general theme of the boards. In its original meaning, anyway.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Only two people are required.

The challenger must open the duel thread, explicitly naming the challenged
(presumably a PM would be a good idea).

The challenged must respond by joining the thread.

Then the duel is already on.

If you like it simple, just don't ask for seconds.

If one wants seconds, they can be acquired any time later:
either by inviting someone per PM, or by making an open call to the public for support.

In the former case, the second simply starts posting at some point
(presumably by saying something like "I've been invited by...").

In the latter case, I would say one is stuck with whichever Shipmate reacts first and joins as second one one's side.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
The challenged must respond by joining the thread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
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?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Sorry, I can't resist!

I suggest The Brig.

---

I'm glad you hadn't swallowed a new password.
 

---

Posted by rugasaw (# 7315) on :
 
I see a problem with a new dueling board. It could become a lookie see how many notches I have in my belt board.
 

---

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
I think that if there is any value for the one called to hell, it often comes from realizing that their way of behaving is annoying many people. I think that would be lacking in this system, because even if we all think X totally proved that Y was a muddle-headed assholish jerk of incomprehensibly huge proportions, we can't post so Y will never know we think so.
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Frankly, I don't see how any duel is ever going to come to an end. Imagine that one takes on a troll (or simulated troll-like substance), for instance. Not a good idea. The troll is bound to have greater staying power than any normal person because he simply yells louder, longer, and without any restraint of logic.

You think you can touch him? Remember that there is nothing to compel him to admit a "touch" or even a wound to the death, no matter how obvious it may be to the entire silently watching Ship. You can smash him to the floor with your pithy observations and clever repartee and he will simply ignore you and post a reply to what he WISHES you said.

And he'll get away with it. There is no peanut gallery to beat the truth into him en masse--just you and perhaps your second. There is no judge of the duel. As I understand it, he who posts last, laughs.

So what will happen IMHO is that the idiot with the greater lung capacity will go on and on and ON and ON ... until the other person gives up in disgust and decides to get a life. Whereupon the jackass/troll/idiot (cheerful little prophet, aren't I?) will crow on its own dunghill about having "won" the duel. It'll be enough to make me want to crawl through my keyboard and punch his lights out.

I mean, think it out. Which of you would care to face in eternal single debate a poster such as our (shudder) illustrious _______, or the ever-annoying ___________, or worst of all, the master of obfuscation and just plain pigheadedness, M'sieur ________________?

And if you all can't automatically fill in certain Shipmate names while reading that, I will conclude that there is no need for Hell, let alone a dueling board.
 

---

Posted by Liberty (# 713) on :
 
Logic says we only need this new duelling system if the old system is flawed.

If the old system is flawed it's because the mean and incompetent H&As let dog-piling and bullying occur. After all if they were nice and better they'd stop it from happening/punish people who did it.

So, great, a new system. Yay! Well, even in the duelling system, one person could still bully another. So we need people to oversee it and make it fair and happy. Who will do that?

The current H&As will do it. But wait, they're incompetent and mean. Oh noes.

Their decisions will be at times, by the very nature of what they're deciding, somewhat subjective (what counts as bullying? etc.). So the people that still think the H&As are so very awful will still think the H&As are so very awful.

If there's a problem, this doesn't solve it.

And if you think there's a problem with what the H&As allow, you have 4 options:
1) Give some actual evidence to them in the hope they might change.
2) Leave.
3) Suck it up and stay.
4) Get some perspective

The only thing I am still confused about is why on earth the H&As do what they do for us on a volunteer basis, reading every last word written here and put up with the ridiculous criticisms.

Liberty

[ 13. October 2010, 04:03: Message edited by: Liberty ]
 

---

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
Sorry for the delay; our little Nazgûl got sick and needed to be rescued from daycare. Then more life happened; you know how it goes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:
It starred IngoB v someone else, both had picked seconds, and it got complicated enough for all the contestants to slip up and was then abandoned as a general principle.

---

That's not how I remember it ending. Well, more precisely, I don't really remember how it went, but I'm pretty sure I would remember if it ended up in a mess.

---

quote:

---

The only thing I am still confused about is why on earth the H&As do what they do for us on a volunteer basis, reading every last word written here and put up with the ridiculous criticisms.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
. Like the fact that this could be, in fact, a bully's wet dream.

---

quote:

---

Minor things like being right and being considerate and being honest will generally be totally destroyed by an opponent armed entirely with superior rhetoric and simple bloody-mindedness

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
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?

---

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rook: In the mean time, many people have pointed out some additional excellent criticisms. Like the fact that this could be, in fact, a bully's wet dream. Minor things like being right and being considerate and being honest will generally be totally destroyed by an opponent armed entirely with superior rhetoric and simple bloody-mindedness. Likewise, poster children for Dunning-Kruger bias will tend to hammer down timid savants. The sense of injustice might be repulsive to many.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
No dice. There will be no board, ever, where someone is required to participate by simply being invoked. End of story.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
And you're gonna cut this "coward" shit out right now. I don't want to see it again in reference to people who wouldn't play in your theoretical sandbox.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
So at this point, I'm pretty curious about who's actually interested in signing up for this experiment to show us how a "Fight Club" board could be a good thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
Dear IngoB and his rules. Sometimes I think he missed his calling working as a neuroscientist. He should be a tax lawyer or a specialist in common law title to real property.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
My coffee machine is more complicated than the proposed duel board.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
IngoB, it's most eloquent supporter comes out with a bullying rule to start with! "You vill take part!"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
What I meant to say is that the challenge is simply taken up by responding on the thread, rather than anything more complicated. I did not mean that one is somehow compelled to respond.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
And you're gonna cut this "coward" shit out right now. I don't want to see it again in reference to people who wouldn't play in your theoretical sandbox.

---

Within Styx, as you wish. Within the duel board itself this would be normal though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:
What happens if the person who's been challenged to a duel under your system refuses to show up?

---

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.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Now, I remember this duel stuff to be quite fun and I think it has potential.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
What I do care about though, a lot, is this "end of the world" vibe whenever there is a suggestion of anything new. I challenge the very assumption that I have to defend this down to the last detail.

---

I wouldn't say you do. I'd say that as you're proposing a major change to a distinctive "pressure valve" feature of the boards - one which has previously been trialled and rejected - it helps your case to clearly explain why it's necessary, why you think it would work, and to clear up any concerns about the practicalities. I'd be astonished if there was an academic committee anywhere in the world that wouldn't expect the same. Maybe an academic committee wouldn't confront you with a dozen or so objections from different people, many covering similar ground, but as with the accusations of bullying, I think it's a mistake to attempt to compare online forum activity with real life too closely, because the differences are too many and too great to allow for a meaningful comparison.

However, the idea of an experimental board in general is interesting - how do you imagine it would operate?
 

---

Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :
 
Probably only a minor issue, but how do you know when it's over?

CALLER: I challenge thee to a duel, sir! Thou art a pissant and a cad.

RESPONDER: Bugger off.

CALLER: Neener-neener.

RESPONDER: Et cum spirito tuo.

CALLER: I fart in your general direction.

RESPONDER: Yeah, well, that's nice. Are we done?

INGOB (from peanut gallery): Coward!

RESPONDER: I've PM'd you - see you in Hell.

INGOB: I don't have to respond to a Hell call - I challenge you to a duel.

RESPONDER: Anyway. Knitting. Anyone got some good projects underway?

CALLER: Bazinga!

RESPONDER: Yes, yes, very funny.

[Three day hiatus]

HOST: Thread closed.

You'll need a supporting Adjudication board in the event of disputes about who won, and a final point of arbitration. The governance structure would need some work - probably around 10 pages or so should do it.

You'd need some rules about whether a Duellist can be called to Hell by a third party over something said during a duel.

And of course the Ship would have to get an indemnity off participants, so that it isn't liable for either mental distress or loss of income in the event of someone having to skip work to spend time duelling. Simon would probably need an upfront fee as well to pay for any additional insurance he has to take out.

Great idea, though.
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
My thought was different.

Not to have a 'duelling' board (I agree that this wouldn't work for all the reasons above)

But to have two 'furnaces' in Hell -

One for 'Hell calls' where the OP is personal, directed at a person for whatever reason.

The other for rants - like the Post Office one.

All the same rules as before - just clearer demarkation of threads.

This would help people like me who come to Hell for the rants (and enjoy the ranty, free for all discussions with fewer rules - they are much more like RL imo) but so much the more confrontational personal stuff.

No big deal if it didn't happen - but a change is good for a place imo.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
I'm not at *all* sure the proposed debate duels would be a good idea. Could make inflamed egos worse; then, again, it could get the more egregious ego expositions off the other boards.

But if the Ship takes that step Debate.org might be a good reference. I stumbled across it recently. They have a very strict set of rules on how to do it--set number of rounds, civility, etc.


As to a name for the board:

"Joust of Fools".

"Fool Duel".

"I Pity The Fool!", a la Mr. T. (If no one has suggested that yet!)

"Dubious Fools".

"Fools Rush In" or "Where Angels Fear To Tread".

"Tempest in a Teapot". Or perhaps "Tempest in a Foolpot"?
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
What I do care about though, a lot, is this "end of the world" vibe whenever there is a suggestion of anything new.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
...I'm sitting on academic committees that are more open and flexible than this, and that is saying something...

---

What an admirable revelation! Are your academic committees amenable to one-on-one combat, no holds barred, with no support from others holding opinions opposing yours? To be honest, I'm a bit surprised you've acquired tenure.

It may be difficult for you to grasp this concept, but the discussions on these boards aren't about intellectual combat, victory or defeat. IMO, the attitude you bring to debate has done more to drive away the free exchange of opinion and ideas from these fora than any other individual here. Maybe that's why there's been a mass exodus of "interesting" posters resulting in your boredom.

Your "arena" is a stupid idea - a solution in search of a problem that doesn't exist; a gratuitous exercise in self-gratification by imposition of your will upon the operation of these boards.

Oh, and RooK is fucking with you. It's called "The Cobra Dance of Niceness" - he's going to set up your silly board, so that you can see it fail, in a futile attempt to shut you up.

[My apologies, Yorick, for the personal insult that got me suspended - I would never seriously suggest you should die; totally inappropriate in the Styx.]
 

---

Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :
 
How about the advocates of duelling set up their own experimental website - or just duel by email amongst themselves for a while - and present the results here for information?
 

---

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
God bless you, Alfred, you're a truly wonderful human being and often sober.



And I mean that.
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
On a positive note, I feel it could serve a useful and very specific purpose that isn’t being met with the current boards- namely, that two Shipmates, having reached a point of personal disagreement, may be able publicly to argue their positions without interference (constructive or otherwise) by others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
God bless you, Alfred, you're a truly wonderful human being and often sober.



And I mean that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:
How about the advocates of duelling set up their own experimental website - or just duel by email amongst themselves for a while - and present the results here for information?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
I think you're wonderful too, Yorick, but I can never really know you from just your posts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
This plan would enable someone like that (and I'm sure we can all think of examples) to keep being a troll/crusader/complete tart to everybody, while only allowing one person to respond in kind. A bullies charter, one might almost say...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
On a positive note, I feel it could serve a useful and very specific purpose that isn’t being met with the current boards- namely, that two Shipmates, having reached a point of personal disagreement, may be able publicly to argue their positions without interference (constructive or otherwise) by others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
How about the advocates of duelling being free to opt in (and those interested enough can see how it goes for themselves), and those disinterested are equally free to opt out and ignore the whole shebang?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
What purpose would putting it in the public domain serve, if the public aren't supposed to get involved?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
...it has been pretty impossible for me to defend my point of view effectively... but however rational the raving mob may or may not be, it is very difficult to discuss actual issues with it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Then you still haven't countered Tubbs' basic objection.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I didn't realize this had anything to do with fun.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arrietty:
By all means try another board - I shan't be reading it, but I don't read all the boards anyway. But don't say I'm scared of change just because I can't see what it would add to what is already here, and feel that hosting it would be completely nightmarish.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
I wouldn't say you do. I'd say that as you're proposing a major change to a distinctive "pressure valve" feature of the boards - one which has previously been trialled and rejected - it helps your case to clearly explain why it's necessary, why you think it would work, and to clear up any concerns about the practicalities.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:
Probably only a minor issue, but how do you know when it's over? ... RESPONDER: Yes, yes, very funny. [Three day hiatus] HOST: Thread closed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
Maybe that's why there's been a mass exodus of "interesting" posters resulting in your boredom.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
Your "arena" is a stupid idea - a solution in search of a problem that doesn't exist; a gratuitous exercise in self-gratification by imposition of your will upon the operation of these boards.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:
Where is your basis for you to demand that Simon et al bear the additional cost of and time in organising a test of something which doesn't appear to have any business benefit as currently configured?

---

It's an unfair characterisation to suggest I am 'demanding' anything. I am motivated in supporting the idea by what I feel would be the interests of the community.

The business benefit is none of my business.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Ingo--

You're not going all Heidelberg on us, are you?


 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
This plan would enable someone like that (and I'm sure we can all think of examples) to keep being a troll/crusader/complete tart to everybody, while only allowing one person to respond in kind. A bullies charter, one might almost say...

---

But it would contain them nicely, wouldn't it, if they had to spend all their time in Arena/Gauntlet/Whatever?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
What you want, I put it to you, is a stylized interaction that guarantees you a public say, a captive participant, and no community-level intervention. … I'm more interested in the human interaction - both community and individual level.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Ingo-- You're not going all Heidelberg on us, are you?

---

Hmm, a duel required between Newbies that have reached 50 posts, in order to acquire Shipmate status, with both being able to pick an established Shipmate as second? Topic of debate to be chosen for them.

I like it.
 

---

Posted by Alfred E. Neuman (# 6855) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
...So instead of pursuing your personal vendetta any further, why don't you simply make a better suggestion? If it is good, I'll even vote for trialing it over the duel board. Really.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:
How about the advocates of duelling set up their own experimental website - or just duel by email amongst themselves for a while - and present the results here for information?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
They'd still be free to piss everyone off on other boards while their lone challenger rails uselessly against them in the proper place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
The business benefit is none of my business.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:
How about the advocates of duelling set up their own experimental website - or just duel by email amongst themselves for a while - and present the results here for information?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:
How about the advocates of duelling set up their own experimental website - or just duel by email amongst themselves for a while - and present the results here for information?

---

Yes, why doesn't IngoB take out a private board himself. That way he could Administer and Host it himself, avoid ever getting called there himself, treat anyone any way he likes, plank anyone he wants, and ignore his critics because it's his board. Brilliant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
...Fact is, we cann’t know unless we give it a pop. I’d volunteer my time to act as Host, if that would be any help.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
The business benefit is none of my business.

---

Of course it's your business - if Simon runs out of cash because he's nice enough to instigate ideas that are put forward, or can't find people to help with hosting the new boards, then the other activities of the Ship are affected.

You are right that you have not demanded but merely supported. That support has been in hte form of assertion about benefits of a system which haven't been demonstrated. So the only way to tests these assertions is for the Ship, at its own cost and time, to run the test, right?

---

quote:

---

In the tomb, the Doctors have deciphered the inscription. Rassilon did discover immortality, and was willing to share it with whoever overcame the obstacles to the tomb and took the ring from his body. However, a line troubles the First Doctor: "To lose is to win and he who wins shall lose."

(SNIP)

The Second Doctor contacts the Capitol, and the Fifth Doctor answers, still under Borusa's control. The Fifth Doctor tells his other selves to await his and Borusa's arrival. Transmatting over to the tomb, Borusa paralyzes the Doctors' companions with a command and tries to control the minds of the Doctors as well, but fails as all four Doctors combine their wills against him. However, a booming voice echoes through the chamber, the voice of Rassilon, demanding to know who disturbs him. Borusa steps forward to claim immortality and while the other Doctors protest, the First Doctor holds the others back and says to the projection of Rassilon that Borusa deserves the prize. Borusa takes the ring from the body and puts it on, but finds himself paralyzed, then transformed into one of several stone faces carved into the side of the casket. Rassilon then sends the Master back to his own time, and frees the Fourth Doctor from the time vortex before returning to eternal rest. The First Doctor smugly tells the Fifth that he finally understood the proverb. The prize was another trap — a means for Rassilon to discover who wanted immortality and get them out of the way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
I feel it’s quite ridiculous of you to imply it’s not entirely up to Simon how he feels he should spend his money.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
You mean make them pay to kill each other? Genius!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:
It takes something simple – take your dispute to Hell or drop it – and makes it complicated and bureaucratic.

---

1. Should there be (regular) experiments with something new on SoF, in the hope of finding something that "adds to the community", and to make it more lively?
2. Should members be encouraged to suggest such interesting experiments?
3. Is a duel board a workable experiment?
4. Is a duel board the best current suggestion and should be tried next?

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
I feel it’s quite ridiculous of you to imply it’s not entirely up to Simon how he feels he should spend his money.

---

I have implied no such thing

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:
if Simon runs out of cash because he's nice enough to instigate ideas that are put forward, or can't find people to help with hosting the new boards

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I think in terms of 'calling people to Hell', it could work well, in that you call them to the Arena, where you can bash out your differences alone.

---

But why is this a basis for a public board?

I certainly don't want to watch anyone 'bashing out their differences alone'.


 

---

Posted by Alfred E. Neuman (# 6855) on :
 
Why all this wailing and gnashing of teeth? It's already been decided by RooK to create it. All that's left is to stand by and watch the Hindenburg crash in gaseous flames.

Oh! The humanity!
 

---

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
The argued benefits of a duel board to the community depend on its visibility to the community. If it were a private board, it wouldn’t serve.
 

---

Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

1. Should there be (regular) experiments with something new on SoF, in the hope of finding something that "adds to the community", and to make it more lively?
2. Should members be encouraged to suggest such interesting experiments?
3. Is a duel board a workable experiment?
4. Is a duel board the best current suggestion and should be tried next?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Actually, an Ingo-run private board might be the best solution.

One way or another, we're going to wind up with the Game of Rassilon, and it might as well be off the main boards.

(Emphasis mine.)

quote:

---

In the tomb, the Doctors have deciphered the inscription. Rassilon did discover immortality, and was willing to share it with whoever overcame the obstacles to the tomb and took the ring from his body. However, a line troubles the First Doctor: "To lose is to win and he who wins shall lose."

(SNIP)

The Second Doctor contacts the Capitol, and the Fifth Doctor answers, still under Borusa's control. The Fifth Doctor tells his other selves to await his and Borusa's arrival. Transmatting over to the tomb, Borusa paralyzes the Doctors' companions with a command and tries to control the minds of the Doctors as well, but fails as all four Doctors combine their wills against him. However, a booming voice echoes through the chamber, the voice of Rassilon, demanding to know who disturbs him. Borusa steps forward to claim immortality and while the other Doctors protest, the First Doctor holds the others back and says to the projection of Rassilon that Borusa deserves the prize. Borusa takes the ring from the body and puts it on, but finds himself paralyzed, then transformed into one of several stone faces carved into the side of the casket. Rassilon then sends the Master back to his own time, and frees the Fourth Doctor from the time vortex before returning to eternal rest. The First Doctor smugly tells the Fifth that he finally understood the proverb. The prize was another trap — a means for Rassilon to discover who wanted immortality and get them out of the way.

---

(Under Creative Commons license.)

---

Rassilon drove the Master mad for his own ends, tried to kill the doctor and destroyed his own people. [ETA: Not exactly a glowing recommendation now is it? ]

IngoB, isn't refusing to discuss whether the existing solution is better or worse than the new one being proposed kind of missing the point?!

Tubbs

[Edited: Stupid code]

[ 13. October 2010, 11:58: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
Oh yes, and can we cut out this private board nonsense?

Firstly, the direct costs to Simon for having a new board in the main forums are essentially zero. It's a freaking database entry... The only valid concerns are whether one can staff the board and whether it adds to the attractiveness of the main forum. The latter can have indirect financial consequences, of course, but so it is for all activity on the main boards.

Secondly, I actually have initiated a private board which is still running. They are pricey and I definitely am not going to cough up any dough for this one. This is simply not a major interest of mine. It is a good idea, which IMHO worked well enough in a pre-trial to give it a go. Someone else brought the idea up here, and since it was my idea and I still like it, I supported it once more. That's all.

Thirdly, of course the public attention is essential for a duel board. Otherwise it is indeed just a glorified PM exchange.

Fourthly, private boards remain obscure. If people are very interested they may find their way to the corresponding private board here, eventually. It is a completely different ballgame to be on the main boards.
 

---

Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
I feel it’s quite ridiculous of you to imply it’s not entirely up to Simon how he feels he should spend his money.

---

I have implied no such thing

---

You said:

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:
if Simon runs out of cash because he's nice enough to instigate ideas that are put forward, or can't find people to help with hosting the new boards

---

…which implies it is Simon’s niceness that determines his decision-making

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:
It's a batshit crazy solution for a problem that doesn't exist (YMMV).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:
It's a batshit crazy solution for a problem that doesn't exist (YMMV).

---

It would provide a particular service that is currently not met by the current system- namely, that two people could publicly argue their personal disagreements without the interruption, involvement and interference of others.

The chief benefit of this to the individuals is the greater chance of mediated and conciliated resolution of their disagreement.

Amongst the advantages to the community are, off the top of my head:

The personal disagreement would be removed and contained away from the other boards;
The community would (have the option to) observe understand and adjudge the issues of the disagreement for themselves;
The harmful effects on the individual of dogpiling would be reduced;
?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;
?Entertainment value.

The cost to the community: nil.

It's batshit crazy not to give it a try. (YMMV).

---

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:
Where is the implication "that it’s not entirely up to Simon how he feels he should spend his money"? It is entirely up to Simon. I speculated that he might do it out of niceness; the existence of the Ship may be due to overwhelming religious commitment; I suspect it is hardly due to vast amounts of income he earns from it. But it is his call, and the words you cite do not imply otherwise.

Trust me. I'm a lawyer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:
If two people want to publicly argue their personal disagreements without the interruption, involvement and interference of others, then why can't they do it via PMs? Why do they need an audience?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
It would provide a particular service that is currently not met...

---

quote:

---

It would provide a particular service that is currently not met by the current system- namely, that two people could publicly argue their personal disagreements without the interruption, involvement and interference of others.

---

quote:

---

The chief benefit of this to the individuals is the greater chance of mediated and conciliated resolution of their disagreement.

---

quote:

---

Amongst the advantages to the community are, off the top of my head:

The personal disagreement would be removed and contained away from the other boards;

---

quote:

---

The community would (have the option to) observe understand and adjudge the issues of the disagreement for themselves

---

quote:

---

The harmful effects on the individual of dogpiling would be reduced;

---

quote:

---

?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;

---

quote:

---

?Entertainment value.

---

quote:

---

The cost to the community: nil.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
For the same reasons that people currently take their disagreements to Hell. So that the community can see what they're disagreeing about, and why.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:
Do you know what the answser to "Please provide a Welsh Ship of Fools" would be?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
For the same reasons that people currently take their disagreements to Hell. So that the community can see what they're disagreeing about, and why.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
If they're better able to achieve resolution without external interference, so much the better for everyone, I'd have thought.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:
probably the only major proposal in many years ... community is perfectly comforable with ideas being brought forward ... butterfly of creativity is systematically crushed

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:
IngoB, isn't refusing to discuss whether the existing solution is better or worse than the new one being proposed kind of missing the point?!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
I don't see that it's in the communities interests to observe without participating.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
You know, I....a.m...too...negative....

---

See, I can misrepresent people by using ellipses as well.

To be clear, what are you and Yorick offering - 200 Euro for a permanent board where people can put forward and work out ideas for improving the Ship?
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Anyway, I'll trade whatever stake I may be seen as having in the duel board idea for the establishment of an official "experimental" board on the main boards, where new ideas suggested by Shipmates will regularly be given a chance to prove themselves. I mean a new fixture, not just some temporary means of shutting me up. A place where stuff can be trialed on the big stage, with regular calls for novel ideas.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
Isn't the lesson that it would have been better for the entire exchange to have been by PM in the first place?

Even if you'd done it on a limited-participation thread, we'd all have commented about it somewhere else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
The benefit to the community would be that it could observe the exchange

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:
But you've already created a perfectly good model for achieving this - you and Numpty sorted your differences and then, by mutual agreement, made that public. You didn't need a separate, privileged board for that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
The benefit to the community would be that it could observe the exchange

---

Enabling voyeurism isn't quite what I'd call a benefit. One is reminded of the old quote: "just because the public is interested in something doesn't mean it's in the public interest".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:
But you've already created a perfectly good model for achieving this - you and Numpty sorted your differences and then, by mutual agreement, made that public. You didn't need a separate, privileged board for that.

---

Yes, but while that was happening there were at least two people repeatedly calling me a cunt specifically because I'm a Calvinist. One has apologised; the other hasn't. I think we're talking about avoiding that type of thing on top of the original argument.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
...then got hijacked by at least two others who had no particular axe to grind in that dispute wading in and being gratuitously abusive.

---

quote:

---

The whole idea seems to be rooted in the idea of having 'winners' and 'losers' which ISTM is inimical to the aims of the SoF boards which are about discussion - everyone who thinks they have a dog in the fight gets a say, and H & A s are there to ensure things all participants are playing by the rules.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Yes, but there should have been particulars of why Numpty had been an (alleged) Calvinist cunt, not a bare accusation/ insult flung out apparently baselessly and conveniently because others were taking a pop at him.

---

Would justifying the insult have made it okay then?

Tubbs

[ 13. October 2010, 14:48: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Sounds good to me.

[reply to Josephine. To Tubbs: it would at least have provided the comment with a context, rather than raise the suspicion that the poster though, "Oh look, some of the regular Hellions are having a go at Numpty; I'll join in and let fly with something gross and abusive because I can get away with it here."]

[ 13. October 2010, 14:49: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
 

---

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Right now I'm convinced this is for the benefit of a few to the detriment of many. If this is just another means to vanquish your foes, rather than engage in discussion, say so now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
But I'll ignore any further comments how Hell is so much better than a duel as being besides the points that interest me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:
I think I would suggest that the PTB restore Hell's peanut gallery.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Right now I'm convinced this is for the benefit of a few to the detriment of many. If this is just another means to vanquish your foes, rather than engage in discussion, say so now.

---

I would hope it would make engagement in a proper discussion of the actual issues giving rise to the disagreement rather easier, because that’s exactly what can be so fucking difficult on a Hell call in which the peanut gallery are swamping the dispute with flung shit. I seriously doubt there would be any vanquishing of foes, but I’d hope and expect the results of a duel would be compromise and/or agreement to differ, if it were run with that intention. It seems likely this sort of resolution would be more achievable in a duel thread than in a Hell dogpile, which I think tends to make people more intransigent and less willing to accept another’s point of view. And such resolution, it is hoped, would be best for everyone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:
I think I would suggest that the PTB restore Hell's peanut gallery.

---

I'm confused. Isn't there still a peanut gallery on Hell threads? People who show up to say "Oh, this should be good" or "Here I am with my peanuts," etc.?

---

Yep. Now try to imagine what it was like before it was clamped down on
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:
To be clear, what are you and Yorick offering - 200 Euro for a permanent board where people can put forward and work out ideas for improving the Ship?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
All of your rhetoric aside, I have no objection to making changes when they enhance the forum experience for the majority of posters. Right now I'm convinced this is for the benefit of a few to the detriment of many. If this is just another means to vanquish your foes, rather than engage in discussion, say so now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jedijudy:
So this is really just all about you? If a MAAN board shows up, will you point to all and sundry informing them that it was all your idea? Yup, this seems just a potential wet dream for so many reasons.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
But what if I just don't like you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
How many Shipmates do you expect will have such ideas? How regular do you suppose they will be? And how many of them do you seriously expect will even be worthy of a trial run 'on the big stage'?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Yet MAAN always remains, and runs a new experiment a short while after. Maybe it functions as a board about prayer next (another idea I have floated before). Or it runs as a board that works like Purgatory but explicitly allows tangents. Or it will be a board in which all discussion has to be in haiku form. Or it will be a feminist theology board. Or it will be board dedicated to flower arrangements in liturgical practice. Or whatever else gets the vote as interesting enough to try.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Such ad hominem attacks contribute nothing to anything and really are just pure "tall poppy syndrome".

---

quote:

---

"But he hasn't got anything on," a little child said.

"Did you ever hear such innocent prattle?" said its father. And one person whispered to another what the child had said, "He hasn't anything on. A child says he hasn't anything on."

"But he hasn't got anything on!" the whole town cried out at last.

The Emperor shivered, for he suspected they were right. But he thought, "This procession has got to go on." So he walked more proudly than ever, as his noblemen held high the train that wasn't there at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
But what if I just don't like you?

---

Then take it to the MAAN board.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Yet MAAN always remains, and runs a new experiment a short while after. Maybe it functions as a board about prayer next (another idea I have floated before). Or it runs as a board that works like Purgatory but explicitly allows tangents. Or it will be a board in which all discussion has to be in haiku form. Or it will be a feminist theology board. Or it will be board dedicated to flower arrangements in liturgical practice. Or whatever else gets the vote as interesting enough to try.

---

My first observation is that boards for all of those things already exist. Circus, Circus, Purg, Eccles.

My second is that such an ever-changing board would be an absolute bitch to host.

And my third observation is that running "board experiments" just for the sheer hell of it is silly. It's not meeting any needs or responding to any criticisms, it's just change for the sake of change. Would you have a certain room of your house which you completely redecorate four times a year just to see if you like the new style better than the previous ones?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
I'm not interested in them, Sine. I'm only interested in you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
Yeah, the problem with optimism is that one is so often disappointed in people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
My first observation is that boards for all of those things already exist. Circus, Circus, Purg, Eccles.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
My second is that such an ever-changing board would be an absolute bitch to host.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And my third observation is that running "board experiments" just for the sheer hell of it is silly. It's not meeting any needs or responding to any criticisms, it's just change for the sake of change.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
You're just not getting it, are you, Sine? If all the people who don't like me could sit down and talk to me about it, without interruptions and interference from all the other people who don't like me, and I could therefore engage in a sensible discussion with them about all the issues that make me so unlikeable, there is almost certainly gonna be a better chance of our dealing with their criticisms and reaching some sort of resolution than if, say, they all started piling in on a Hell thread and telling me how much they dislike me for the sole reason of making their dislike clear to me and to everyone else and with no intention of resolving anything except their desperate need to vent their dislike.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
You're just not getting it, are you, Sine? If all the people who don't like me could sit down and talk to me about it, without interruptions and interference from all the other people who don't like me, and I could therefore engage in a sensible discussion with them about all the issues that make me so unlikeable...

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:
What does MAAN stand for?

---

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."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

Outcome? There's gonna be an outcome?

---

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.

---

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".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
(and it was not me who dragged it up from the dregs of time, incidentally),

---

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 ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scarlet:
First, settling disagreements involving anger between shippies would never be something I would get involved in.

---

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.

---

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?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
No it wouldn't, because of the limitation on participants.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.
 

---

Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
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?
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
(xposted)

[ 13. October 2010, 20:02: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 

---

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :
 

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 Scarlet:
I must be insane for posting this...

---

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?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liberty:
Intellect by Proxy
Matt Black
Scarlet
IngoB
Yorick
Call me Numpty
MDijon.

Am I right?

---

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.

---

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.
 

---

Posted by Liberty (# 713) on :
 

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.

---

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.

---

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

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liberty:
Anyone I have missed?

---

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...)

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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".

---

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.)

---

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?

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
... Nobody could have a problem with a Gatling gun negativity if only every single shot is sincere...

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

We asked for an apple and got a pear, but I think that's peachy. Thank you, sir.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
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?
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :
 
I am unconvinced, but have opted in for experimental purposes.
 

---

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
I'm not quite understanding the new board. To me it represents a breakdown of community. One of the functions of dogpiling (perceived or real), and possibly the most important function is that it can let us know when we have been prats. In real life we might do this by asking other people quietly what they think of a certain situation and if we ask the right people we might get an honest response. We can ask people here on the cafe, but the likelihood is we will only ask those we feel closest too, who again will likely tell us what we most want to hear. Hells 'dogpiling' on the other hand, lets us know when we may indeed have overstepped the mark and when our own perspective is skewed to the point that a large section of the community sees it and says so. In that situation it is only the terminally block headed and stubborn who cannot see that a large group of people might have a point and that we might be wrong.

Now maybe I have got the concept of the new board wrong, but it seems to me that a 'duel' between two or three people removes the litmus test of community. Personally, if I act like a prat I'd rather hear that from the rest of the community and have an opportunity at least to rethink my stupidity, rather than enter a self deluding 'duel' void of community input.

Maybe I have misunderstood the concept though.
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
No, I think that you've understood the concept very well.
 

---

Posted by Liberty (# 713) on :
 
IngoB, I looked at the hell thread and found no-one else that supports the idea. There are a few on the MAAN board though

Not counting people on the MAAN board who say they will try the idea, but don't actually think its a good one, you're at 7.5:
Eliab,
AristonA
Numpty (half)
Yorick
Scarlet
MattBlack
IngoB
DuoSeraphim

I guess its good for you that numbers can mean diddlysquat here.

But if I find out any of my Farmville crops have died while I took the time to do this, I'll... I'll... I'll... ah crap, I'll probably just eat chocolate and cry like a baby.

 

---

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
I’m truly fascinated by the negativity here.

Would anyone care to be honest enough to admit they actually want to see the MAAN board fail?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
I’m truly fascinated by the negativity here.

Would anyone care to be honest enough to admit they actually want to see the MAAN board fail?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So you define a dogpile as "more than one person disagreeing with me", is that it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
Being dogpiled is like knowing Christ's Love. If you haven't experienced it, you don't know what the fuck you're on about, and have no opinion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
I’m truly fascinated by the negativity here.

Would anyone care to be honest enough to admit they actually want to see the MAAN board fail?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
A perusal of various Hell threads shows that you also start what you now want to call 'dogpiles', Yorick

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Well sorry mate, but that's how discussion in a community works. Everyone gets to have their say, even when it doesn't agree with yours.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
I didn’t realize ‘quality of discussion’ was an issue in Hell.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Whatever may be the standard of Hell discussions, you play no small part in setting it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
The only "real world" format I can think of where one sees something like the dogpiling that is common here is the show trial.

---