What will happen at MindRomp? page 1
Floppit
1st February 2012, 09:26 AM
'I told you so' or 'I knew it'd work' after the fact is so... well... you know. I thought it'd be interesting to get some discussion up front.
I've never been around for the inception of a forum, even as a voyeur this is the closest I've been. I reckon I have some grasp on what brought MR into being, but perhaps not, my take on it is that MR was a response to watching as a group took on thinking as a group. Whether through democracy or loyalty it made for informative viewing as 'rules' were created and flexed in order to validate views of behaviour. (I'm really interested in how other's would sum it up too...). I'm not knocking Ratz, it wasn't an extreme process or an unusual one for a group to go through, it may well be that we are only a handful of soldiers convinced we are marching in time. But, the creation of MR takes it a step forward because it is going to be tested, we are doing that.
There are some things I'm curious to see what happens when they arise, a universally disliked poster, watching a person who appears vulnerable get slaughtered on screen - perhaps nothing for people able to retain a sense that that individual is responsible by presence, by electing to remain. For me, with my own background I'm not certain how well I will retain that sense they are responsible. I remember watching someone unravel online to a point I feared for their physical safety and it happened in a context of unrelenting rejection by others, each unhinged act was tried and punished with vitriol, justified of course, so justified. The unravelled person was banned and disappeared into cyber space, I don't even remember her user name. I do remember it as probably the worst thing I've watched a forum do. I had joined in in the earlier stages, I posted a witty curtain call stage pic, after one of her numerous goodbyes - I was proud of myself, it got lots of laughs. I'm guessing some people here really do know how much I ended up regretting that.
That's the first thing I can think of that I've no idea how a forum without rules will deal with, whether lack of restraint will make the group more violent to someone they wish to reject or less so. It's not that rules stop the process just that I've never seen it take place without rules and until then I can't genuinely feel that I have any real clue what, if any, part the rules play.
I think the biggest threat to any new (as opposed to established) forum is it just fizzling out, less posts, less responses, lost interest, less posts... In regard to that threat I think that the forum being different has potential to be really helpful, while we fumble to find those pet topics that define a place MR will at least have the interest of being somewhat experimental.
Do forums ever last? I'm not sure, but many are worth the trip and that's enough for me. I suspect the ideals behind MR mean that if it survives fizzling it's next greatest threat is when the vast majority want a rule or two, I'm not saying that will happen but it must surely be likely as we are human and humans tend to be inclined towards rules.
I've never been around for the inception of a forum, even as a voyeur this is the closest I've been. I reckon I have some grasp on what brought MR into being, but perhaps not, my take on it is that MR was a response to watching as a group took on thinking as a group. Whether through democracy or loyalty it made for informative viewing as 'rules' were created and flexed in order to validate views of behaviour. (I'm really interested in how other's would sum it up too...). I'm not knocking Ratz, it wasn't an extreme process or an unusual one for a group to go through, it may well be that we are only a handful of soldiers convinced we are marching in time. But, the creation of MR takes it a step forward because it is going to be tested, we are doing that.
There are some things I'm curious to see what happens when they arise, a universally disliked poster, watching a person who appears vulnerable get slaughtered on screen - perhaps nothing for people able to retain a sense that that individual is responsible by presence, by electing to remain. For me, with my own background I'm not certain how well I will retain that sense they are responsible. I remember watching someone unravel online to a point I feared for their physical safety and it happened in a context of unrelenting rejection by others, each unhinged act was tried and punished with vitriol, justified of course, so justified. The unravelled person was banned and disappeared into cyber space, I don't even remember her user name. I do remember it as probably the worst thing I've watched a forum do. I had joined in in the earlier stages, I posted a witty curtain call stage pic, after one of her numerous goodbyes - I was proud of myself, it got lots of laughs. I'm guessing some people here really do know how much I ended up regretting that.
That's the first thing I can think of that I've no idea how a forum without rules will deal with, whether lack of restraint will make the group more violent to someone they wish to reject or less so. It's not that rules stop the process just that I've never seen it take place without rules and until then I can't genuinely feel that I have any real clue what, if any, part the rules play.
I think the biggest threat to any new (as opposed to established) forum is it just fizzling out, less posts, less responses, lost interest, less posts... In regard to that threat I think that the forum being different has potential to be really helpful, while we fumble to find those pet topics that define a place MR will at least have the interest of being somewhat experimental.
Do forums ever last? I'm not sure, but many are worth the trip and that's enough for me. I suspect the ideals behind MR mean that if it survives fizzling it's next greatest threat is when the vast majority want a rule or two, I'm not saying that will happen but it must surely be likely as we are human and humans tend to be inclined towards rules.
Adenosine
1st February 2012, 10:24 AM
A few thoughts here.
We talked about those issues as we set the place up. We talked about them a lot. It was decided early that there would be no banning unless it was for commercial spam. Even people promoting illegal ideas will be given a place to speak. If they are performing those illegal acts we encourage any one to contact relevant law enforcement authorities but then we still welcome them to post, even from prison. I think Cunt said it best when he said that if he gets real life stalked and killed he would still want his murderer to have his voice heard here.
Cunt also mentioned the general lack of voice the disabled have, a thought that led to the first paragraph of our Core Values and Responsibilities. Everyone has a voice and everyone deserves to be heard.
So then we thought about how to handle group think and picking on a poster. It was suggested that the founding/early members play the message, not the messenger; set the tone and hope that everyone else follows. I have to admit that I didn't follow that in the Social Darwinism thread but I have no intention of dragging that through the rest of the forum. If andrewclunn posts elsewhere, maybe his Grandma's rock cake recipe, I will play that post, not andrew.
When it comes to a forum pile on I'd be really uncomfortable if that happened here and I'd say so, loudly and for as long as it was happening. I think that a pile on like that is a reaction against rules too. The members see moderators let loose on someone (who probably does deserve it) and they use the occasion to let all their pent up anger out. Months of having to watch their Ps and Qs erupt in a tide of vitriol. I've that happen all over the place too.
I don't want MR to fizzle. I want to see how adults behave on a free forum. So far it is encouraging.
We talked about those issues as we set the place up. We talked about them a lot. It was decided early that there would be no banning unless it was for commercial spam. Even people promoting illegal ideas will be given a place to speak. If they are performing those illegal acts we encourage any one to contact relevant law enforcement authorities but then we still welcome them to post, even from prison. I think Cunt said it best when he said that if he gets real life stalked and killed he would still want his murderer to have his voice heard here.
Cunt also mentioned the general lack of voice the disabled have, a thought that led to the first paragraph of our Core Values and Responsibilities. Everyone has a voice and everyone deserves to be heard.
So then we thought about how to handle group think and picking on a poster. It was suggested that the founding/early members play the message, not the messenger; set the tone and hope that everyone else follows. I have to admit that I didn't follow that in the Social Darwinism thread but I have no intention of dragging that through the rest of the forum. If andrewclunn posts elsewhere, maybe his Grandma's rock cake recipe, I will play that post, not andrew.
When it comes to a forum pile on I'd be really uncomfortable if that happened here and I'd say so, loudly and for as long as it was happening. I think that a pile on like that is a reaction against rules too. The members see moderators let loose on someone (who probably does deserve it) and they use the occasion to let all their pent up anger out. Months of having to watch their Ps and Qs erupt in a tide of vitriol. I've that happen all over the place too.
I don't want MR to fizzle. I want to see how adults behave on a free forum. So far it is encouraging.
Grumps
1st February 2012, 10:45 AM
Mindromp will only work so long as there is a reasonable, constant influx of new personalities.
amused
1st February 2012, 11:21 AM
Mindromp will only work so long as there is a reasonable, constant influx of new personalities.
Doomed
Doomed
nick
1st February 2012, 01:45 PM
go fuck yourself floppit
charlou
1st February 2012, 02:54 PM
go fuck yourself floppit
masturbation is lovely.
On topic ... trust is important .. people feeling free to speak is important .. for me the two are connected.
More later.
masturbation is lovely.
On topic ... trust is important .. people feeling free to speak is important .. for me the two are connected.
More later.
Grumps
1st February 2012, 03:04 PM
Mindromp will only work so long as there is a reasonable, constant influx of new personalities.
Doomed
Probably. But on-topic: for a forum to work, it needs new ideas, new voices, new opinions.
Doomed
Probably. But on-topic: for a forum to work, it needs new ideas, new voices, new opinions.
Grumps
1st February 2012, 03:04 PM
go fuck yourself floppit
Why?
Why?
FedUpWithFaith
1st February 2012, 03:04 PM
I never thought in a million years that it would be my old friend Cunt who would set up a forum but it couldn't be a better sign. I've argued for years to set up a forum like this (well before the demise of RD.net) and with the right tools (not yet all implemented but I see no hurry), I'm confident it can work with respect to its open policy depending on what YOU want in a forum. Rules, or the lack thereof, are ultimately either self-destructive or self-reinforcing based on the people they explicitly or implicitly select for. Without many explicit rules, the implicit rules become the historical norms of conduct of the members themselves and how they deal with the outliers. Having almost no rules doesn't insure any success. It simply removes a layer of unnecssary politics and cliques that seem to be a major cause of forum destruction. Ultimately, like governments, people get the forum they deserve. Rules only get you so far. The rest is content.
Do I think this forum will be successful? That ultimately depends on what one wants in a forum and how you define success. I hate to say this, and it means no disrespect for the founders of this forum, but for ME the answer is probably "no", though as long as it has life there is hope. I came here because Cunt, an old friend asked me to and because I thought it might be nice to reconnect with some old friends, most of whom who have now scattered to the four winds - after how many forum splinterings (where are LordP, AA, and so many others?) Also, my current life situation has rendered me a relative shut-in, temporarily, until my sister recovers more from her TBI and I don't have to keep driving her to doctors, worry about her leaving the stove on, or forgetting or doubling on her meds. I was never a big fan of all the coffee-clatch forms of forum socializing but right now it's better than nothing.
The problem is, for me, I don't think I'll ever find or enjoy a forum like the old RD.net (http://rd.net/) before a bunch of behind the scenes politics and Richard let it go down the shitter. Despite all its shortcomings, there the breadth and scope of discussion was amazing. In the same day I could debase some hilarious Christian troll who came to admonish us heathens, engage in a pretty deep discussion of philosophy, and always engage in some pretty hilarious banter that often went beyond one sentence exchanges.
I had a marvelous 3 year run there and I would argue that is wasn't the rules and mods that kept it "sufficiently" civil but it's critical mass and diversity. When you have that many people with that many interests there will always be a clique or sub-group where you will fit in and share interests to keep you involved and constructive, even if there are subgroups that hate your guts. Some, like me and Dev, love some drama and with critical mass, one can easily engage and take a piss or disengage and not be noticed. As you lose critical mass and diversity, an entire forum is much more prone to becoming a lynch mob at some point.
All the forum splintering has destroyed critical mass and diversity and I don't see sufficient growth to regain it at any of the splinters. So I think I'll probably get bored with Mindromp too like Dev, another old friend did.
Love him or hate him, at least the old RD.net had Dawkins to DRIVE business to it and give it an exciting mission feel, verve, and constant renewal and growth. None of these other sites have that and unless one finds such a driver (it doesn't have to be a personality), I doubt any will regain my interest. I know some of you have read this type of thing from me before and find it tiresome. And that's fine, because you want other things from a forum than I do. I'm only trying to give another perspective because it's possible - just consider this - that you won't find stability in getting what you want unless you actively support some forum aspirations of those who want other things you don't give a shit about.
Otherwise, this place seems to at least have critical mass for this Mafia game I keep hearing about. Maybe I'll give it a try...
Do I think this forum will be successful? That ultimately depends on what one wants in a forum and how you define success. I hate to say this, and it means no disrespect for the founders of this forum, but for ME the answer is probably "no", though as long as it has life there is hope. I came here because Cunt, an old friend asked me to and because I thought it might be nice to reconnect with some old friends, most of whom who have now scattered to the four winds - after how many forum splinterings (where are LordP, AA, and so many others?) Also, my current life situation has rendered me a relative shut-in, temporarily, until my sister recovers more from her TBI and I don't have to keep driving her to doctors, worry about her leaving the stove on, or forgetting or doubling on her meds. I was never a big fan of all the coffee-clatch forms of forum socializing but right now it's better than nothing.
The problem is, for me, I don't think I'll ever find or enjoy a forum like the old RD.net (http://rd.net/) before a bunch of behind the scenes politics and Richard let it go down the shitter. Despite all its shortcomings, there the breadth and scope of discussion was amazing. In the same day I could debase some hilarious Christian troll who came to admonish us heathens, engage in a pretty deep discussion of philosophy, and always engage in some pretty hilarious banter that often went beyond one sentence exchanges.
I had a marvelous 3 year run there and I would argue that is wasn't the rules and mods that kept it "sufficiently" civil but it's critical mass and diversity. When you have that many people with that many interests there will always be a clique or sub-group where you will fit in and share interests to keep you involved and constructive, even if there are subgroups that hate your guts. Some, like me and Dev, love some drama and with critical mass, one can easily engage and take a piss or disengage and not be noticed. As you lose critical mass and diversity, an entire forum is much more prone to becoming a lynch mob at some point.
All the forum splintering has destroyed critical mass and diversity and I don't see sufficient growth to regain it at any of the splinters. So I think I'll probably get bored with Mindromp too like Dev, another old friend did.
Love him or hate him, at least the old RD.net had Dawkins to DRIVE business to it and give it an exciting mission feel, verve, and constant renewal and growth. None of these other sites have that and unless one finds such a driver (it doesn't have to be a personality), I doubt any will regain my interest. I know some of you have read this type of thing from me before and find it tiresome. And that's fine, because you want other things from a forum than I do. I'm only trying to give another perspective because it's possible - just consider this - that you won't find stability in getting what you want unless you actively support some forum aspirations of those who want other things you don't give a shit about.
Otherwise, this place seems to at least have critical mass for this Mafia game I keep hearing about. Maybe I'll give it a try...
charlou
1st February 2012, 03:13 PM
Play... fucking play.
Would agree on the rest (especially the following quote) ... bear in mind, though, that many members here did not cut their teeth on RDF and to them your comments about that may be understandably irrelevant. :)
Without many explicit rules, the implicit rules become the historical norms of conduct of the members themselves and how they deal with the outliers. Having almost no rules doesn't insure any success. It simply removes a layer of unnecssary politics and cliques that seem to be a major cause of forum destruction.
Would agree on the rest (especially the following quote) ... bear in mind, though, that many members here did not cut their teeth on RDF and to them your comments about that may be understandably irrelevant. :)
Without many explicit rules, the implicit rules become the historical norms of conduct of the members themselves and how they deal with the outliers. Having almost no rules doesn't insure any success. It simply removes a layer of unnecssary politics and cliques that seem to be a major cause of forum destruction.
FedUpWithFaith
1st February 2012, 03:21 PM
Play... fucking play.
only if I can be scum.
Would agree on the rest (especially the following quote) ... bear in mind, though, that many members here did not cut their teeth on RDF and to them your comments about that may be understandably irrelevant. :)
Without many explicit rules, the implicit rules become the historical norms of conduct of the members themselves and how they deal with the outliers. Having almost no rules doesn't insure any success. It simply removes a layer of unnecssary politics and cliques that seem to be a major cause of forum destruction.
Think I laid enough context so that even those who never experienced the old RD.net will understand what I'm getting at.
With respect to the quote you like, I still wonder if we interpret it the same way. I'm still an outlier with no regrets and nothing to apologize for.
only if I can be scum.
Would agree on the rest (especially the following quote) ... bear in mind, though, that many members here did not cut their teeth on RDF and to them your comments about that may be understandably irrelevant. :)
Without many explicit rules, the implicit rules become the historical norms of conduct of the members themselves and how they deal with the outliers. Having almost no rules doesn't insure any success. It simply removes a layer of unnecssary politics and cliques that seem to be a major cause of forum destruction.
Think I laid enough context so that even those who never experienced the old RD.net will understand what I'm getting at.
With respect to the quote you like, I still wonder if we interpret it the same way. I'm still an outlier with no regrets and nothing to apologize for.
charlou
1st February 2012, 03:27 PM
Yes, nothing to apologise for. I'm just glad you're here for so long as you want to be.
FedUpWithFaith
1st February 2012, 03:32 PM
:]
oblivion
1st February 2012, 03:46 PM
fuwf, what do you consider to be the right tools? (from your first paragraph in your long post)
charlou
1st February 2012, 04:34 PM
Aden .. just want to add ayep.
Sugreeva
1st February 2012, 05:13 PM
Well, if Mind Forum continues with the tldr style posts of Floppit, Adenosine and FedUpWithFaith the members will die of boredom any day now.
ksen
1st February 2012, 05:16 PM
somebody start a deadpool.
FedUpWithFaith
1st February 2012, 05:21 PM
fuwf, what do you consider to be the right tools? (from your first paragraph in your long post)
Actually, I'm not sure anymore and have frankly forgotten a lot of what i had in mind. This forum doesn't really need anything special yet because it has such a small population. It's hard to answer unless i give you more context first for the statement.
Years ago, when TAF first broke off from RD, I think I was the first among the former RDers to propose a self-policing forum with a minimum of rules as part of an larger effort to push for community ownership of TAF, as the founder had originally promised and reneged on - largely on the excuse for the need for admin-mod hierarchy. My proposal, partly contained in one long manifesto in its own thread, was considered heresy at the time, though my simultaneous instigation to try to demonstrate why TAF would fail unless the members demanded immediate restructuring didn't win me many friends either so I undermined my own ability to persuade (hoping that others would do that while I made trouble). At first, the TAF members were understandably loyal to the man they percieved as rescuing some semblance of the RD forum and they did not know about his actions there behind the scenes as I witnessed (and led to me quitting RD about 4 months before it imploded). By the time they caught on, it was too late.
I lost that manifesto in my house fire that destroyed computers and backups but i recall it listed about 10 novel yet simple software tools and basic procedures I felt could go a long way to self-policing a large diverse forum. The TAF membership was much bigger than Mindromp so it had many housecleaning issues dealing with basic organization and basic stuff like off-topic posts that often became a matter of unnecessary contention or whether to combine or close a thread. For some reason, I have a mindblock right now trying to remember all that stuff. Maybe Elouise, Dev, Cunt or another old-timer might remember (I think I might have emailed Eloiuse to review my manifesto before I posted it). I edited a similar manifesto for Herd of Cats which I helped found but was kicked out of before it even went live. Is Amnivore here? He might know? As you might surmise, I'm a professional pain in the ass.
I do recall part of one tool I thought of but hopefully it won't be needed here. One of the problems at TAF (and other places) was reporting posts for alleged rule breaking of some sort. Some members were much more sensitive than others or liked to just fuck people with accusations - because if they led to warnings could get you suspended or worse depending on how many infractions the rules allowed. If the mod on duty who gave a warning happened to have a dog in the fight or personal friendship/bias with the reporter or poster that would lead to all sorts of complicating crap too.
Since I, like Cunt, actually believe in Free Speech more than most people profess to, I proposed a system involving software and policies that would make it very hard to censor a post or member and at the same time minimize mod work. I essentially wanted to give everybody forms of mod power. More conventional Mods elected by the members could potentially overule a democratic judgment against an accused member (as if they were enforcing minority rights like under the US Bill of Rights) but not vice versa. Members would have to flag posts with codified a reason statement that meant more effort that just clicking a button. And other members could vote against the flag also must provide a codified reason that must be tied to the breaking of a specific rule. Except in the case of highly personal information, everything would be accessible and transparent to any user , perhaps in a meta-thread. You know, i haven't really checked out much of the polocy part of this forum but i think i saw a sort of low-tech implementation of this.
An example of just one way this might work is easily illustrated with spam - though i realize it's a pretty trivial case. If some spambot came here posting advertisements perhaps the rule we'd set for SPAM would be that only a unanimity of 5 votes is needed to ban it and remove the posts. The ban would be automatic, no mod need act unless they saw reason to overule it. Perhaps, for Spam at least, if even one person voted against the action, then there might be an automatic PM that went to everyone asking them to vote. The vote would be taken and then action taken according to rule, whether simple majority or some supermajority. Since i think we should always err on the side of free speech i would personally generally favor supermajorities to take serious actions, according to whatever the specific rules are - hopefully minimal. And our elected mods could still overrule the vote in favor of the accused, but not vice versa.
Similar, though simpler methods could be applied to decisioning on other stuff, like forum restructuring, thread closures, etc. But again, MindRomp pretty much covers this all easily as it is now. It doesn't become an issue until the forum gets big.
As I recall, I also proposed user statistics to better resolve problems and enhance voting. For example, members who develop a high level of statistical reporting of false or overstated accusations, as judged by their low level of success in outcome, would have their votes lowered in weight. Since decision levels would depend on total weighted votes, this would make a difference and weed out the whiners. Again, not an issue here yet.
Actually, I'm not sure anymore and have frankly forgotten a lot of what i had in mind. This forum doesn't really need anything special yet because it has such a small population. It's hard to answer unless i give you more context first for the statement.
Years ago, when TAF first broke off from RD, I think I was the first among the former RDers to propose a self-policing forum with a minimum of rules as part of an larger effort to push for community ownership of TAF, as the founder had originally promised and reneged on - largely on the excuse for the need for admin-mod hierarchy. My proposal, partly contained in one long manifesto in its own thread, was considered heresy at the time, though my simultaneous instigation to try to demonstrate why TAF would fail unless the members demanded immediate restructuring didn't win me many friends either so I undermined my own ability to persuade (hoping that others would do that while I made trouble). At first, the TAF members were understandably loyal to the man they percieved as rescuing some semblance of the RD forum and they did not know about his actions there behind the scenes as I witnessed (and led to me quitting RD about 4 months before it imploded). By the time they caught on, it was too late.
I lost that manifesto in my house fire that destroyed computers and backups but i recall it listed about 10 novel yet simple software tools and basic procedures I felt could go a long way to self-policing a large diverse forum. The TAF membership was much bigger than Mindromp so it had many housecleaning issues dealing with basic organization and basic stuff like off-topic posts that often became a matter of unnecessary contention or whether to combine or close a thread. For some reason, I have a mindblock right now trying to remember all that stuff. Maybe Elouise, Dev, Cunt or another old-timer might remember (I think I might have emailed Eloiuse to review my manifesto before I posted it). I edited a similar manifesto for Herd of Cats which I helped found but was kicked out of before it even went live. Is Amnivore here? He might know? As you might surmise, I'm a professional pain in the ass.
I do recall part of one tool I thought of but hopefully it won't be needed here. One of the problems at TAF (and other places) was reporting posts for alleged rule breaking of some sort. Some members were much more sensitive than others or liked to just fuck people with accusations - because if they led to warnings could get you suspended or worse depending on how many infractions the rules allowed. If the mod on duty who gave a warning happened to have a dog in the fight or personal friendship/bias with the reporter or poster that would lead to all sorts of complicating crap too.
Since I, like Cunt, actually believe in Free Speech more than most people profess to, I proposed a system involving software and policies that would make it very hard to censor a post or member and at the same time minimize mod work. I essentially wanted to give everybody forms of mod power. More conventional Mods elected by the members could potentially overule a democratic judgment against an accused member (as if they were enforcing minority rights like under the US Bill of Rights) but not vice versa. Members would have to flag posts with codified a reason statement that meant more effort that just clicking a button. And other members could vote against the flag also must provide a codified reason that must be tied to the breaking of a specific rule. Except in the case of highly personal information, everything would be accessible and transparent to any user , perhaps in a meta-thread. You know, i haven't really checked out much of the polocy part of this forum but i think i saw a sort of low-tech implementation of this.
An example of just one way this might work is easily illustrated with spam - though i realize it's a pretty trivial case. If some spambot came here posting advertisements perhaps the rule we'd set for SPAM would be that only a unanimity of 5 votes is needed to ban it and remove the posts. The ban would be automatic, no mod need act unless they saw reason to overule it. Perhaps, for Spam at least, if even one person voted against the action, then there might be an automatic PM that went to everyone asking them to vote. The vote would be taken and then action taken according to rule, whether simple majority or some supermajority. Since i think we should always err on the side of free speech i would personally generally favor supermajorities to take serious actions, according to whatever the specific rules are - hopefully minimal. And our elected mods could still overrule the vote in favor of the accused, but not vice versa.
Similar, though simpler methods could be applied to decisioning on other stuff, like forum restructuring, thread closures, etc. But again, MindRomp pretty much covers this all easily as it is now. It doesn't become an issue until the forum gets big.
As I recall, I also proposed user statistics to better resolve problems and enhance voting. For example, members who develop a high level of statistical reporting of false or overstated accusations, as judged by their low level of success in outcome, would have their votes lowered in weight. Since decision levels would depend on total weighted votes, this would make a difference and weed out the whiners. Again, not an issue here yet.
oblivion
1st February 2012, 05:28 PM
I've posted on forums with member moderation via downrating posts until they disappeared. minority viewpoints were largely downrated out of existance. it was a highly polarized membership, though.
phoneposting atm. want to reread and think more on your post.
thanks!
phoneposting atm. want to reread and think more on your post.
thanks!
FedUpWithFaith
1st February 2012, 05:30 PM
I've posted on forums with member moderation via downrating posts until they disappeared. minority viewpoints were largely downrated out of existance. it was a highly polarized membership, though.
phoneposting atm. want to reread and think more on your post.
thanks!
yes. Most forums need a bill of rights more than rules.
phoneposting atm. want to reread and think more on your post.
thanks!
yes. Most forums need a bill of rights more than rules.
divagreen
1st February 2012, 05:32 PM
First off, I would like to say what a great OP! Floppit, there is a lot of auntehnticity in it and I think that it is pretty courageous to ask the hard questions while not flinching from shedding that light on your own previous behaviour that gave you the impetus in the first place. :hug:
I never thought in a million years that it would be my old friend Cunt who would set up a forum but it couldn't be a better sign. I've argued for years to set up a forum like this (well before the demise of RD.net) and with the right tools (not yet all implemented but I see no hurry), I'm confident it can work with respect to its open policy depending on what YOU want in a forum. Rules, or the lack thereof, are ultimately either self-destructive or self-reinforcing based on the people they explicitly or implicitly select for. Without many explicit rules, the implicit rules become the historical norms of conduct of the members themselves and how they deal with the outliers. Having almost no rules doesn't insure any success. It simply removes a layer of unnecssary politics and cliques that seem to be a major cause of forum destruction. Ultimately, like governments, people get the forum they deserve. Rules only get you so far. The rest is content.
wrt bold: I agree.
Do I think this forum will be successful? That ultimately depends on what one wants in a forum and how you define success. I hate to say this, and it means no disrespect for the founders of this forum, but for ME the answer is probably "no", though as long as it has life there is hope. I came here because Cunt, an old friend asked me to and because I thought it might be nice to reconnect with some old friends, most of whom who have now scattered to the four winds - after how many forum splinterings (where are LordP, AA, and so many others?) Also, my current life situation has rendered me a relative shut-in, temporarily, until my sister recovers more from her TBI and I don't have to keep driving her to doctors, worry about her leaving the stove on, or forgetting or doubling on her meds. I was never a big fan of all the coffee-clatch forms of forum socializing but right now it's better than nothing.:hug:
The problem is, for me, I don't think I'll ever find or enjoy a forum like the old RD.net (http://rd.net/) before a bunch of behind the scenes politics and Richard let it go down the shitter. Despite all its shortcomings, there the breadth and scope of discussion was amazing. In the same day I could debase some hilarious Christian troll who came to admonish us heathens, engage in a pretty deep discussion of philosophy, and always engage in some pretty hilarious banter that often went beyond one sentence exchanges.
I had a marvelous 3 year run there and I would argue that is wasn't the rules and mods that kept it "sufficiently" civil but it's critical mass and diversity. When you have that many people with that many interests there will always be a clique or sub-group where you will fit in and share interests to keep you involved and constructive, even if there are subgroups that hate your guts. Some, like me and Dev, love some drama and with critical mass, one can easily engage and take a piss or disengage and not be noticed.yep.
As you lose critical mass and diversity, an entire forum is much more prone to becoming a lynch mob at some point.yep. Thriving sited support a more diverse community, it is a question as to how to get there. I think the process should be as equally important as the goal.
All the forum splintering has destroyed critical mass and diversity and I don't see sufficient growth to regain it at any of the splinters. So I think I'll probably get bored with Mindromp too like Dev, another old friend did.
Love him or hate him, at least the old RD.net had Dawkins to DRIVE business to it and give it an exciting mission feel, verve, and constant renewal and growth. None of these other sites have that and unless one finds such a driver (it doesn't have to be a personality), I doubt any will regain my interest. I know some of you have read this type of thing from me before and find it tiresome. And that's fine, because you want other things from a forum than I do. I'm only trying to give another perspective because it's possible - just consider this - that you won't find stability in getting what you want unless you actively support some forum aspirations of those who want other things you don't give a shit about.yep.
Otherwise, this place seems to at least have critical mass for this Mafia game I keep hearing about. Maybe I'll give it a try...you should play. :D
I think what I find the most interesting is the fear of group think over the ultimate troll who is dedicated to bringing the site down. With the Admins involved and the people whom they have invited, I am surprised that this is as big of a concern as it is. So far, all of them seem to support the ideas of free speech, free expression and tend to support the underdogs, in my experience.
I was not around for RDF, caught the tail end of its fall out on other sites. I have experience this on other sites, though. I think what you are saying is that the measurement of succes for you is whether or not you feel like continuing to post; its pretty much on par with most members. Once the honeymoon phase is over, it really will come down to whether or not the site can attract new members and posters, and members other than the admins are able to keep the ball rolling.
I tried to do this with another site (introduce these very same core values) and failed miserably, so I really hope that MR "succeeds" so that I can better understand on what I could have differently.
Lol, I can be incredibly inarticulate at times but I hope that you get what I am trying to convey.
eta: Since I, like Cunt, actually believe in Free Speech more than most people profess to, I proposed a system involving software and policies that would make it very hard to censor a post or member and at the same time minimize mod work. I essentially wanted to give everybody forms of mod power. More conventional Mods elected by the members could potentially overule a democratic judgment against an accused member (as if they were enforcing minority rights like under the US Bill of Rights) but not vice versa. Members would have to flag posts with codified a reason statement that meant more effort that just clicking a button. And other members could vote against the flag also must provide a codified reason that must be tied to the breaking of a specific rule. Except in the case of highly personal information, everything would be accessible and transparent to any user , perhaps in a meta-thread. You know, i haven't really checked out much of the polocy part of this forum but i think i saw a sort of low-tech implementation of this.We had this, in theory. Somehow the mod got overruled and the user was banned. I think the difference here is that there seems to be a clear set of ideals from the get go that are centered around on how to handle mob behaviour. It will be interesting to see what happens.
As I recall, I also proposed user statistics to better resolve problems and enhance voting. For example, members who develop a high level of statistical reporting of false or overstated accusations, as judged by their low level of success in outcome, would have their votes lowered in weight. Since decision levels would depend on total weighted votes, this would make a difference and weed out the whiners. Again, not an issue here yet.I could see it go both ways. Tbh, this just looks like a formalised way of saying that some people's opinion do not have the same weight as others, I think the elephant in the room is whether or not they should. Impacting their vote weight implies that they wouldn't. If everyone has a voice there is the undercurrent that some people'e voice have more wieght than others and that makes me go :unsure:.
That is a comparative value system and I would like to see you justify that. :)
I never thought in a million years that it would be my old friend Cunt who would set up a forum but it couldn't be a better sign. I've argued for years to set up a forum like this (well before the demise of RD.net) and with the right tools (not yet all implemented but I see no hurry), I'm confident it can work with respect to its open policy depending on what YOU want in a forum. Rules, or the lack thereof, are ultimately either self-destructive or self-reinforcing based on the people they explicitly or implicitly select for. Without many explicit rules, the implicit rules become the historical norms of conduct of the members themselves and how they deal with the outliers. Having almost no rules doesn't insure any success. It simply removes a layer of unnecssary politics and cliques that seem to be a major cause of forum destruction. Ultimately, like governments, people get the forum they deserve. Rules only get you so far. The rest is content.
wrt bold: I agree.
Do I think this forum will be successful? That ultimately depends on what one wants in a forum and how you define success. I hate to say this, and it means no disrespect for the founders of this forum, but for ME the answer is probably "no", though as long as it has life there is hope. I came here because Cunt, an old friend asked me to and because I thought it might be nice to reconnect with some old friends, most of whom who have now scattered to the four winds - after how many forum splinterings (where are LordP, AA, and so many others?) Also, my current life situation has rendered me a relative shut-in, temporarily, until my sister recovers more from her TBI and I don't have to keep driving her to doctors, worry about her leaving the stove on, or forgetting or doubling on her meds. I was never a big fan of all the coffee-clatch forms of forum socializing but right now it's better than nothing.:hug:
The problem is, for me, I don't think I'll ever find or enjoy a forum like the old RD.net (http://rd.net/) before a bunch of behind the scenes politics and Richard let it go down the shitter. Despite all its shortcomings, there the breadth and scope of discussion was amazing. In the same day I could debase some hilarious Christian troll who came to admonish us heathens, engage in a pretty deep discussion of philosophy, and always engage in some pretty hilarious banter that often went beyond one sentence exchanges.
I had a marvelous 3 year run there and I would argue that is wasn't the rules and mods that kept it "sufficiently" civil but it's critical mass and diversity. When you have that many people with that many interests there will always be a clique or sub-group where you will fit in and share interests to keep you involved and constructive, even if there are subgroups that hate your guts. Some, like me and Dev, love some drama and with critical mass, one can easily engage and take a piss or disengage and not be noticed.yep.
As you lose critical mass and diversity, an entire forum is much more prone to becoming a lynch mob at some point.yep. Thriving sited support a more diverse community, it is a question as to how to get there. I think the process should be as equally important as the goal.
All the forum splintering has destroyed critical mass and diversity and I don't see sufficient growth to regain it at any of the splinters. So I think I'll probably get bored with Mindromp too like Dev, another old friend did.
Love him or hate him, at least the old RD.net had Dawkins to DRIVE business to it and give it an exciting mission feel, verve, and constant renewal and growth. None of these other sites have that and unless one finds such a driver (it doesn't have to be a personality), I doubt any will regain my interest. I know some of you have read this type of thing from me before and find it tiresome. And that's fine, because you want other things from a forum than I do. I'm only trying to give another perspective because it's possible - just consider this - that you won't find stability in getting what you want unless you actively support some forum aspirations of those who want other things you don't give a shit about.yep.
Otherwise, this place seems to at least have critical mass for this Mafia game I keep hearing about. Maybe I'll give it a try...you should play. :D
I think what I find the most interesting is the fear of group think over the ultimate troll who is dedicated to bringing the site down. With the Admins involved and the people whom they have invited, I am surprised that this is as big of a concern as it is. So far, all of them seem to support the ideas of free speech, free expression and tend to support the underdogs, in my experience.
I was not around for RDF, caught the tail end of its fall out on other sites. I have experience this on other sites, though. I think what you are saying is that the measurement of succes for you is whether or not you feel like continuing to post; its pretty much on par with most members. Once the honeymoon phase is over, it really will come down to whether or not the site can attract new members and posters, and members other than the admins are able to keep the ball rolling.
I tried to do this with another site (introduce these very same core values) and failed miserably, so I really hope that MR "succeeds" so that I can better understand on what I could have differently.
Lol, I can be incredibly inarticulate at times but I hope that you get what I am trying to convey.
eta: Since I, like Cunt, actually believe in Free Speech more than most people profess to, I proposed a system involving software and policies that would make it very hard to censor a post or member and at the same time minimize mod work. I essentially wanted to give everybody forms of mod power. More conventional Mods elected by the members could potentially overule a democratic judgment against an accused member (as if they were enforcing minority rights like under the US Bill of Rights) but not vice versa. Members would have to flag posts with codified a reason statement that meant more effort that just clicking a button. And other members could vote against the flag also must provide a codified reason that must be tied to the breaking of a specific rule. Except in the case of highly personal information, everything would be accessible and transparent to any user , perhaps in a meta-thread. You know, i haven't really checked out much of the polocy part of this forum but i think i saw a sort of low-tech implementation of this.We had this, in theory. Somehow the mod got overruled and the user was banned. I think the difference here is that there seems to be a clear set of ideals from the get go that are centered around on how to handle mob behaviour. It will be interesting to see what happens.
As I recall, I also proposed user statistics to better resolve problems and enhance voting. For example, members who develop a high level of statistical reporting of false or overstated accusations, as judged by their low level of success in outcome, would have their votes lowered in weight. Since decision levels would depend on total weighted votes, this would make a difference and weed out the whiners. Again, not an issue here yet.I could see it go both ways. Tbh, this just looks like a formalised way of saying that some people's opinion do not have the same weight as others, I think the elephant in the room is whether or not they should. Impacting their vote weight implies that they wouldn't. If everyone has a voice there is the undercurrent that some people'e voice have more wieght than others and that makes me go :unsure:.
That is a comparative value system and I would like to see you justify that. :)
oblivion
1st February 2012, 05:57 PM
I've posted on forums with member moderation via downrating posts until they disappeared. minority viewpoints were largely downrated out of existance. it was a highly polarized membership, though.
phoneposting atm. want to reread and think more on your post.
thanks!
yes. Most forums need a bill of rights more than rules.
I totally agree. IMO rules are mostly for protecting members from moderation. Even the most even-keeled person will occasionally use the moderator buttons unwisely without some very clear lines.
I like where the lines are drawn at MindRomp. I also like that the membership is proving to be pretty troll-proof. If we'd gotten a dozen or so easily offended new members right off the bat, there would already be issues brewing IMO.
phoneposting atm. want to reread and think more on your post.
thanks!
yes. Most forums need a bill of rights more than rules.
I totally agree. IMO rules are mostly for protecting members from moderation. Even the most even-keeled person will occasionally use the moderator buttons unwisely without some very clear lines.
I like where the lines are drawn at MindRomp. I also like that the membership is proving to be pretty troll-proof. If we'd gotten a dozen or so easily offended new members right off the bat, there would already be issues brewing IMO.
Floppit
1st February 2012, 06:02 PM
Well, if Mind Forum continues with the tldr style posts of Floppit, Adenosine and FedUpWithFaith the members will die of boredom any day now.
I think that differing literacy levels will always make some posts too long. My bug bear is lack of paragraphs! I do envy your succinct style though...
I think that differing literacy levels will always make some posts too long. My bug bear is lack of paragraphs! I do envy your succinct style though...
Floppit
1st February 2012, 06:06 PM
I think the difference here is that there seems to be a clear set of ideals from the get go that are centered around on how to handle mob behaviour. It will be interesting to see what happens.
That's my take on it, to see what happens and I do think it's possible the lack of rules will lead to more not less restraint. I've seen what kids do with cardboard swords but give them wooden ones and I see a difference. Not saying we're kids, just that kids are people.
That's my take on it, to see what happens and I do think it's possible the lack of rules will lead to more not less restraint. I've seen what kids do with cardboard swords but give them wooden ones and I see a difference. Not saying we're kids, just that kids are people.
FedUpWithFaith
1st February 2012, 06:31 PM
Thanks Diva, it's nice to meet you.
I think what I find the most interesting is the fear of group think over the ultimate troll who is dedicated to bringing the site down. With the Admins involved and the people whom they have invited, I am surprised that this is as big of a concern as it is. So far, all of them seem to support the ideas of free speech, free expression and tend to support the underdogs, in my experience.
I know Cunt and Eloise well enough to know that this concern is nothing to worry about. But they might not always be here.
Unfortunately, when you really put it to the most severe test, most people don't believe in free speech as much as they profess. I know, because I've put it to such tests, both deliberately and unintentionaly, and have been accused of being the troll you mention several times. I tend to fight hard for principals I believe in yet often reflect on my own egotistical folly that I would "waste' so much of my time and effort and cause so much angst for an enterprise which is arguablyof dubious influential value.
The problem for me, and perhaps others, is the dichotomy between the value and perception we place on our own thoughts and ideas and how those values translate to an artificial abbreviated human exchange like the kind you see on forums, Facebook, and other social media. No emoticon can replace the non-verbal communication that accounts for, depending on which study you believe, 60-85% of communication per se much less the additional loss of verbal inflection when we rely on writing.
I knew forums were fundamentally misrepresentational going in. I purposely created a persona called FUWF that is only a piece of me for many reasons I won't go into now. But even those of you who try to always be "yourselves" would probably be surprised in meeting other of "yourselves" in person. Oh this person seems so much kinder, silly, serious, more snide, etc. in person... The funny things is, from playing a sort of role, I think I've revealed more of my true self over time than others. It has enabled me to make public admissions about myself that few have the guts to do. Yet, I wonder how many people, who thought they knew me, would find their assumptions confirmed if we got to know each other in real life. For those that have known me as FUWF awhile and seen the recent videos with my sister and I, was that what they expected to see? I don't know.
So the dichotomy ultimately results in taking ourselves and forums too seriously and it primes us to misunderstand our fellow members as a result. Somehow, we have to be able to step back and realize that forums are somewhat silly and pointless, just like humanity itself, including each one of us. Somehow, I'm able to take life very seriously and not seriously at all at the same time and enjoy the folly of human beings. So when a true troll trys to destroy a forum, I may dispair over the ensuing damage and be quite entertained at the same time. But if they succeed, despite or due to whatever rules and actions the forum may take against the troll, the forum deserves it.
I guess the same thing works for countries too. 911 was a bad and immoral thing. And how America responded and allowed itself to strip itself of many of its founding principals was worse. I don't blame Bin Laden for the later. He was a troll genius.
I think what I find the most interesting is the fear of group think over the ultimate troll who is dedicated to bringing the site down. With the Admins involved and the people whom they have invited, I am surprised that this is as big of a concern as it is. So far, all of them seem to support the ideas of free speech, free expression and tend to support the underdogs, in my experience.
I know Cunt and Eloise well enough to know that this concern is nothing to worry about. But they might not always be here.
Unfortunately, when you really put it to the most severe test, most people don't believe in free speech as much as they profess. I know, because I've put it to such tests, both deliberately and unintentionaly, and have been accused of being the troll you mention several times. I tend to fight hard for principals I believe in yet often reflect on my own egotistical folly that I would "waste' so much of my time and effort and cause so much angst for an enterprise which is arguablyof dubious influential value.
The problem for me, and perhaps others, is the dichotomy between the value and perception we place on our own thoughts and ideas and how those values translate to an artificial abbreviated human exchange like the kind you see on forums, Facebook, and other social media. No emoticon can replace the non-verbal communication that accounts for, depending on which study you believe, 60-85% of communication per se much less the additional loss of verbal inflection when we rely on writing.
I knew forums were fundamentally misrepresentational going in. I purposely created a persona called FUWF that is only a piece of me for many reasons I won't go into now. But even those of you who try to always be "yourselves" would probably be surprised in meeting other of "yourselves" in person. Oh this person seems so much kinder, silly, serious, more snide, etc. in person... The funny things is, from playing a sort of role, I think I've revealed more of my true self over time than others. It has enabled me to make public admissions about myself that few have the guts to do. Yet, I wonder how many people, who thought they knew me, would find their assumptions confirmed if we got to know each other in real life. For those that have known me as FUWF awhile and seen the recent videos with my sister and I, was that what they expected to see? I don't know.
So the dichotomy ultimately results in taking ourselves and forums too seriously and it primes us to misunderstand our fellow members as a result. Somehow, we have to be able to step back and realize that forums are somewhat silly and pointless, just like humanity itself, including each one of us. Somehow, I'm able to take life very seriously and not seriously at all at the same time and enjoy the folly of human beings. So when a true troll trys to destroy a forum, I may dispair over the ensuing damage and be quite entertained at the same time. But if they succeed, despite or due to whatever rules and actions the forum may take against the troll, the forum deserves it.
I guess the same thing works for countries too. 911 was a bad and immoral thing. And how America responded and allowed itself to strip itself of many of its founding principals was worse. I don't blame Bin Laden for the later. He was a troll genius.
Sugreeva
1st February 2012, 08:55 PM
Well, if Mind Forum continues with the tldr style posts of Floppit, Adenosine and FedUpWithFaith the members will die of boredom any day now.
I think that differing literacy levels will always make some posts too long. My bug bear is lack of paragraphs! I do envy your succinct style though...
I too have noticed a trend of the longer the post the less interesting the poster.
I think that differing literacy levels will always make some posts too long. My bug bear is lack of paragraphs! I do envy your succinct style though...
I too have noticed a trend of the longer the post the less interesting the poster.
maiforpeace
1st February 2012, 09:04 PM
There will be conflict...it is the nature of human relations.
And, it will happen here at Mindromp, sooner or later.
I have no doubt the founders of this forum were as mindful as ever about thinking ahead and putting protections in place to avoid repeats of past issues that they have been party to on other forums, but until something arises it's basically impossible to predict what will happen.
And, it will happen here at Mindromp, sooner or later.
I have no doubt the founders of this forum were as mindful as ever about thinking ahead and putting protections in place to avoid repeats of past issues that they have been party to on other forums, but until something arises it's basically impossible to predict what will happen.
ksen
1st February 2012, 09:09 PM
Well, if Mind Forum continues with the tldr style posts of Floppit, Adenosine and FedUpWithFaith the members will die of boredom any day now.
I think that differing literacy levels will always make some posts too long. My bug bear is lack of paragraphs! I do envy your succinct style though...
I too have noticed a trend of the longer the post the less interesting the poster.
I've noticed just the opposite.
I think that differing literacy levels will always make some posts too long. My bug bear is lack of paragraphs! I do envy your succinct style though...
I too have noticed a trend of the longer the post the less interesting the poster.
I've noticed just the opposite.
maiforpeace
1st February 2012, 09:18 PM
Well, if Mind Forum continues with the tldr style posts of Floppit, Adenosine and FedUpWithFaith the members will die of boredom any day now.
I think that differing literacy levels will always make some posts too long. My bug bear is lack of paragraphs! I do envy your succinct style though...
I too have noticed a trend of the longer the post the less interesting the poster.
I've noticed just the opposite.
I've noticed neither. They're just different styles.
For the long post complainers, for chrissakes, how lazy can you get?
A slow reader reads 200 wpm and a fast reader 800 wpm. That last supposedly "long" post of FUWF's was 600 words. :rolleyes:
I think that differing literacy levels will always make some posts too long. My bug bear is lack of paragraphs! I do envy your succinct style though...
I too have noticed a trend of the longer the post the less interesting the poster.
I've noticed just the opposite.
I've noticed neither. They're just different styles.
For the long post complainers, for chrissakes, how lazy can you get?
A slow reader reads 200 wpm and a fast reader 800 wpm. That last supposedly "long" post of FUWF's was 600 words. :rolleyes:
ksen
1st February 2012, 09:20 PM
Hey mai, did you read about how they are getting ready to change the clinical defintion of Asperger's?
maiforpeace
1st February 2012, 09:23 PM
No, I haven't...I'd be interested to read about it, care to share anything you have on the subject?
ksen
1st February 2012, 09:24 PM
I got nothing. :hug:
maiforpeace
1st February 2012, 09:30 PM
Ksen, are you being so familiar with me because you are a friendly person, or because you know me from elsewhere?
I'm embarrassed to admit I can't quite place you if we know each other. :o
I'm embarrassed to admit I can't quite place you if we know each other. :o
ksen
1st February 2012, 09:40 PM
I'm just a friendly person. I tried to start posting at ratz but didn't last very long. Most of my MB time is over at TR.
Are you on one of those places under a different name?
Are you on one of those places under a different name?
maiforpeace
1st February 2012, 09:46 PM
Nope, I'm maiforpeace everywhere. Never been to TR, should I check it out?
I like friendly people...nice to meet up with you here Ksen. :beercheers:
I like friendly people...nice to meet up with you here Ksen. :beercheers:
Sugreeva
1st February 2012, 09:46 PM
Well, if Mind Forum continues with the tldr style posts of Floppit, Adenosine and FedUpWithFaith the members will die of boredom any day now.
I think that differing literacy levels will always make some posts too long. My bug bear is lack of paragraphs! I do envy your succinct style though...
I too have noticed a trend of the longer the post the less interesting the poster.
I've noticed just the opposite.
:owned:
I think that differing literacy levels will always make some posts too long. My bug bear is lack of paragraphs! I do envy your succinct style though...
I too have noticed a trend of the longer the post the less interesting the poster.
I've noticed just the opposite.
:owned:
ksen
1st February 2012, 10:00 PM
Nope, I'm maiforpeace everywhere. Never been to TR, should I check it out?
I like friendly people...nice to meet up with you here Ksen. :beercheers:
Cheers!
TR is kind of like MR on steroids.
I like friendly people...nice to meet up with you here Ksen. :beercheers:
Cheers!
TR is kind of like MR on steroids.
Adenosine
2nd February 2012, 12:03 AM
You raised a very valid point FUWF, actually you raised many but one really stood out mainly because I've been thinking about it a lot lately. How do we increase the membership here?
We got off to a great start but we do need a constant stream of new ideas coming in. How do we reach them. And a hattip to Grumps too for also raising this issue.
We got off to a great start but we do need a constant stream of new ideas coming in. How do we reach them. And a hattip to Grumps too for also raising this issue.
Adenosine
2nd February 2012, 12:04 AM
Nope, I'm maiforpeace everywhere. Never been to TR, should I check it out?
I like friendly people...nice to meet up with you here Ksen. :beercheers:
Cheers!
TR is kind of like MR on steroids.
But not the good ones. The ones that make your balls shrink and give you 'roid rage. :rofl:
I like friendly people...nice to meet up with you here Ksen. :beercheers:
Cheers!
TR is kind of like MR on steroids.
But not the good ones. The ones that make your balls shrink and give you 'roid rage. :rofl:
oblivion
2nd February 2012, 12:18 AM
You raised a very valid point FUWF, actually you raised many but one really stood out mainly because I've been thinking about it a lot lately. How do we increase the membership here?
We got off to a great start but we do need a constant stream of new ideas coming in. How do we reach them. And a hattip to Grumps too for also raising this issue.
yeah, I keep thinking about this, too.
Is the word still slowly getting out? Are most of the folks who would be interested in an alternative to the other RDnet spin-offs already here?
We got off to a great start but we do need a constant stream of new ideas coming in. How do we reach them. And a hattip to Grumps too for also raising this issue.
yeah, I keep thinking about this, too.
Is the word still slowly getting out? Are most of the folks who would be interested in an alternative to the other RDnet spin-offs already here?
Cunt
2nd February 2012, 01:07 AM
I wish I knew how to reach AA. LPN I might be able to invite...
Cunt
2nd February 2012, 01:28 AM
Right off the bat FedUpWithFaith said I made this. Not true.
He (and many others) were responsible for the ideas I have treasured, and I merely created a space to talk about the idea. The rest comes from a group.
It feels weird being credited with this when other (holy FUCK oblivion) have done so much work.
Mindromp will only work so long as there is a reasonable, constant influx of new personalities.
Doomed
Probably. But on-topic: for a forum to work, it needs new ideas, new voices, new opinions.
Grumps, I agree, but only to a point.
I think what we could have here is so precious that we should care for it most energetically.
I have always thought that when humanity discovers the best way to govern humans, it will be obvious because all humans will adopt it.
I have something similar in mind here. I think if we can keep some core items warm (like not banning, not providing privacy as two examples) then whatever happens, this forum will continue to be well. I understand that it doesn't do us any good once we all die of old age and the forum stands empty.
I think if we look at how this started, it points to how it should grow.
I started with some ideas (many contributed over the years by FedUpWithFaith) and a few trusted allies. I then added the ability to create and administer a forum (just in a rudimentary way)
The spark was devogue pissing and moaning over at Ratz again (along with Elouise) and I agreed with them so much I took the leap and opened the door to 'discuss' (now defunct). It was a forum set up specifically to discuss how to start what is now MindRomp. My first act was to bring in some folks who sternly and firmly disagree with me (though not on those core items). I invited charlou, devogue, Cormac and from there, they invited other experts from their spheres.
This group grew to about a dozen (I chose no more because I thought I had picked my fair share) and MindRomp was forged.
Now we have some more members. We have already had some attrition (dammit, devogue, think of ME!!!) and that's okay, but what I think we have to do with this larger (is it REALLY over a hundred now?!?!) group is to continue to build.
I don't think we can subject everything to a vote, or at some point a member might be voted off. There is, however, a necessity to continue to build in order to me a place where people, even quiet, timid ones, can be heard.
I don't mind if it takes a long time to build. I don't mind having made mistakes. (for instance, had I been less unreasonably timid about 'stacking the deck' here, I would have invited FedUpWithFaith much sooner, as well as others)
yes. Most forums need a bill of rights more than rules.
To fuck with rights. What is needed are not rights to be granted like dropping dingleberries on the proletariat, but responsibilities to be grasped by those who have the desire.
He (and many others) were responsible for the ideas I have treasured, and I merely created a space to talk about the idea. The rest comes from a group.
It feels weird being credited with this when other (holy FUCK oblivion) have done so much work.
Mindromp will only work so long as there is a reasonable, constant influx of new personalities.
Doomed
Probably. But on-topic: for a forum to work, it needs new ideas, new voices, new opinions.
Grumps, I agree, but only to a point.
I think what we could have here is so precious that we should care for it most energetically.
I have always thought that when humanity discovers the best way to govern humans, it will be obvious because all humans will adopt it.
I have something similar in mind here. I think if we can keep some core items warm (like not banning, not providing privacy as two examples) then whatever happens, this forum will continue to be well. I understand that it doesn't do us any good once we all die of old age and the forum stands empty.
I think if we look at how this started, it points to how it should grow.
I started with some ideas (many contributed over the years by FedUpWithFaith) and a few trusted allies. I then added the ability to create and administer a forum (just in a rudimentary way)
The spark was devogue pissing and moaning over at Ratz again (along with Elouise) and I agreed with them so much I took the leap and opened the door to 'discuss' (now defunct). It was a forum set up specifically to discuss how to start what is now MindRomp. My first act was to bring in some folks who sternly and firmly disagree with me (though not on those core items). I invited charlou, devogue, Cormac and from there, they invited other experts from their spheres.
This group grew to about a dozen (I chose no more because I thought I had picked my fair share) and MindRomp was forged.
Now we have some more members. We have already had some attrition (dammit, devogue, think of ME!!!) and that's okay, but what I think we have to do with this larger (is it REALLY over a hundred now?!?!) group is to continue to build.
I don't think we can subject everything to a vote, or at some point a member might be voted off. There is, however, a necessity to continue to build in order to me a place where people, even quiet, timid ones, can be heard.
I don't mind if it takes a long time to build. I don't mind having made mistakes. (for instance, had I been less unreasonably timid about 'stacking the deck' here, I would have invited FedUpWithFaith much sooner, as well as others)
yes. Most forums need a bill of rights more than rules.
To fuck with rights. What is needed are not rights to be granted like dropping dingleberries on the proletariat, but responsibilities to be grasped by those who have the desire.
FedUpWithFaith
2nd February 2012, 01:43 AM
You raised a very valid point FUWF, actually you raised many but one really stood out mainly because I've been thinking about it a lot lately. How do we increase the membership here?
We got off to a great start but we do need a constant stream of new ideas coming in. How do we reach them. And a hattip to Grumps too for also raising this issue.
It is unfortunate that when I first raised these issues years ago after RD exploded and had some powerful resources (one of my companies was partners with a major media company) there were few who were interested in this. Too much feuding - they understandably wanted to relax. Now that the time might be right and I have some time, I don't have the commerical resources anymore.
Regardless of that, I think the discussion needs to focus on inventing a mission, objective, or association the forum can leverage into attracting a diverse group of people who share some common values (whether it be rationalism, freethought, etc.) and can become passionate about being part of. To succeed it needs to fit organically with the membership. Although I could (and did before) suggest many forms of free, cheap. and costly means of basic promotion that could drive new eyeballs to the forum, I'm skeptical it would lead to sustainable success, where I define success as a large diverse set of interesting people posting great stuff on lots of different topics for many years as I explained earlier.
Creating a chummy freethought place to chat won't do it alone. I doubt that there are any easy solutions that don't require some hard work and luck. The last time this came up with me it was around the time the atheist billboard and atheist bus phenomena began. I felt it would be a good idea to consider co-opting such a movement and append the forum to it to help drive it. Anybody have such contacts?
Another idea - obviously if one if us is or becomes famous or can get somebody famous that embodies our more common values they could be a figurehead like Dawkins - not my favorite idea for many reasons. But it would be cool if we could recruit a round-table (the "MindRomp Roundtable"?) of the more well-known Youtube atheists like Pat Condell and give them a more interactive home space for blogs and tools for greater publicity. I suppose the more intrepid of us with some stage presence could try to pull it off ourselves but it takes time unless you have something that is truly instantly viral. It's possible but not easy. I did learn from developing my sister's YouTube channel that there are some really cool tools, like Tube Toolbox, to help promote your videos at very low cost. In fact, if we don't already, we should also use a pinging service like Pingoat to help drive traffic to this site right now. It's free.
Thinking about it more, this forum should have a dedicated YouTube channel period. If nothing else, it would be fun if we all took turns making videos and posting them to it on subjects of various interest. The cool thing is, you never know what could happen and it makes it exciting. One of us could get famous for his atheist cat that flushes the toilet or something. If people see this as a place where we have fun in unusual creative ways it would help.
Others proposed ideas like becoming a less virulent form of Anonymous-like pranksters doing some form of playful havoc around the web but many of us don't like drama - and that would create al lot. Recently, I thought it would be cool to have a wiki-leaks kind of site for religious BS or other forms of irrationality - some of which would probably conflict with JREF's turf.
If you think about it for a moment, any objective or mission that people are passionate about usually takes on commerical and/or charitable forms. think about anything you really care about and there is probably money involved. We need to be realistic and realize this is natural and at the same time it brings political management risks that potentially conflict with the nature of this forum. Any change brings risks but you can't survive unless you embrace change. I think this could be managed but feel I need to put the dangers on the table.
I gotta go help my sis with some therapy. Maybe we can brainstorm some more together later.
We got off to a great start but we do need a constant stream of new ideas coming in. How do we reach them. And a hattip to Grumps too for also raising this issue.
It is unfortunate that when I first raised these issues years ago after RD exploded and had some powerful resources (one of my companies was partners with a major media company) there were few who were interested in this. Too much feuding - they understandably wanted to relax. Now that the time might be right and I have some time, I don't have the commerical resources anymore.
Regardless of that, I think the discussion needs to focus on inventing a mission, objective, or association the forum can leverage into attracting a diverse group of people who share some common values (whether it be rationalism, freethought, etc.) and can become passionate about being part of. To succeed it needs to fit organically with the membership. Although I could (and did before) suggest many forms of free, cheap. and costly means of basic promotion that could drive new eyeballs to the forum, I'm skeptical it would lead to sustainable success, where I define success as a large diverse set of interesting people posting great stuff on lots of different topics for many years as I explained earlier.
Creating a chummy freethought place to chat won't do it alone. I doubt that there are any easy solutions that don't require some hard work and luck. The last time this came up with me it was around the time the atheist billboard and atheist bus phenomena began. I felt it would be a good idea to consider co-opting such a movement and append the forum to it to help drive it. Anybody have such contacts?
Another idea - obviously if one if us is or becomes famous or can get somebody famous that embodies our more common values they could be a figurehead like Dawkins - not my favorite idea for many reasons. But it would be cool if we could recruit a round-table (the "MindRomp Roundtable"?) of the more well-known Youtube atheists like Pat Condell and give them a more interactive home space for blogs and tools for greater publicity. I suppose the more intrepid of us with some stage presence could try to pull it off ourselves but it takes time unless you have something that is truly instantly viral. It's possible but not easy. I did learn from developing my sister's YouTube channel that there are some really cool tools, like Tube Toolbox, to help promote your videos at very low cost. In fact, if we don't already, we should also use a pinging service like Pingoat to help drive traffic to this site right now. It's free.
Thinking about it more, this forum should have a dedicated YouTube channel period. If nothing else, it would be fun if we all took turns making videos and posting them to it on subjects of various interest. The cool thing is, you never know what could happen and it makes it exciting. One of us could get famous for his atheist cat that flushes the toilet or something. If people see this as a place where we have fun in unusual creative ways it would help.
Others proposed ideas like becoming a less virulent form of Anonymous-like pranksters doing some form of playful havoc around the web but many of us don't like drama - and that would create al lot. Recently, I thought it would be cool to have a wiki-leaks kind of site for religious BS or other forms of irrationality - some of which would probably conflict with JREF's turf.
If you think about it for a moment, any objective or mission that people are passionate about usually takes on commerical and/or charitable forms. think about anything you really care about and there is probably money involved. We need to be realistic and realize this is natural and at the same time it brings political management risks that potentially conflict with the nature of this forum. Any change brings risks but you can't survive unless you embrace change. I think this could be managed but feel I need to put the dangers on the table.
I gotta go help my sis with some therapy. Maybe we can brainstorm some more together later.
Jerome
2nd February 2012, 01:45 AM
masturbation is lovely
More later
:munch:
More later
:munch:
Jerome
2nd February 2012, 01:50 AM
How do we increase the membership here?
maybe i missed a beat, but how is this important, not that I am in anyway against more and more new members, i will fully welcome them all, .. but how is it decided to whom to advertise?
maybe i missed a beat, but how is this important, not that I am in anyway against more and more new members, i will fully welcome them all, .. but how is it decided to whom to advertise?
Adenosine
2nd February 2012, 01:52 AM
I can see why you and Cunt are friends, you say many of the same things he has been saying since Discuss.
Ask him about the atheist charity.
Ask him about the atheist charity.
Jerome
2nd February 2012, 01:53 AM
I am Cunt
:nada:
:nada:
Adenosine
2nd February 2012, 01:54 AM
How do we increase the membership here?
maybe i missed a beat, but how is this important, not that I am in anyway against more and more new members, i will fully welcome them all, .. but how is it decided to whom to advertise?
Exactly. My preference is to get all the peoples of all creeds and religions and philosophies and ideas and nations. I just don't know how.
maybe i missed a beat, but how is this important, not that I am in anyway against more and more new members, i will fully welcome them all, .. but how is it decided to whom to advertise?
Exactly. My preference is to get all the peoples of all creeds and religions and philosophies and ideas and nations. I just don't know how.
FedUpWithFaith
2nd February 2012, 01:54 AM
I wish I knew how to reach AA. LPN I might be able to invite...
Actually, i think I might have AA's email here someplace. i didn't have much luck trying to get her to join Ratz. She got fedup with it all. Though she was going to help Dev and i set up a forum once - fell thru.
Actually, i think I might have AA's email here someplace. i didn't have much luck trying to get her to join Ratz. She got fedup with it all. Though she was going to help Dev and i set up a forum once - fell thru.
oblivion
2nd February 2012, 01:56 AM
We have 113 members.
almost 60 of them visited the site in the last 24 hours. Almost 100 visited in the last week.
That ratio will not last long, of course. But right now, people are checking the place out fairly frequently, whether they post or not. Interesting content is what keeps people coming back. I encouraged the other janitors to think about threads that they've enjoyed, or that seemed to be particularly good ice-breakers at other forums in their early days. And several members have started interesting threads, as well. More interesting than most of what I came up with, actually. Eyes visiting is one part of the equation. Interesting stuff to read, that sparks interest in responding is another part of the equation. An engaging and engaged community of members is another part. They all have to be there - synergy.
almost 60 of them visited the site in the last 24 hours. Almost 100 visited in the last week.
That ratio will not last long, of course. But right now, people are checking the place out fairly frequently, whether they post or not. Interesting content is what keeps people coming back. I encouraged the other janitors to think about threads that they've enjoyed, or that seemed to be particularly good ice-breakers at other forums in their early days. And several members have started interesting threads, as well. More interesting than most of what I came up with, actually. Eyes visiting is one part of the equation. Interesting stuff to read, that sparks interest in responding is another part of the equation. An engaging and engaged community of members is another part. They all have to be there - synergy.
Jerome
2nd February 2012, 02:05 AM
Exactly. My preference is to get all the peoples of all creeds and religions and philosophies and ideas and nations. I just don't know how.
I think organically, not hippy bs organic, the term: just let it happen
I think organically, not hippy bs organic, the term: just let it happen
Adenosine
2nd February 2012, 02:06 AM
Exactly. My preference is to get all the peoples of all creeds and religions and philosophies and ideas and nations. I just don't know how.
I think organically, not hippy bs organic, the term: just let it happen
Even organic plants need fertiliser.
Fuck, I'm good at analogy.
I think organically, not hippy bs organic, the term: just let it happen
Even organic plants need fertiliser.
Fuck, I'm good at analogy.
Adenosine
2nd February 2012, 02:06 AM
We have 113 members.
almost 60 of them visited the site in the last 24 hours. Almost 100 visited in the last week.
That ratio will not last long, of course. But right now, people are checking the place out fairly frequently, whether they post or not. Interesting content is what keeps people coming back. I encouraged the other janitors to think about threads that they've enjoyed, or that seemed to be particularly good ice-breakers at other forums in their early days. And several members have started interesting threads, as well. More interesting than most of what I came up with, actually. Eyes visiting is one part of the equation. Interesting stuff to read, that sparks interest in responding is another part of the equation. An engaging and engaged community of members is another part. They all have to be there - synergy.
Good point. I'll have a think.
almost 60 of them visited the site in the last 24 hours. Almost 100 visited in the last week.
That ratio will not last long, of course. But right now, people are checking the place out fairly frequently, whether they post or not. Interesting content is what keeps people coming back. I encouraged the other janitors to think about threads that they've enjoyed, or that seemed to be particularly good ice-breakers at other forums in their early days. And several members have started interesting threads, as well. More interesting than most of what I came up with, actually. Eyes visiting is one part of the equation. Interesting stuff to read, that sparks interest in responding is another part of the equation. An engaging and engaged community of members is another part. They all have to be there - synergy.
Good point. I'll have a think.
FedUpWithFaith
2nd February 2012, 02:18 AM
Right off the bat FedUpWithFaith said I made this. Not true.
He (and many others) were responsible for the ideas I have treasured, and I merely created a space to talk about the idea. The rest comes from a group.
It feels weird being credited with this when other (holy FUCK oblivion) have done so much work.
yeah, yeah, yeah. But Cunt is a convenient shortcut. From now on when I give "Cunt" credit for starting the forum assume I mean lots of little cunts.
I have always thought that when humanity discovers the best way to govern humans, it will be obvious because all humans will adopt it.
Pipedream, but you're entitled.
The spark was devogue pissing and moaning over at Ratz again
It sure took a lot of piss from him over the years for you to get off your lazy ass.
(for instance, had I been less unreasonably timid about 'stacking the deck' here, I would have invited FedUpWithFaith much sooner, as well as others)I was surprised you and Dev didn't ask me from the outset but I agree with your decision. In fact, even after I saw your invitation I thought about holding off joining. Let's face it, you're too polite to say it but however we might dispute the facts of perceived history, I am ultimately responsible for becoming a divisive figure deeply disliked, even hated, by some. You probably would not have been able to pull this off with all the people you included with me in the mix.
yes. Most forums need a bill of rights more than rules.
To fuck with rights. What is needed are not rights to be granted like dropping dingleberries on the proletariat, but responsibilities to be grasped by those who have the desire.
We sort of agree and disagree on this at the same time. You're perspective is rights deigned by govt. (forums grant) while I view it more like unalienable natural rights (forums owe). Both concepts are probably BS. The bottom line is that rights and responsiblities should be linked. They beg each other.
He (and many others) were responsible for the ideas I have treasured, and I merely created a space to talk about the idea. The rest comes from a group.
It feels weird being credited with this when other (holy FUCK oblivion) have done so much work.
yeah, yeah, yeah. But Cunt is a convenient shortcut. From now on when I give "Cunt" credit for starting the forum assume I mean lots of little cunts.
I have always thought that when humanity discovers the best way to govern humans, it will be obvious because all humans will adopt it.
Pipedream, but you're entitled.
The spark was devogue pissing and moaning over at Ratz again
It sure took a lot of piss from him over the years for you to get off your lazy ass.
(for instance, had I been less unreasonably timid about 'stacking the deck' here, I would have invited FedUpWithFaith much sooner, as well as others)I was surprised you and Dev didn't ask me from the outset but I agree with your decision. In fact, even after I saw your invitation I thought about holding off joining. Let's face it, you're too polite to say it but however we might dispute the facts of perceived history, I am ultimately responsible for becoming a divisive figure deeply disliked, even hated, by some. You probably would not have been able to pull this off with all the people you included with me in the mix.
yes. Most forums need a bill of rights more than rules.
To fuck with rights. What is needed are not rights to be granted like dropping dingleberries on the proletariat, but responsibilities to be grasped by those who have the desire.
We sort of agree and disagree on this at the same time. You're perspective is rights deigned by govt. (forums grant) while I view it more like unalienable natural rights (forums owe). Both concepts are probably BS. The bottom line is that rights and responsiblities should be linked. They beg each other.
nick
2nd February 2012, 03:15 AM
I think Cunt said it best when he said that if he gets real life stalked and killed he would still want his murderer to have his voice heard here.
that just might happen
that just might happen
Adenosine
2nd February 2012, 03:20 AM
haha, you're a card
Jerome
2nd February 2012, 03:22 AM
Fuck you Aden, he can drive to me, bull shit that we will make the swim to you!
charlou
2nd February 2012, 04:15 AM
I wish I knew how to reach AA. LPN I might be able to invite...
Actually, i think I might have AA's email here someplace. i didn't have much luck trying to get her to join Ratz. She got fedup with it all. Though she was going to help Dev and i set up a forum once - fell thru.
Last I heard she's an admin or mod at the AFA forum? I'll take a look for the link ...
Actually, i think I might have AA's email here someplace. i didn't have much luck trying to get her to join Ratz. She got fedup with it all. Though she was going to help Dev and i set up a forum once - fell thru.
Last I heard she's an admin or mod at the AFA forum? I'll take a look for the link ...
charlou
2nd February 2012, 04:17 AM
re drawing people to mindromp .. kernel of an idea in mind along the lines of what the admins discussed initially .. there was interest in charitable pursuit .. I'll give it more thought
charlou
2nd February 2012, 04:17 AM
diva, loved your thoughts :hug:
divagreen
2nd February 2012, 04:36 AM
Thanks Diva, it's nice to meet you.
It's nice to meet you too! :hug:
And thank you for putting up with my horrible typos earlier. :)
I know Cunt and Eloise well enough to know that this concern is nothing to worry about. But they might not always be here.
I can vouch for Oblivion, Aden and Nostrum. I don't know MZ quite as well as I would like to. Elouise, definitely. I don't know Cunt at all.
Unfortunately, when you really put it to the most severe test, most people don't believe in free speech as much as they profess. I know, because I've put it to such tests, both deliberately and unintentionaly, and have been accused of being the troll you mention several times. I tend to fight hard for principals I believe in yet often reflect on my own egotistical folly that I would "waste' so much of my time and effort and cause so much angst for an enterprise which is arguablyof dubious influential value.
wrt bold: I couldn't agree with you more. It has also been my experience that people will say they want an unmoderated site until something happens that they don't like and then they want the nanny police to get involved and then get pissy when they don't. 2 years of it has left me a bit cynical about people's expectations about forums.
The problem for me, and perhaps others, is the dichotomy between the value and perception we place on our own thoughts and ideas and how those values translate to an artificial abbreviated human exchange like the kind you see on forums, Facebook, and other social media. No emoticon can replace the non-verbal communication that accounts for, depending on which study you believe, 60-85% of communication per se much less the additional loss of verbal inflection when we rely on writing.
Couldn't agree with you more. :D
I knew forums were fundamentally misrepresentational going in. I purposely created a persona called FUWF that is only a piece of me for many reasons I won't go into now. But even those of you who try to always be "yourselves" would probably be surprised in meeting other of "yourselves" in person. Oh this person seems so much kinder, silly, serious, more snide, etc. in person... The funny things is, from playing a sort of role, I think I've revealed more of my true self over time than others. It has enabled me to make public admissions about myself that few have the guts to do. Yet, I wonder how many people, who thought they knew me, would find their assumptions confirmed if we got to know each other in real life. For those that have known me as FUWF awhile and seen the recent videos with my sister and I, was that what they expected to see? I don't know.
I have met people off the net IRL and many of them are different than they are on the screen. I have also skyped and talked to people on the phone too. Interestingly enough, the couple of people who were like their on line persona were the ones who were often labeled "troll", lol.
So the dichotomy ultimately results in taking ourselves and forums too seriously and it primes us to misunderstand our fellow members as a result. Somehow, we have to be able to step back and realize that forums are somewhat silly and pointless, just like humanity itself, including each one of us. Somehow, I'm able to take life very seriously and not seriously at all at the same time and enjoy the folly of human beings. So when a true troll trys to destroy a forum, I may dispair over the ensuing damage and be quite entertained at the same time. But if they succeed, despite or due to whatever rules and actions the forum may take against the troll, the forum deserves it.
Ouch, but I think that there is a lot of truth to that too. I also think that we have differing uses of the word "troll". I tend to like most "trolls" and I do a bit of harmless trolling myself. When I say The Ultimate Troll, I am talking about the weird crazy stalkerish kind; an examples, one woman pissed off the Mad Oirish One and social services was called on a false allegation. The Mad Oirish One had created an account on another site, posted a bunch of "I am drunk and I just banged my 2 year old's head against the wall", used a hard to trace hosting site that masked her IP and rerouted it to the woman's town. Nasty business, that. Our site was indirectly involved cos it was where the feud had started.
Or the calling of people's work, their children's schools, post pictures of family members, that sort of thing. Or pepper the board with some of the worst most personal vitriol that you could imagine. Or someone who has 30 socks with the sole purpose of creating dissent amongst a handful of people. I am talking about the dedicated troll.
I know that these are extreme cases and yet I watched them happen. I truly think that it is unlikely to happen here and I certainly hope not. The personal info safety measure is already in place and I think that might mitigate the worst of it. I am just giving these examples in order to explain how our mileages may vary when using the same terminology.
I guess the same thing works for countries too. 911 was a bad and immoral thing. And how America responded and allowed itself to strip itself of many of its founding principals was worse. I don't blame Bin Laden for the later. He was a troll genius.
lol, and too true.
It's nice to meet you too! :hug:
And thank you for putting up with my horrible typos earlier. :)
I know Cunt and Eloise well enough to know that this concern is nothing to worry about. But they might not always be here.
I can vouch for Oblivion, Aden and Nostrum. I don't know MZ quite as well as I would like to. Elouise, definitely. I don't know Cunt at all.
Unfortunately, when you really put it to the most severe test, most people don't believe in free speech as much as they profess. I know, because I've put it to such tests, both deliberately and unintentionaly, and have been accused of being the troll you mention several times. I tend to fight hard for principals I believe in yet often reflect on my own egotistical folly that I would "waste' so much of my time and effort and cause so much angst for an enterprise which is arguablyof dubious influential value.
wrt bold: I couldn't agree with you more. It has also been my experience that people will say they want an unmoderated site until something happens that they don't like and then they want the nanny police to get involved and then get pissy when they don't. 2 years of it has left me a bit cynical about people's expectations about forums.
The problem for me, and perhaps others, is the dichotomy between the value and perception we place on our own thoughts and ideas and how those values translate to an artificial abbreviated human exchange like the kind you see on forums, Facebook, and other social media. No emoticon can replace the non-verbal communication that accounts for, depending on which study you believe, 60-85% of communication per se much less the additional loss of verbal inflection when we rely on writing.
Couldn't agree with you more. :D
I knew forums were fundamentally misrepresentational going in. I purposely created a persona called FUWF that is only a piece of me for many reasons I won't go into now. But even those of you who try to always be "yourselves" would probably be surprised in meeting other of "yourselves" in person. Oh this person seems so much kinder, silly, serious, more snide, etc. in person... The funny things is, from playing a sort of role, I think I've revealed more of my true self over time than others. It has enabled me to make public admissions about myself that few have the guts to do. Yet, I wonder how many people, who thought they knew me, would find their assumptions confirmed if we got to know each other in real life. For those that have known me as FUWF awhile and seen the recent videos with my sister and I, was that what they expected to see? I don't know.
I have met people off the net IRL and many of them are different than they are on the screen. I have also skyped and talked to people on the phone too. Interestingly enough, the couple of people who were like their on line persona were the ones who were often labeled "troll", lol.
So the dichotomy ultimately results in taking ourselves and forums too seriously and it primes us to misunderstand our fellow members as a result. Somehow, we have to be able to step back and realize that forums are somewhat silly and pointless, just like humanity itself, including each one of us. Somehow, I'm able to take life very seriously and not seriously at all at the same time and enjoy the folly of human beings. So when a true troll trys to destroy a forum, I may dispair over the ensuing damage and be quite entertained at the same time. But if they succeed, despite or due to whatever rules and actions the forum may take against the troll, the forum deserves it.
Ouch, but I think that there is a lot of truth to that too. I also think that we have differing uses of the word "troll". I tend to like most "trolls" and I do a bit of harmless trolling myself. When I say The Ultimate Troll, I am talking about the weird crazy stalkerish kind; an examples, one woman pissed off the Mad Oirish One and social services was called on a false allegation. The Mad Oirish One had created an account on another site, posted a bunch of "I am drunk and I just banged my 2 year old's head against the wall", used a hard to trace hosting site that masked her IP and rerouted it to the woman's town. Nasty business, that. Our site was indirectly involved cos it was where the feud had started.
Or the calling of people's work, their children's schools, post pictures of family members, that sort of thing. Or pepper the board with some of the worst most personal vitriol that you could imagine. Or someone who has 30 socks with the sole purpose of creating dissent amongst a handful of people. I am talking about the dedicated troll.
I know that these are extreme cases and yet I watched them happen. I truly think that it is unlikely to happen here and I certainly hope not. The personal info safety measure is already in place and I think that might mitigate the worst of it. I am just giving these examples in order to explain how our mileages may vary when using the same terminology.
I guess the same thing works for countries too. 911 was a bad and immoral thing. And how America responded and allowed itself to strip itself of many of its founding principals was worse. I don't blame Bin Laden for the later. He was a troll genius.
lol, and too true.
FedUpWithFaith
2nd February 2012, 04:38 AM
Diva,
I think its time you and I consider getting together and making sweet passionate love.
I think its time you and I consider getting together and making sweet passionate love.
nick
2nd February 2012, 04:42 AM
I truly think that it is unlikely to happen here and I certainly hope not.
I respectfully disagree with your opinion in this matter.
I respectfully disagree with your opinion in this matter.
nick
2nd February 2012, 04:43 AM
And if you're unsure if I mean I think it's likely to happen here or if I hope it happens here, both.
divagreen
2nd February 2012, 04:45 AM
Another idea - obviously if one if us is or becomes famous or can get somebody famous that embodies our more common values they could be a figurehead like Dawkins - not my favorite idea for many reasons. But it would be cool if we could recruit a round-table (the "MindRomp Roundtable"?) of the more well-known Youtube atheists like Pat Condell and give them a more interactive home space for blogs and tools for greater publicity. I suppose the more intrepid of us with some stage presence could try to pull it off ourselves but it takes time unless you have something that is truly instantly viral. It's possible but not easy. I did learn from developing my sister's YouTube channel that there are some really cool tools, like Tube Toolbox, to help promote your videos at very low cost. In fact, if we don't already, we should also use a pinging service like Pingoat to help drive traffic to this site right now. It's free.
Thinking about it more, this forum should have a dedicated YouTube channel period. If nothing else, it would be fun if we all took turns making videos and posting them to it on subjects of various interest. The cool thing is, you never know what could happen and it makes it exciting. One of us could get famous for his atheist cat that flushes the toilet or something. If people see this as a place where we have fun in unusual creative ways it would help.
Those are some really good ideas and are outside of the box. RatSkep has podcast and I always liked that; sometimes you don't want to participate in a discussion but just want to watch and it provided the option of having some members who signed up to duke out their views and have the rest of the membership watch if they chose. It was a nice feature.
Thinking about it more, this forum should have a dedicated YouTube channel period. If nothing else, it would be fun if we all took turns making videos and posting them to it on subjects of various interest. The cool thing is, you never know what could happen and it makes it exciting. One of us could get famous for his atheist cat that flushes the toilet or something. If people see this as a place where we have fun in unusual creative ways it would help.
Those are some really good ideas and are outside of the box. RatSkep has podcast and I always liked that; sometimes you don't want to participate in a discussion but just want to watch and it provided the option of having some members who signed up to duke out their views and have the rest of the membership watch if they chose. It was a nice feature.
divagreen
2nd February 2012, 04:46 AM
Diva,
I think its time you and I consider getting together and making sweet passionate love.
:blush:
I think its time you and I consider getting together and making sweet passionate love.
:blush:
divagreen
2nd February 2012, 04:48 AM
And if you're unsure if I mean I think it's likely to happen here or if I hope it happens here, both.
Really? :sadcheer:
You are right though Nick, I think that Aden's idealism was contagious for a moment.
Really? :sadcheer:
You are right though Nick, I think that Aden's idealism was contagious for a moment.
FedUpWithFaith
2nd February 2012, 04:48 AM
Don't play coy with me honey. You know you want it.
divagreen
2nd February 2012, 04:51 AM
diva, loved your thoughts :hug:
:hug:
:hug:
divagreen
2nd February 2012, 04:52 AM
Don't play coy with me honey. You know you want it.
:ohmy:
:yes:
:ohmy:
:yes:
FedUpWithFaith
2nd February 2012, 05:10 AM
Don't play coy with me honey. You know you want it.
:ohmy:
:yes:
Actually, let's get into a vicious online argument first. I love make-up sex.
:ohmy:
:yes:
Actually, let's get into a vicious online argument first. I love make-up sex.
divagreen
2nd February 2012, 05:15 AM
you're right, I should have played hard to get
ksen
2nd February 2012, 05:43 AM
Exactly. My preference is to get all the peoples of all creeds and religions and philosophies and ideas and nations. I just don't know how.
I think organically, not hippy bs organic, the term: just let it happen
Even organic plants need fertiliser.
Fuck, I'm good at analogy.
That's why we have jerome. :whistle:
I think organically, not hippy bs organic, the term: just let it happen
Even organic plants need fertiliser.
Fuck, I'm good at analogy.
That's why we have jerome. :whistle:
ksen
2nd February 2012, 05:46 AM
Diva,
I think its time you and I consider getting together and making sweet passionate love.
Back off FUWF, Diva is MY internet gf. :twitch:
I think its time you and I consider getting together and making sweet passionate love.
Back off FUWF, Diva is MY internet gf. :twitch:
FedUpWithFaith
2nd February 2012, 05:49 AM
Not ANY more, BEOTCH!
ksen
2nd February 2012, 05:51 AM
Goddammit diva, you slut! :whyyou:
ksen
2nd February 2012, 05:51 AM
eta: :hug:
divagreen
2nd February 2012, 06:10 AM
Goddammit diva, you slut! :whyyou:
:awwgee:
eta: :hug:
:hug:
:awwgee:
eta: :hug:
:hug:
FedUpWithFaith
2nd February 2012, 06:31 AM
If you still want to have a fling with ksen from time to time it's OK with me Diva. I know I don't own you... yet. Just make sure he only get's my sloppy seconds. Otherwise, I'll kill you both.
Mantisdreamz
2nd February 2012, 08:29 AM
Interesting thread.
I like the ideas of putting up youtube videos, or doing podcasts.
Diva, irre, MZ - you guys might remember reisender from ratskep. He's got another forum where he features podcasts of a certain flavour - (mostly) westerners who have lived overseas in Japan, and the thoughts on the culture, etc.
So that flavour gets a certain group of people interested in the topic and in turn, the forum.
If such a thing were to happen on here.. I wonder what the flavour would be? Or if there has to be a certain topic, even.
Also like Elouise's idea of the charity thing. I wonder how that could work. It would probably have to be one specific thing.
I like the ideas of putting up youtube videos, or doing podcasts.
Diva, irre, MZ - you guys might remember reisender from ratskep. He's got another forum where he features podcasts of a certain flavour - (mostly) westerners who have lived overseas in Japan, and the thoughts on the culture, etc.
So that flavour gets a certain group of people interested in the topic and in turn, the forum.
If such a thing were to happen on here.. I wonder what the flavour would be? Or if there has to be a certain topic, even.
Also like Elouise's idea of the charity thing. I wonder how that could work. It would probably have to be one specific thing.
nostrum
2nd February 2012, 12:15 PM
^ thread worthy, mantis.
I remember reis. He quit the board after embarrassing himself in mafia :hehe:
Like the idea of podcasts :thumbsup:
When not on tapa and if not thread ninja'd, will start thread on charity
I remember reis. He quit the board after embarrassing himself in mafia :hehe:
Like the idea of podcasts :thumbsup:
When not on tapa and if not thread ninja'd, will start thread on charity
Cunt
2nd February 2012, 01:41 PM
I have always thought that when humanity discovers the best way to govern humans, it will be obvious because all humans will adopt it.
Pipedream, but you're entitled.Pipedream it may be. I am not expecting to achieve it, but as a point to aim for.
The spark was devogue pissing and moaning over at Ratz again
It sure took a lot of piss from him over the years for you to get off your lazy ass.So I am slow and careful. I was waiting to watch you crash and burn a few more times.
I found it instructive.
To fuck with rights. What is needed are not rights to be granted like dropping dingleberries on the proletariat, but responsibilities to be grasped by those who have the desire.
We sort of agree and disagree on this at the same time. You're perspective is rights deigned by govt. (forums grant) while I view it more like unalienable natural rights (forums owe). Both concepts are probably BS. The bottom line is that rights and responsiblities should be linked. They beg each other.
I don't think we disagree so much. The way to get rights, in my experience, is to take responsibility. For example, if you want the right to life, you should take responsibility for breathing in, and breathing out.
Better analogy might be that when my kids wanted the 'right' to choose their own bedtime, they had to take on the responsibility of getting themselves up in the morning in time to meet their obligations.
--------------------------------
re drawing people to mindromp .. kernel of an idea in mind along the lines of what the admins discussed initially .. there was interest in charitable pursuit .. I'll give it more thought
Please do, but consider this - what charity would want to team up with a guy called cunt who would defend everyone from censorship.
It sounds noble when I say it that way, but you KNOW I mean whichever people are 'the worst kind'.
We won't censor or ban burnt, baby-raping jokes, so Christian Childrens Fund is out.
I heard Christopher Hitchens recommend Oxfam a few times. It might be worth investigating.
-----------------------------
Pipedream, but you're entitled.Pipedream it may be. I am not expecting to achieve it, but as a point to aim for.
The spark was devogue pissing and moaning over at Ratz again
It sure took a lot of piss from him over the years for you to get off your lazy ass.So I am slow and careful. I was waiting to watch you crash and burn a few more times.
I found it instructive.
To fuck with rights. What is needed are not rights to be granted like dropping dingleberries on the proletariat, but responsibilities to be grasped by those who have the desire.
We sort of agree and disagree on this at the same time. You're perspective is rights deigned by govt. (forums grant) while I view it more like unalienable natural rights (forums owe). Both concepts are probably BS. The bottom line is that rights and responsiblities should be linked. They beg each other.
I don't think we disagree so much. The way to get rights, in my experience, is to take responsibility. For example, if you want the right to life, you should take responsibility for breathing in, and breathing out.
Better analogy might be that when my kids wanted the 'right' to choose their own bedtime, they had to take on the responsibility of getting themselves up in the morning in time to meet their obligations.
--------------------------------
re drawing people to mindromp .. kernel of an idea in mind along the lines of what the admins discussed initially .. there was interest in charitable pursuit .. I'll give it more thought
Please do, but consider this - what charity would want to team up with a guy called cunt who would defend everyone from censorship.
It sounds noble when I say it that way, but you KNOW I mean whichever people are 'the worst kind'.
We won't censor or ban burnt, baby-raping jokes, so Christian Childrens Fund is out.
I heard Christopher Hitchens recommend Oxfam a few times. It might be worth investigating.
-----------------------------
amused
2nd February 2012, 01:47 PM
Put a link to MR in your sig at other forums, then post brilliantly interesting posts there.
ksen
2nd February 2012, 02:17 PM
Put a link to MR in your sig at other forums, then post brilliantly interesting posts there.
A lot of posters here will have trouble with the latter part.
Not me of course.
:insertinterestingandwittycomments:
A lot of posters here will have trouble with the latter part.
Not me of course.
:insertinterestingandwittycomments:
nick
2nd February 2012, 02:54 PM
I'm going to go tell everyone on rational.probroads.edu about it!
FedUpWithFaith
2nd February 2012, 03:01 PM
Put a link to MR in your sig at other forums, then post brilliantly interesting posts there.
Yes, we should all just post our usual crap here, or nothing at all since we'll be too busy posting brilliant stuff elsewhere.
When they come to MindRomp to discover all the leftover mediocrity, I'm sure they will be entralled.
Yes, we should all just post our usual crap here, or nothing at all since we'll be too busy posting brilliant stuff elsewhere.
When they come to MindRomp to discover all the leftover mediocrity, I'm sure they will be entralled.
nick
2nd February 2012, 03:04 PM
tbf this place already is leftover mediocrity.
Cunt
2nd February 2012, 03:04 PM
Only where the posts are by 'nick'.
divagreen
2nd February 2012, 03:18 PM
I have always thought that when humanity discovers the best way to govern humans, it will be obvious because all humans will adopt it.Pipedream, but you're entitled.Pipedream it may be. I am not expecting to achieve it, but as a point to aim for.
The spark was devogue pissing and moaning over at Ratz again
It sure took a lot of piss from him over the years for you to get off your lazy ass.So I am slow and careful. I was waiting to watch you crash and burn a few more times.
I found it instructive.
To fuck with rights. What is needed are not rights to be granted like dropping dingleberries on the proletariat, but responsibilities to be grasped by those who have the desire.We sort of agree and disagree on this at the same time. You're perspective is rights deigned by govt. (forums grant) while I view it more like unalienable natural rights (forums owe). Both concepts are probably BS. The bottom line is that rights and responsiblities should be linked. They beg each other.
I don't think we disagree so much. The way to get rights, in my experience, is to take responsibility. For example, if you want the right to life, you should take responsibility for breathing in, and breathing out.
Better analogy might be that when my kids wanted the 'right' to choose their own bedtime, they had to take on the responsibility of getting themselves up in the morning in time to meet their obligations.
--------------------------------
re drawing people to mindromp .. kernel of an idea in mind along the lines of what the admins discussed initially .. there was interest in charitable pursuit .. I'll give it more thought
Please do, but consider this - what charity would want to team up with a guy called cunt who would defend everyone from censorship.
It sounds noble when I say it that way, but you KNOW I mean whichever people are 'the worst kind'.
We won't censor or ban burnt, baby-raping jokes, so Christian Childrens Fund is out.
I heard Christopher Hitchens recommend Oxfam a few times. It might be worth investigating.
-----------------------------
Interesting that the word "responsibility" gets tossed around without there ever being a clear definition of what that expectation entitles, lol.
It has been my experience that the prerequisite of assuming responsibility is the caveat of, "I am my own authority" within a group geared towards less interference from a central authority.
I don't think that it is easy to cultivate this mindset in a "power over" culture.
And not everyone is privy to the process of getting there. Most people's first instinct is to "appeal to authority", lol, just look at some of the more interesting (or drama filled) discussions wrt to science or creationism.
I think personal accountability is a more apt description, for preserving the integrity of the core values of this site.
For example, when someone posts a pedophile apologist argument, they ought to expect a certain amount of ridicule and ad hominems since this goes against the grain of what most people (especially those with children) deem palatable. This is where a pile on could happen and from the outside it looks like a mob mentality but there are those who would argue the outrage comes from moral decency.
Would you be willing to defend the people who make the pedophile apologist arguments? What about the rape ones?
"Everyone should have a voice" and I agree...to the extent that they are willing to be accountable for their posts and deal with the ensuing result and not crybaby to the staff when they are relentlessly pursued by those who deem themselves as the vigilantes of the interwebz.
it isn't an easy road to navigate, IMO.
I am also surprised that no one has brought up the social engineering piece which is pretty important.
The spark was devogue pissing and moaning over at Ratz again
It sure took a lot of piss from him over the years for you to get off your lazy ass.So I am slow and careful. I was waiting to watch you crash and burn a few more times.
I found it instructive.
To fuck with rights. What is needed are not rights to be granted like dropping dingleberries on the proletariat, but responsibilities to be grasped by those who have the desire.We sort of agree and disagree on this at the same time. You're perspective is rights deigned by govt. (forums grant) while I view it more like unalienable natural rights (forums owe). Both concepts are probably BS. The bottom line is that rights and responsiblities should be linked. They beg each other.
I don't think we disagree so much. The way to get rights, in my experience, is to take responsibility. For example, if you want the right to life, you should take responsibility for breathing in, and breathing out.
Better analogy might be that when my kids wanted the 'right' to choose their own bedtime, they had to take on the responsibility of getting themselves up in the morning in time to meet their obligations.
--------------------------------
re drawing people to mindromp .. kernel of an idea in mind along the lines of what the admins discussed initially .. there was interest in charitable pursuit .. I'll give it more thought
Please do, but consider this - what charity would want to team up with a guy called cunt who would defend everyone from censorship.
It sounds noble when I say it that way, but you KNOW I mean whichever people are 'the worst kind'.
We won't censor or ban burnt, baby-raping jokes, so Christian Childrens Fund is out.
I heard Christopher Hitchens recommend Oxfam a few times. It might be worth investigating.
-----------------------------
Interesting that the word "responsibility" gets tossed around without there ever being a clear definition of what that expectation entitles, lol.
It has been my experience that the prerequisite of assuming responsibility is the caveat of, "I am my own authority" within a group geared towards less interference from a central authority.
I don't think that it is easy to cultivate this mindset in a "power over" culture.
And not everyone is privy to the process of getting there. Most people's first instinct is to "appeal to authority", lol, just look at some of the more interesting (or drama filled) discussions wrt to science or creationism.
I think personal accountability is a more apt description, for preserving the integrity of the core values of this site.
For example, when someone posts a pedophile apologist argument, they ought to expect a certain amount of ridicule and ad hominems since this goes against the grain of what most people (especially those with children) deem palatable. This is where a pile on could happen and from the outside it looks like a mob mentality but there are those who would argue the outrage comes from moral decency.
Would you be willing to defend the people who make the pedophile apologist arguments? What about the rape ones?
"Everyone should have a voice" and I agree...to the extent that they are willing to be accountable for their posts and deal with the ensuing result and not crybaby to the staff when they are relentlessly pursued by those who deem themselves as the vigilantes of the interwebz.
it isn't an easy road to navigate, IMO.
I am also surprised that no one has brought up the social engineering piece which is pretty important.
Cunt
2nd February 2012, 03:24 PM
Would you be willing to defend the people who make the pedophile apologist arguments? What about the rape ones? Depends what you mean. If you mean defend their ability to post here - yes. If you mean defend them from some kind of prosecution - no.
If we can silence a group (say, by calling them 'pedophiles'), then we are working against honest freedom of expression.
Much worse than a pedophile (who could barely ruin a thousand lives a month) is a lady who advocates genocide against brown people. I would also defend her ability to post here.
I am also surprised that no one has brought up the social engineering piece which is pretty important.
I don't know just what is meant by this, but I fear I have been doing it already.
I hope that many sources send users our way...I don't want to hand-pick.
If we can silence a group (say, by calling them 'pedophiles'), then we are working against honest freedom of expression.
Much worse than a pedophile (who could barely ruin a thousand lives a month) is a lady who advocates genocide against brown people. I would also defend her ability to post here.
I am also surprised that no one has brought up the social engineering piece which is pretty important.
I don't know just what is meant by this, but I fear I have been doing it already.
I hope that many sources send users our way...I don't want to hand-pick.
divagreen
2nd February 2012, 03:54 PM
If we can silence a group (say, by calling them 'pedophiles'), then we are working against honest freedom of expression.
When you say "we", what do you mean? Staff? Or the "mob"?
and when you say silence a group, are you saying that that calling someone a pedophile who presents pedophile apologist arguments is discouraged? Where does the whole ethos of personal responsibility and accountability (my word) step in? Is it only sided with those who seek to offend or those who's beliefs are offensive to other people?
These are questions that I have seen come up, over and over again and tbh, I haven't seen any easy answers to.
Also I am questioning you Cunt, not shitting on you, I really want to understand where your parameters lie. :hug:
Much worse than a pedophile (who could barely ruin a thousand lives a month) is a lady who advocates genocide against brown people. I would also defend her ability to post here.Inclusiveness is good. :yes:
But I think that there will come a time where you will have to decide if you want a niche site that acheives a "critical mass" or one that is a nest site of banned posters from other sites that might be periphereally related to this one.
I don't know just what is meant by this, but I fear I have been doing it already.
I hope that many sources send users our way...I don't want to hand-pick.
lol, you were social engineering on your "discuss forum". :p
Social engineering is not bad. It is about getting the right people involved in order to acheive a directive that meets the ethos.
When you say "we", what do you mean? Staff? Or the "mob"?
and when you say silence a group, are you saying that that calling someone a pedophile who presents pedophile apologist arguments is discouraged? Where does the whole ethos of personal responsibility and accountability (my word) step in? Is it only sided with those who seek to offend or those who's beliefs are offensive to other people?
These are questions that I have seen come up, over and over again and tbh, I haven't seen any easy answers to.
Also I am questioning you Cunt, not shitting on you, I really want to understand where your parameters lie. :hug:
Much worse than a pedophile (who could barely ruin a thousand lives a month) is a lady who advocates genocide against brown people. I would also defend her ability to post here.Inclusiveness is good. :yes:
But I think that there will come a time where you will have to decide if you want a niche site that acheives a "critical mass" or one that is a nest site of banned posters from other sites that might be periphereally related to this one.
I don't know just what is meant by this, but I fear I have been doing it already.
I hope that many sources send users our way...I don't want to hand-pick.
lol, you were social engineering on your "discuss forum". :p
Social engineering is not bad. It is about getting the right people involved in order to acheive a directive that meets the ethos.
FedUpWithFaith
2nd February 2012, 04:07 PM
I have always thought that when humanity discovers the best way to govern humans, it will be obvious because all humans will adopt it.Pipedream, but you're entitled.Pipedream it may be. I am not expecting to achieve it, but as a point to aim for.
The spark was devogue pissing and moaning over at Ratz again
It sure took a lot of piss from him over the years for you to get off your lazy ass.So I am slow and careful. I was waiting to watch you crash and burn a few more times.
I found it instructive.
To fuck with rights. What is needed are not rights to be granted like dropping dingleberries on the proletariat, but responsibilities to be grasped by those who have the desire.We sort of agree and disagree on this at the same time. You're perspective is rights deigned by govt. (forums grant) while I view it more like unalienable natural rights (forums owe). Both concepts are probably BS. The bottom line is that rights and responsiblities should be linked. They beg each other.
I don't think we disagree so much. The way to get rights, in my experience, is to take responsibility. For example, if you want the right to life, you should take responsibility for breathing in, and breathing out.
Better analogy might be that when my kids wanted the 'right' to choose their own bedtime, they had to take on the responsibility of getting themselves up in the morning in time to meet their obligations.
--------------------------------
re drawing people to mindromp .. kernel of an idea in mind along the lines of what the admins discussed initially .. there was interest in charitable pursuit .. I'll give it more thought
Please do, but consider this - what charity would want to team up with a guy called cunt who would defend everyone from censorship.
It sounds noble when I say it that way, but you KNOW I mean whichever people are 'the worst kind'.
We won't censor or ban burnt, baby-raping jokes, so Christian Childrens Fund is out.
I heard Christopher Hitchens recommend Oxfam a few times. It might be worth investigating.
-----------------------------
Interesting that the word "responsibility" gets tossed around without there ever being a clear definition of what that expectation entitles, lol.
It has been my experience that the prerequisite of assuming responsibility is the caveat of, "I am my own authority" within a group geared towards less interference from a central authority.
I don't think that it is easy to cultivate this mindset in a "power over" culture.
And not everyone is privy to the process of getting there. Most people's first instinct is to "appeal to authority", lol, just look at some of the more interesting (or drama filled) discussions wrt to science or creationism.
I think personal accountability is a more apt description, for preserving the integrity of the core values of this site.
For example, when someone posts a pedophile apologist argument, they ought to expect a certain amount of ridicule and ad hominems since this goes against the grain of what most people (especially those with children) deem palatable. This is where a pile on could happen and from the outside it looks like a mob mentality but there are those who would argue the outrage comes from moral decency.
Would you be willing to defend the people who make the pedophile apologist arguments? What about the rape ones?
"Everyone should have a voice" and I agree...to the extent that they are willing to be accountable for their posts and deal with the ensuing result and not crybaby to the staff when they are relentlessly pursued by those who deem themselves as the vigilantes of the interwebz.
it isn't an easy road to navigate, IMO.
I am also surprised that no one has brought up the social engineering piece which is pretty important.
In a solipsistic or schizophrenic haze, I'm beginning to think you're my sock puppet.
The spark was devogue pissing and moaning over at Ratz again
It sure took a lot of piss from him over the years for you to get off your lazy ass.So I am slow and careful. I was waiting to watch you crash and burn a few more times.
I found it instructive.
To fuck with rights. What is needed are not rights to be granted like dropping dingleberries on the proletariat, but responsibilities to be grasped by those who have the desire.We sort of agree and disagree on this at the same time. You're perspective is rights deigned by govt. (forums grant) while I view it more like unalienable natural rights (forums owe). Both concepts are probably BS. The bottom line is that rights and responsiblities should be linked. They beg each other.
I don't think we disagree so much. The way to get rights, in my experience, is to take responsibility. For example, if you want the right to life, you should take responsibility for breathing in, and breathing out.
Better analogy might be that when my kids wanted the 'right' to choose their own bedtime, they had to take on the responsibility of getting themselves up in the morning in time to meet their obligations.
--------------------------------
re drawing people to mindromp .. kernel of an idea in mind along the lines of what the admins discussed initially .. there was interest in charitable pursuit .. I'll give it more thought
Please do, but consider this - what charity would want to team up with a guy called cunt who would defend everyone from censorship.
It sounds noble when I say it that way, but you KNOW I mean whichever people are 'the worst kind'.
We won't censor or ban burnt, baby-raping jokes, so Christian Childrens Fund is out.
I heard Christopher Hitchens recommend Oxfam a few times. It might be worth investigating.
-----------------------------
Interesting that the word "responsibility" gets tossed around without there ever being a clear definition of what that expectation entitles, lol.
It has been my experience that the prerequisite of assuming responsibility is the caveat of, "I am my own authority" within a group geared towards less interference from a central authority.
I don't think that it is easy to cultivate this mindset in a "power over" culture.
And not everyone is privy to the process of getting there. Most people's first instinct is to "appeal to authority", lol, just look at some of the more interesting (or drama filled) discussions wrt to science or creationism.
I think personal accountability is a more apt description, for preserving the integrity of the core values of this site.
For example, when someone posts a pedophile apologist argument, they ought to expect a certain amount of ridicule and ad hominems since this goes against the grain of what most people (especially those with children) deem palatable. This is where a pile on could happen and from the outside it looks like a mob mentality but there are those who would argue the outrage comes from moral decency.
Would you be willing to defend the people who make the pedophile apologist arguments? What about the rape ones?
"Everyone should have a voice" and I agree...to the extent that they are willing to be accountable for their posts and deal with the ensuing result and not crybaby to the staff when they are relentlessly pursued by those who deem themselves as the vigilantes of the interwebz.
it isn't an easy road to navigate, IMO.
I am also surprised that no one has brought up the social engineering piece which is pretty important.
In a solipsistic or schizophrenic haze, I'm beginning to think you're my sock puppet.
amused
2nd February 2012, 04:13 PM
Put a link to MR in your sig at other forums, then post brilliantly interesting posts there.
Yes, we should all just post our usual crap here, or nothing at all since we'll be too busy posting brilliant stuff elsewhere.
When they come to MindRomp to discover all the leftover mediocrity, I'm sure they will be entralled.
:hehe:
Yes, we should all just post our usual crap here, or nothing at all since we'll be too busy posting brilliant stuff elsewhere.
When they come to MindRomp to discover all the leftover mediocrity, I'm sure they will be entralled.
:hehe:
ksen
2nd February 2012, 05:01 PM
solipsistic
get out
get out
FedUpWithFaith
2nd February 2012, 05:50 PM
But I think that there will come a time where you will have to decide if you want a niche site that acheives a "critical mass" or one that is a nest site of banned posters from other sites that might be periphereally related to this one.
You can have your cake and eat it too, if you have any sort of passionate and controversial driver of the forum as I discussed in an earleir post.
At RD.net it was Dawkins outspoken "New Atheism" that not only drove people like us there but all the anti-Dawkins people. For me, it was often the creationist trolls, self-righteous hellfire types and occassional Islamist hardliner who were often more fun that the mainstream members.
Invariably, we would all gang up on those people in our own self-righteousness and drive most of them away - not by banning them (though that did happen too often) but simply because we made mincement out of their ridiculous arguments and/or them or they tired of trying to fight when they saw they were making no headway. It was good sport and I loved it. I really miss it and all the drama that went with it.
Often, in the course of arguing against the "interlopers", I would find some of my fellow "enlightened" atheists quite complacent or aggressive about stifling the interloper's free speech. Or some would argue with the interloper in a manner that would also contravene their own cherished beliefs and logic expressed elsewhere in the forum (e.g., the death penalty ;]), if applied to those cases. Ever the provacateur, I loved to point that out. I hate hypocrisy, especially among "my own kind", so I was often even more vociferous there than opposing creationist nut cases.
There were some steadfast anti-atheists at RD who were not nuts and did not give up. A few were quite intelligent and articulate. I remember one well, his name was Iano, from Ireland. My first post after joining RD.net was against him and my first of two suspensions from RD was because of an ad hominem attack I made on him in response to what I judged to be a set of repugnent ideas this man sincerely believed.
He played by the rules. He always engaged in thoughtful polite dialogue and would always respond to every point. He never twisted logic or engaged in other unfair argumentative tactics. I actually learned a lot about New Testament interpretations from him I hadn't thought of before. He earned my respect and eventual friendship. In fact, DaveD's logo was originally mine (Jesus on the Toilet) as I had asked him to create it just for me. I replaced it when Iano asked me out of respect.
Iano was so sharp that he occassionally beat my fellow athiests in arguments. That was a no-no. He was hoisted and baited on trumped up charges and when he ONCE lashed out in some non-profane retaliation, he was immediately perma-banned with no interim suspensions or anything. I fought to have him reinstated and Charlou joined me (she was the only one with the guts) and I finally got the Admin, behind the scenes, to agree. But by then Iano had moved on and decided not to rejoin.
This all brings me to a major point. I'm as big a free speech advocate and fighter as you will find. But even I agree there are limits and these depend sometimes on pragmatic structural limitations. If this forum were to grow big, it would have to institute some minor (hopefully) curbs simply for housekeeping. We already do that by banning spammers.
As far as I am concerned, I want a forum where you can say anything as long as it's real dialogue involving real human interaction, logic, humor, and/or argument. I want a forum that emboldens and fosters dialogue. You can't have dialogue with a spammer or a preacher who only comes to post articles breathing hellfire. Don't get me wrong, preachers and pedophiles can come here and post all the links and articles they want, as long as they're prepared to engage me in real discourse. Otherwise, if you give them a chance (OK, lots of chances) and they fail to engage I'm happy to see them banned just so I don't have to sift through the clutter. (We have no need for such rules now but might if we got big.) And I expect, by extension, the same from my fellow members when you vehemently think I'm wrong about something. You can call me all the names you want, if you truly engage me as well. Otherwise, you're just part of the sheep and I won't give a shit what you say.
You can have your cake and eat it too, if you have any sort of passionate and controversial driver of the forum as I discussed in an earleir post.
At RD.net it was Dawkins outspoken "New Atheism" that not only drove people like us there but all the anti-Dawkins people. For me, it was often the creationist trolls, self-righteous hellfire types and occassional Islamist hardliner who were often more fun that the mainstream members.
Invariably, we would all gang up on those people in our own self-righteousness and drive most of them away - not by banning them (though that did happen too often) but simply because we made mincement out of their ridiculous arguments and/or them or they tired of trying to fight when they saw they were making no headway. It was good sport and I loved it. I really miss it and all the drama that went with it.
Often, in the course of arguing against the "interlopers", I would find some of my fellow "enlightened" atheists quite complacent or aggressive about stifling the interloper's free speech. Or some would argue with the interloper in a manner that would also contravene their own cherished beliefs and logic expressed elsewhere in the forum (e.g., the death penalty ;]), if applied to those cases. Ever the provacateur, I loved to point that out. I hate hypocrisy, especially among "my own kind", so I was often even more vociferous there than opposing creationist nut cases.
There were some steadfast anti-atheists at RD who were not nuts and did not give up. A few were quite intelligent and articulate. I remember one well, his name was Iano, from Ireland. My first post after joining RD.net was against him and my first of two suspensions from RD was because of an ad hominem attack I made on him in response to what I judged to be a set of repugnent ideas this man sincerely believed.
He played by the rules. He always engaged in thoughtful polite dialogue and would always respond to every point. He never twisted logic or engaged in other unfair argumentative tactics. I actually learned a lot about New Testament interpretations from him I hadn't thought of before. He earned my respect and eventual friendship. In fact, DaveD's logo was originally mine (Jesus on the Toilet) as I had asked him to create it just for me. I replaced it when Iano asked me out of respect.
Iano was so sharp that he occassionally beat my fellow athiests in arguments. That was a no-no. He was hoisted and baited on trumped up charges and when he ONCE lashed out in some non-profane retaliation, he was immediately perma-banned with no interim suspensions or anything. I fought to have him reinstated and Charlou joined me (she was the only one with the guts) and I finally got the Admin, behind the scenes, to agree. But by then Iano had moved on and decided not to rejoin.
This all brings me to a major point. I'm as big a free speech advocate and fighter as you will find. But even I agree there are limits and these depend sometimes on pragmatic structural limitations. If this forum were to grow big, it would have to institute some minor (hopefully) curbs simply for housekeeping. We already do that by banning spammers.
As far as I am concerned, I want a forum where you can say anything as long as it's real dialogue involving real human interaction, logic, humor, and/or argument. I want a forum that emboldens and fosters dialogue. You can't have dialogue with a spammer or a preacher who only comes to post articles breathing hellfire. Don't get me wrong, preachers and pedophiles can come here and post all the links and articles they want, as long as they're prepared to engage me in real discourse. Otherwise, if you give them a chance (OK, lots of chances) and they fail to engage I'm happy to see them banned just so I don't have to sift through the clutter. (We have no need for such rules now but might if we got big.) And I expect, by extension, the same from my fellow members when you vehemently think I'm wrong about something. You can call me all the names you want, if you truly engage me as well. Otherwise, you're just part of the sheep and I won't give a shit what you say.
nick
2nd February 2012, 07:07 PM
We need the death penalty for you.
nostrum
2nd February 2012, 07:08 PM
Didn't you guys use to be friends?
FedUpWithFaith
2nd February 2012, 07:50 PM
I unfriended him. He's a fool.
nick
2nd February 2012, 07:53 PM
I'm not a fool. I am the smartest person on mindromps.
FedUpWithFaith
2nd February 2012, 08:00 PM
not saying much (now I sound like you)
nick
2nd February 2012, 08:11 PM
That's good. You have taken your first step into a larger world.
FedUpWithFaith
2nd February 2012, 09:07 PM
Are you saying you're fat?
borealis
2nd February 2012, 09:10 PM
Nick has lost over 100 pounds!
FedUpWithFaith
2nd February 2012, 09:11 PM
He's divorced and fat?
ksen
2nd February 2012, 09:11 PM
Nick has lost over 100 pounds!
It's true.
It's true.
Cunt
3rd February 2012, 12:19 AM
If we can silence a group (say, by calling them 'pedophiles'), then we are working against honest freedom of expression.
When you say "we", what do you mean? Staff? Or the "mob"?By we I meant humans.
and when you say silence a group, are you saying that that calling someone a pedophile who presents pedophile apologist arguments is discouraged?Nope, call anyone anything you want. What I was referring to is when anyone who, for instance, points out that someone banging a lot of 14 year olds may not be a pedophile, they may be dismissed by may as a 'pedophile apologist'. The reality is, someone who abuses children may be roundly hated, but 'pedophile' is a diagnosis of a mental disorder, and a specific one. I would be very hesitant to use it even on someone who had it stamped on their psychiatric file.
Because of my awareness of my ignorance, I would prefer 'someone who has been diagnosed as a pedophile' for them.
And for someone who abuses children (which could include persons diagnosed with pedophilia, hebephilia and ephebophilia) I think plain English is better (i.e.-child abuser) because it doesn't apply psychiatric labels inappropriately.
Where does the whole ethos of personal responsibility and accountability (my word) step in? Is it only sided with those who seek to offend or those who's beliefs are offensive to other people? Whether someone 'seeks to offend' or not is not really relevant. One large reason is that it is really tough to assign a motive to someone, when even the offender may be a bit murky in their understanding of their motives..
Offence is something I decide to feel myself, and others may say it is out of their control, but that doesn't wash much with me. If you are offended, by all means, say so. It just doesn't mean much of anything, usually.
These are questions that I have seen come up, over and over again and tbh, I haven't seen any easy answers to.
Also I am questioning you Cunt, not shitting on you, I really want to understand where your parameters lie. :hug:Dig all you like, maybe I'll find some bullshit I can expunge from my person. That's usually good.
Much worse than a pedophile (who could barely ruin a thousand lives a month) is a lady who advocates genocide against brown people. I would also defend her ability to post here.Inclusiveness is good. :yes:Thanks, I think so, too. I have seen the effect of someone being ostracised.
But I think that there will come a time where you will have to decide if you want a niche site that acheives a "critical mass" or one that is a nest site of banned posters from other sites that might be periphereally related to this one. I want everyone, but I have to acknowledge that some (i.e. - Gawdzilla, someone I like) will not stay because some don't agree with 'compassionate banning' or whatever he would describe it as.
The reason folks are banned is that the main group wants it that way. I get that. Thing is, in an environment like this, I think we are all safe enough to stop that shit and let people have their say. Even when it is offensive. Especially then.
I don't know just what is meant by this, but I fear I have been doing it already.
I hope that many sources send users our way...I don't want to hand-pick.
lol, you were social engineering on your "discuss forum". :p
Social engineering is not bad. It is about getting the right people involved in order to acheive a directive that meets the ethos.
I guess I just don't like the term, but I AM hoping to help build a place where everyone can have a say. I know we are excluding many, but I am avoiding those pails of worms for the moment...maybe I shouldn't...
When you say "we", what do you mean? Staff? Or the "mob"?By we I meant humans.
and when you say silence a group, are you saying that that calling someone a pedophile who presents pedophile apologist arguments is discouraged?Nope, call anyone anything you want. What I was referring to is when anyone who, for instance, points out that someone banging a lot of 14 year olds may not be a pedophile, they may be dismissed by may as a 'pedophile apologist'. The reality is, someone who abuses children may be roundly hated, but 'pedophile' is a diagnosis of a mental disorder, and a specific one. I would be very hesitant to use it even on someone who had it stamped on their psychiatric file.
Because of my awareness of my ignorance, I would prefer 'someone who has been diagnosed as a pedophile' for them.
And for someone who abuses children (which could include persons diagnosed with pedophilia, hebephilia and ephebophilia) I think plain English is better (i.e.-child abuser) because it doesn't apply psychiatric labels inappropriately.
Where does the whole ethos of personal responsibility and accountability (my word) step in? Is it only sided with those who seek to offend or those who's beliefs are offensive to other people? Whether someone 'seeks to offend' or not is not really relevant. One large reason is that it is really tough to assign a motive to someone, when even the offender may be a bit murky in their understanding of their motives..
Offence is something I decide to feel myself, and others may say it is out of their control, but that doesn't wash much with me. If you are offended, by all means, say so. It just doesn't mean much of anything, usually.
These are questions that I have seen come up, over and over again and tbh, I haven't seen any easy answers to.
Also I am questioning you Cunt, not shitting on you, I really want to understand where your parameters lie. :hug:Dig all you like, maybe I'll find some bullshit I can expunge from my person. That's usually good.
Much worse than a pedophile (who could barely ruin a thousand lives a month) is a lady who advocates genocide against brown people. I would also defend her ability to post here.Inclusiveness is good. :yes:Thanks, I think so, too. I have seen the effect of someone being ostracised.
But I think that there will come a time where you will have to decide if you want a niche site that acheives a "critical mass" or one that is a nest site of banned posters from other sites that might be periphereally related to this one. I want everyone, but I have to acknowledge that some (i.e. - Gawdzilla, someone I like) will not stay because some don't agree with 'compassionate banning' or whatever he would describe it as.
The reason folks are banned is that the main group wants it that way. I get that. Thing is, in an environment like this, I think we are all safe enough to stop that shit and let people have their say. Even when it is offensive. Especially then.
I don't know just what is meant by this, but I fear I have been doing it already.
I hope that many sources send users our way...I don't want to hand-pick.
lol, you were social engineering on your "discuss forum". :p
Social engineering is not bad. It is about getting the right people involved in order to acheive a directive that meets the ethos.
I guess I just don't like the term, but I AM hoping to help build a place where everyone can have a say. I know we are excluding many, but I am avoiding those pails of worms for the moment...maybe I shouldn't...
Cunt
3rd February 2012, 12:25 AM
By the way, FedUpWithFaith, I agree in principle with what you say, but I don't know how to filter in practice without leaving way too much room for Iano to be punted (as a terrific example)
That's why I so firmly fight to prop the door open - ALL the way.
That's why I so firmly fight to prop the door open - ALL the way.
FedUpWithFaith
3rd February 2012, 12:50 AM
By the way, FedUpWithFaith, I agree in principle with what you say, but I don't know how to filter in practice without leaving way too much room for Iano to be punted (as a terrific example)
That's why I so firmly fight to prop the door open - ALL the way.
We agree, though you waited a good long time to reply you fucker.
The bottom line is that anybody who engages in real dialogue (with all that word entails) should NEVER be punted PERIOD no matter how offensive the discussion might be to some And if Forums had a Bill of Rights that would be my Article #1. I know you snickered at the Bill of Rights thing and Diva quite wisely added to your implicit concerns about personal accountabilty. But I would argue that any person who enables dialogue is implicitly exercising sufficient responsibility and accountability.
Of course, anybody considered offensive enough by the mob will invariably be accussed of evading/distorting/preventing dialogue anyway. Been there done that. So this condition does not offer sufficient protection. But with sufficient people like you who understand what I'm saying and willing to speak up it should and there are other protections that can be afforded if we wanted to discuss them. I just don't think we need to yet except as an enjoyable intellectual exercise.
That's why I so firmly fight to prop the door open - ALL the way.
We agree, though you waited a good long time to reply you fucker.
The bottom line is that anybody who engages in real dialogue (with all that word entails) should NEVER be punted PERIOD no matter how offensive the discussion might be to some And if Forums had a Bill of Rights that would be my Article #1. I know you snickered at the Bill of Rights thing and Diva quite wisely added to your implicit concerns about personal accountabilty. But I would argue that any person who enables dialogue is implicitly exercising sufficient responsibility and accountability.
Of course, anybody considered offensive enough by the mob will invariably be accussed of evading/distorting/preventing dialogue anyway. Been there done that. So this condition does not offer sufficient protection. But with sufficient people like you who understand what I'm saying and willing to speak up it should and there are other protections that can be afforded if we wanted to discuss them. I just don't think we need to yet except as an enjoyable intellectual exercise.
Hermit
3rd February 2012, 01:06 AM
I want a forum where you can say anything as long as it's real dialogue involving real human interaction, logic, humor, and/or argument. I want a forum that emboldens and fosters dialogue. You can't have dialogue with a spammer or a preacher who only comes to post articles breathing hellfire. Don't get me wrong, preachers and pedophiles can come here and post all the links and articles they want, as long as they're prepared to engage me in real discourse. Otherwise, if you give them a chance (OK, lots of chances) and they fail to engage I'm happy to see them banned just so I don't have to sift through the clutter.
The moment you start compelling members to behave in a particular fashion, or prohibit them from indulging in others, you are opening the door to the abuse of those regulations. In theory, I too would like to see those who contribute nothing by way of engagement in the logic/humour/argument/whatever departments, but in practice it seems highly likely that the rules will become tools to remove people for reasons other than they constitute clutter and nothing else. You mentioned Ianos. It shouldn't be difficult to come up with scores of other examples from the several forums you are more or less familiar with.
If a need is perceived to introduce such rules because of the size the forum has grown to, it might just be a case of having to destroy the village in order to save it. Luckily, internet forums are not significant in the grander schemes of things, but I hate it when politicians fall into the same trap. Our current Australian government is a case in point. In order to remain in power it does absolutely nothing that differentiates it from the opposition. It has destroyed its justification to be the government.
The moment you start compelling members to behave in a particular fashion, or prohibit them from indulging in others, you are opening the door to the abuse of those regulations. In theory, I too would like to see those who contribute nothing by way of engagement in the logic/humour/argument/whatever departments, but in practice it seems highly likely that the rules will become tools to remove people for reasons other than they constitute clutter and nothing else. You mentioned Ianos. It shouldn't be difficult to come up with scores of other examples from the several forums you are more or less familiar with.
If a need is perceived to introduce such rules because of the size the forum has grown to, it might just be a case of having to destroy the village in order to save it. Luckily, internet forums are not significant in the grander schemes of things, but I hate it when politicians fall into the same trap. Our current Australian government is a case in point. In order to remain in power it does absolutely nothing that differentiates it from the opposition. It has destroyed its justification to be the government.
FedUpWithFaith
3rd February 2012, 01:38 AM
I want a forum where you can say anything as long as it's real dialogue involving real human interaction, logic, humor, and/or argument. I want a forum that emboldens and fosters dialogue. You can't have dialogue with a spammer or a preacher who only comes to post articles breathing hellfire. Don't get me wrong, preachers and pedophiles can come here and post all the links and articles they want, as long as they're prepared to engage me in real discourse. Otherwise, if you give them a chance (OK, lots of chances) and they fail to engage I'm happy to see them banned just so I don't have to sift through the clutter.
The moment you start compelling members to behave in a particular fashion, or prohibit them from indulging in others, you are opening the door to the abuse of those regulations. In theory, I too would like to see those who contribute nothing by way of engagement in the logic/humour/argument/whatever departments, but in practice it seems highly likely that the rules will become tools to remove people for reasons other than they constitute clutter and nothing else. You mentioned Ianos. It shouldn't be difficult to come up with scores of other examples from the several forums you are more or less familiar with.
If a need is perceived to introduce such rules because of the size the forum has grown to, it might just be a case of having to destroy the village in order to save it. Luckily, internet forums are not significant in the grander schemes of things, but I hate it when politicians fall into the same trap. Our current Australian government is a case in point. In order to remain in power it does absolutely nothing that differentiates it from the opposition. It has destroyed its justification to be the government.
Are we in disagreement? 'Cause I don't see it. If we do disagree it might because i had swtiched gears a little. My response here was not so much intended to enforce dialogue as to say if there is any question that somebody is engaging in it they should be protected. We should err to protect someone's posting "rights' unless we can establish beyond a reasonable doubt that they aren't engaged in real dialogue. That's usually very hard to prove. Iano could only have been banned by a clear violation of this standard.
That said, I certainly agree that the more rules you have, the more potential for abuse. Contingent risk always goes up with contingent complexity. You only take on the additional risk if you find additional value from that complexity.
Your point on governments is very true. We have a very complex society that does not always seem to justify the risks. Politicians will try to artificially make the risk look lower by co-opting the contingencies thus making things look less complex too, when all they have really done is subtracted opportunities at a potentially very high opportunity cost to society. Ultimately they confuse complexity (realized) with degrees of freedom (unrealized). This is true in all human organizations I think.
The moment you start compelling members to behave in a particular fashion, or prohibit them from indulging in others, you are opening the door to the abuse of those regulations. In theory, I too would like to see those who contribute nothing by way of engagement in the logic/humour/argument/whatever departments, but in practice it seems highly likely that the rules will become tools to remove people for reasons other than they constitute clutter and nothing else. You mentioned Ianos. It shouldn't be difficult to come up with scores of other examples from the several forums you are more or less familiar with.
If a need is perceived to introduce such rules because of the size the forum has grown to, it might just be a case of having to destroy the village in order to save it. Luckily, internet forums are not significant in the grander schemes of things, but I hate it when politicians fall into the same trap. Our current Australian government is a case in point. In order to remain in power it does absolutely nothing that differentiates it from the opposition. It has destroyed its justification to be the government.
Are we in disagreement? 'Cause I don't see it. If we do disagree it might because i had swtiched gears a little. My response here was not so much intended to enforce dialogue as to say if there is any question that somebody is engaging in it they should be protected. We should err to protect someone's posting "rights' unless we can establish beyond a reasonable doubt that they aren't engaged in real dialogue. That's usually very hard to prove. Iano could only have been banned by a clear violation of this standard.
That said, I certainly agree that the more rules you have, the more potential for abuse. Contingent risk always goes up with contingent complexity. You only take on the additional risk if you find additional value from that complexity.
Your point on governments is very true. We have a very complex society that does not always seem to justify the risks. Politicians will try to artificially make the risk look lower by co-opting the contingencies thus making things look less complex too, when all they have really done is subtracted opportunities at a potentially very high opportunity cost to society. Ultimately they confuse complexity (realized) with degrees of freedom (unrealized). This is true in all human organizations I think.
amused
3rd February 2012, 01:42 AM
We should err to protect someone's posting "rights' unless we can establish beyond a reasonable doubt that they aren't engaged in real dialogue.
Wait, we're supposed to engage in real dialogue?
Fuck that.
Wait, we're supposed to engage in real dialogue?
Fuck that.
Hermit
3rd February 2012, 01:46 AM
Are we in disagreement? 'Cause I don't see it. If we do disagree it might because i had swtiched gears a little. My response here was not so much intended to enforce dialogue as to say if there is any question that somebody is engaging in it they should be protected.
What? :??:
I'm happy to see them banned just so I don't have to sift through the clutter.
What? :??:
I'm happy to see them banned just so I don't have to sift through the clutter.
borealis
3rd February 2012, 01:55 AM
We should err to protect someone's posting "rights' unless we can establish beyond a reasonable doubt that they aren't engaged in real dialogue.
Wait, we're supposed to engage in real dialogue?
Fuck that.
Ino, scary eh?
Imaginary dialogue has its place!
Wait, we're supposed to engage in real dialogue?
Fuck that.
Ino, scary eh?
Imaginary dialogue has its place!
Cunt
3rd February 2012, 02:01 AM
Of course, anybody considered offensive enough by the mob will invariably be accussed of evading/distorting/preventing dialogue anyway. Been there done that. So this condition does not offer sufficient protection. But with sufficient people like you who understand what I'm saying and willing to speak up it should and there are other protections that can be afforded if we wanted to discuss them. I just don't think we need to yet except as an enjoyable intellectual exercise.
There are a couple here I would trust to defend me, but I don't know if I am one of them. I might give up too easily, or accept and shut up too often.
I mainly don't like the idea of dialogue being necessary because I have known a few people who might very much enjoy reposting the same thing over and over.
Trainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstr ainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrai nstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrains trainstrainstrainstrainstraisntrainstrainstrainstr ainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrai nstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrianstrainstrains trainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstr ainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrai nstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrains trainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstr ainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrai nstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrains trainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstr ainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrai nstrainstrainstrainstrainstraisntrainstrainstrains trainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstr ainstrianstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrai nstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrains trainstrainstrains
Who is to say that they won't gain something from posting and the kind of reply they end up seeing? If I deserve a certain amount of server space to disembogue my contribution to all of you, so does my neighbour John (name changed to protect somebody or other) who doesn't type that I know of, but likes to stack things. Just because my ejaculations have better spelling, or otherwise more entertainment value according to some, I want us both free to post.
I don't mind banning spam, but if I had my way it would all go into a museum of shit.
By the way, the museum of shit would be a cool playground to someone who hated spam and had the computer skills to hunt down the fuckers and do unto them. Or maybe simply flood the corrupt companies with a real-life DDoS attack (everyone contacts them with minor queries and doesn't ever fall for the bait)
So there is an idea (probably someone else had it first)
Make a 'bait' forum, to attract spammers. Collect their information and retaliate while normal people volunteer to waste the time of the offending companies or scammers.
Now to find seed money and someone else to do all the work...hmmm...
There are a couple here I would trust to defend me, but I don't know if I am one of them. I might give up too easily, or accept and shut up too often.
I mainly don't like the idea of dialogue being necessary because I have known a few people who might very much enjoy reposting the same thing over and over.
Trainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstr ainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrai nstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrains trainstrainstrainstrainstraisntrainstrainstrainstr ainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrai nstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrianstrainstrains trainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstr ainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrai nstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrains trainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstr ainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrai nstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrains trainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstr ainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrai nstrainstrainstrainstrainstraisntrainstrainstrains trainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstr ainstrianstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrai nstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrains trainstrainstrains
Who is to say that they won't gain something from posting and the kind of reply they end up seeing? If I deserve a certain amount of server space to disembogue my contribution to all of you, so does my neighbour John (name changed to protect somebody or other) who doesn't type that I know of, but likes to stack things. Just because my ejaculations have better spelling, or otherwise more entertainment value according to some, I want us both free to post.
I don't mind banning spam, but if I had my way it would all go into a museum of shit.
By the way, the museum of shit would be a cool playground to someone who hated spam and had the computer skills to hunt down the fuckers and do unto them. Or maybe simply flood the corrupt companies with a real-life DDoS attack (everyone contacts them with minor queries and doesn't ever fall for the bait)
So there is an idea (probably someone else had it first)
Make a 'bait' forum, to attract spammers. Collect their information and retaliate while normal people volunteer to waste the time of the offending companies or scammers.
Now to find seed money and someone else to do all the work...hmmm...
FedUpWithFaith
3rd February 2012, 02:05 AM
Are we in disagreement? 'Cause I don't see it. If we do disagree it might because i had swtiched gears a little. My response here was not so much intended to enforce dialogue as to say if there is any question that somebody is engaging in it they should be protected.
What? :??:
I'm happy to see them banned just so I don't have to sift through the clutter.
OK i see your problem - or mine since I was doing some shuffling back and forth and not too concise. I don't think this is worth much elaboration unless you do but I'm happy to oblige.
The second quote was a matter of personal preference ASSUMING, in an ideal world, that this cluttering poster was easy to define - which is very true for spammers right now but not for many other conditions you and I could argue about. So I turned an issue of selective positives on its head into one of avoiding false positives. In other words, let's pretend we had a forum where we could vote anyone off by majority rule EXCEPT that the vote would be invalidated by minimal evidence that the poster had done X, Y, Z, etc. Where X, Y, and Z could include, among many other things various aottributes of true dialogue engagement or any other qualifier of merit.
Again, this is ideal and no forum would be. It sort of implies a forum would have a sort of Supreme Court that could overide the masses. That's probably not very practical but some of the facets of an earlier post I made in this thread would be.
What? :??:
I'm happy to see them banned just so I don't have to sift through the clutter.
OK i see your problem - or mine since I was doing some shuffling back and forth and not too concise. I don't think this is worth much elaboration unless you do but I'm happy to oblige.
The second quote was a matter of personal preference ASSUMING, in an ideal world, that this cluttering poster was easy to define - which is very true for spammers right now but not for many other conditions you and I could argue about. So I turned an issue of selective positives on its head into one of avoiding false positives. In other words, let's pretend we had a forum where we could vote anyone off by majority rule EXCEPT that the vote would be invalidated by minimal evidence that the poster had done X, Y, Z, etc. Where X, Y, and Z could include, among many other things various aottributes of true dialogue engagement or any other qualifier of merit.
Again, this is ideal and no forum would be. It sort of implies a forum would have a sort of Supreme Court that could overide the masses. That's probably not very practical but some of the facets of an earlier post I made in this thread would be.
Hermit
3rd February 2012, 02:20 AM
Thanks for the clarification, FedUpWithFaith.
borealis
3rd February 2012, 02:24 AM
.
The second quote was a matter of personal preference ASSUMING, in an ideal world, that this cluttering poster was easy to define - which is very true for spammers right now but not for many other conditions you and I could argue about. So I turned an issue of selective positives on its head into one of avoiding false positives. In other words, let's pretend we had a forum where we could vote anyone off by majority rule EXCEPT that the vote would be invalidated by minimal evidence that the poster had done X, Y, Z, etc. Where X, Y, and Z could include, among many other things various aottributes of true dialogue engagement or any other qualifier of merit.
Again, this is ideal and no forum would be. It sort of implies a forum would have a sort of Supreme Court that could overide the masses. That's probably not very practical but some of the facets of an earlier post I made in this thread would be.
I recently withdrew from a forum with almost exactly that setup. The entire membership with the exception of the janitorial style moderation team could up or down rate everybody else (staff included). Then, of course, we ran into the moral dilemma of someone who'd been downrated out of the main forums in response to his highly unpopular morality. Yet he was only vigorously defending his belief set. It was fairly easy to see that he was engaging in your XYZ set of qualifiers. The Supreme Court consisted several of us who defended his right to engage as he saw fit, given the nature of the place. Some others felt shamed or contrite and cobbled together a method of uprating him back into play. The downrating began again almost immediately. Before it could play out further, a sort of deus ex machina escorted him off the field.
I'm still a bit pissed about it.
The second quote was a matter of personal preference ASSUMING, in an ideal world, that this cluttering poster was easy to define - which is very true for spammers right now but not for many other conditions you and I could argue about. So I turned an issue of selective positives on its head into one of avoiding false positives. In other words, let's pretend we had a forum where we could vote anyone off by majority rule EXCEPT that the vote would be invalidated by minimal evidence that the poster had done X, Y, Z, etc. Where X, Y, and Z could include, among many other things various aottributes of true dialogue engagement or any other qualifier of merit.
Again, this is ideal and no forum would be. It sort of implies a forum would have a sort of Supreme Court that could overide the masses. That's probably not very practical but some of the facets of an earlier post I made in this thread would be.
I recently withdrew from a forum with almost exactly that setup. The entire membership with the exception of the janitorial style moderation team could up or down rate everybody else (staff included). Then, of course, we ran into the moral dilemma of someone who'd been downrated out of the main forums in response to his highly unpopular morality. Yet he was only vigorously defending his belief set. It was fairly easy to see that he was engaging in your XYZ set of qualifiers. The Supreme Court consisted several of us who defended his right to engage as he saw fit, given the nature of the place. Some others felt shamed or contrite and cobbled together a method of uprating him back into play. The downrating began again almost immediately. Before it could play out further, a sort of deus ex machina escorted him off the field.
I'm still a bit pissed about it.
FedUpWithFaith
3rd February 2012, 02:28 AM
I mainly don't like the idea of dialogue being necessary because I have known a few people who might very much enjoy reposting the same thing over and over.
Trainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstr ainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrai nstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrains trainstrainstrainstrainstraisntrainstrainstrainstr ainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrai nstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrianstrainstrains trainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstr ainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrai nstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrains trainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstr ainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrai nstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrains trainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstr ainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrai nstrainstrainstrainstrainstraisntrainstrainstrains trainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstr ainstrianstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrai nstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrains trainstrainstrains
I believe we're way overthinking this. First of all, it doen't take much to have a dialogue. You seem to equate dialogue with "serious discussion". Secondly, the only time this issue comes up is when it becomes a serious matter of contention for at least some critical mass of members. I'm not suggesting there is some auto-ban the first time somebody posts the train tripe you posited. We'd certainly take a members history into account.
But if somebody decided to flood the entire forum with your train-tripe, did it for weeks on end to the point where we couldn't reasonably navigate the forum and post then that asshole would need to go, lest you want to lose a lot of membership. Well, maybe we could tolerate it if you wanted to do all the work every hour moving it to your "shit museum". But also consider that moving shit to the museum is already an implicit form of censorship you dickhead. Remember the special section at TAF set up for troublemakers like me? I think it was called Drama Queens or something. Frankly, I didn't mind being segregated there that much when entire discussions were began and ended there. But if you had posts moved there from the regular philosophy or news threads it destroyed the continuity - especially for the funny posts that needed the context surrounding them to be funny.
And at this stage at least, frankly, I wouldn't mind allowing a little spam in. It could be funny. I'm sure we could get lots of laughs from all your ads for viagra. Look what happened with your "Sty" threads. Throw us dogs a pig's ear and we'll often turn it into a silk purse.
We can afford to be flexible.
Trainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstr ainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrai nstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrains trainstrainstrainstrainstraisntrainstrainstrainstr ainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrai nstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrianstrainstrains trainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstr ainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrai nstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrains trainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstr ainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrai nstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrains trainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstr ainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrai nstrainstrainstrainstrainstraisntrainstrainstrains trainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstr ainstrianstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrai nstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrainstrains trainstrainstrains
I believe we're way overthinking this. First of all, it doen't take much to have a dialogue. You seem to equate dialogue with "serious discussion". Secondly, the only time this issue comes up is when it becomes a serious matter of contention for at least some critical mass of members. I'm not suggesting there is some auto-ban the first time somebody posts the train tripe you posited. We'd certainly take a members history into account.
But if somebody decided to flood the entire forum with your train-tripe, did it for weeks on end to the point where we couldn't reasonably navigate the forum and post then that asshole would need to go, lest you want to lose a lot of membership. Well, maybe we could tolerate it if you wanted to do all the work every hour moving it to your "shit museum". But also consider that moving shit to the museum is already an implicit form of censorship you dickhead. Remember the special section at TAF set up for troublemakers like me? I think it was called Drama Queens or something. Frankly, I didn't mind being segregated there that much when entire discussions were began and ended there. But if you had posts moved there from the regular philosophy or news threads it destroyed the continuity - especially for the funny posts that needed the context surrounding them to be funny.
And at this stage at least, frankly, I wouldn't mind allowing a little spam in. It could be funny. I'm sure we could get lots of laughs from all your ads for viagra. Look what happened with your "Sty" threads. Throw us dogs a pig's ear and we'll often turn it into a silk purse.
We can afford to be flexible.
FedUpWithFaith
3rd February 2012, 02:40 AM
.
The second quote was a matter of personal preference ASSUMING, in an ideal world, that this cluttering poster was easy to define - which is very true for spammers right now but not for many other conditions you and I could argue about. So I turned an issue of selective positives on its head into one of avoiding false positives. In other words, let's pretend we had a forum where we could vote anyone off by majority rule EXCEPT that the vote would be invalidated by minimal evidence that the poster had done X, Y, Z, etc. Where X, Y, and Z could include, among many other things various aottributes of true dialogue engagement or any other qualifier of merit.
Again, this is ideal and no forum would be. It sort of implies a forum would have a sort of Supreme Court that could overide the masses. That's probably not very practical but some of the facets of an earlier post I made in this thread would be.
I recently withdrew from a forum with almost exactly that setup. The entire membership with the exception of the janitorial style moderation team could up or down rate everybody else (staff included). Then, of course, we ran into the moral dilemma of someone who'd been downrated out of the main forums in response to his highly unpopular morality. Yet he was only vigorously defending his belief set. It was fairly easy to see that he was engaging in your XYZ set of qualifiers. The Supreme Court consisted several of us who defended his right to engage as he saw fit, given the nature of the place. Some others felt shamed or contrite and cobbled together a method of uprating him back into play. The downrating began again almost immediately. Before it could play out further, a sort of deus ex machina escorted him off the field.
I'm still a bit pissed about it.
That's understandable. But who knows, with a different set of tools, membership and forum history maybe it might have righted itself. Just setting up a wonderful constitution is not enough. If you dropped a constitution like America's on lots of different lands in different circumstances at different times and told them to reject or accept it (the commandment alone would distort the organic process - though it did sort of work on Japan), many or most of them would fail, including America itself at various times and conditions.
Nothing is perfect, what do you want me to say? Or more to the point, what is it that you want? Because I think I'm hearing that we should stay small with a minimum of rules trusting only a limited number of members self selected by a rather grueling forum splintering process. I don't like that either and never have as we have argued many times. But I may be putting words in your mouth, so forgive me if I am.
Sorry Borealis: I thought you were Seraph. So some of this post doesn't make sense since I'm not sure we ever met at another forum (did we?).
The second quote was a matter of personal preference ASSUMING, in an ideal world, that this cluttering poster was easy to define - which is very true for spammers right now but not for many other conditions you and I could argue about. So I turned an issue of selective positives on its head into one of avoiding false positives. In other words, let's pretend we had a forum where we could vote anyone off by majority rule EXCEPT that the vote would be invalidated by minimal evidence that the poster had done X, Y, Z, etc. Where X, Y, and Z could include, among many other things various aottributes of true dialogue engagement or any other qualifier of merit.
Again, this is ideal and no forum would be. It sort of implies a forum would have a sort of Supreme Court that could overide the masses. That's probably not very practical but some of the facets of an earlier post I made in this thread would be.
I recently withdrew from a forum with almost exactly that setup. The entire membership with the exception of the janitorial style moderation team could up or down rate everybody else (staff included). Then, of course, we ran into the moral dilemma of someone who'd been downrated out of the main forums in response to his highly unpopular morality. Yet he was only vigorously defending his belief set. It was fairly easy to see that he was engaging in your XYZ set of qualifiers. The Supreme Court consisted several of us who defended his right to engage as he saw fit, given the nature of the place. Some others felt shamed or contrite and cobbled together a method of uprating him back into play. The downrating began again almost immediately. Before it could play out further, a sort of deus ex machina escorted him off the field.
I'm still a bit pissed about it.
That's understandable. But who knows, with a different set of tools, membership and forum history maybe it might have righted itself. Just setting up a wonderful constitution is not enough. If you dropped a constitution like America's on lots of different lands in different circumstances at different times and told them to reject or accept it (the commandment alone would distort the organic process - though it did sort of work on Japan), many or most of them would fail, including America itself at various times and conditions.
Nothing is perfect, what do you want me to say? Or more to the point, what is it that you want? Because I think I'm hearing that we should stay small with a minimum of rules trusting only a limited number of members self selected by a rather grueling forum splintering process. I don't like that either and never have as we have argued many times. But I may be putting words in your mouth, so forgive me if I am.
Sorry Borealis: I thought you were Seraph. So some of this post doesn't make sense since I'm not sure we ever met at another forum (did we?).
charlou
3rd February 2012, 03:00 AM
Would you be willing to defend the people who make the pedophile apologist arguments? What about the rape ones?
"Everyone should have a voice" and I agree...to the extent that they are willing to be accountable for their posts and deal with the ensuing result and not crybaby to the staff when they are relentlessly pursued by those who deem themselves as the vigilantes of the interwebz.
it isn't an easy road to navigate, IMO.
Our ethos is in defense of all people wrt being able to express their thoughts freely. There is no mechanism here by which members can 'crybaby' (or otherwise appeal) to anyone other than the membership who they are engaging with.
"Everyone should have a voice" and I agree...to the extent that they are willing to be accountable for their posts and deal with the ensuing result and not crybaby to the staff when they are relentlessly pursued by those who deem themselves as the vigilantes of the interwebz.
it isn't an easy road to navigate, IMO.
Our ethos is in defense of all people wrt being able to express their thoughts freely. There is no mechanism here by which members can 'crybaby' (or otherwise appeal) to anyone other than the membership who they are engaging with.
Hermit
3rd February 2012, 03:09 AM
I believe we're way overthinking this. [Snip] if somebody decided to flood the entire forum with your train-tripe, did it for weeks on end to the point where we couldn't reasonably navigate the forum and post then that asshole would need to go, lest you want to lose a lot of membership.
On the contrary. You are not thinking enough. The train-tripe is dealt with easily enough. Have you heard of the Ignore button? It enables you to navigate the forum and post as if the junk had never been posted, provided there are not too many other members who can't not look at and can't not reply to train-tripe posts. But even then, my experience at Rationalia - and in any other forum come to think of it - is that the scroll wheel on the mouse is an easy to operate and convenient feature.
On the contrary. You are not thinking enough. The train-tripe is dealt with easily enough. Have you heard of the Ignore button? It enables you to navigate the forum and post as if the junk had never been posted, provided there are not too many other members who can't not look at and can't not reply to train-tripe posts. But even then, my experience at Rationalia - and in any other forum come to think of it - is that the scroll wheel on the mouse is an easy to operate and convenient feature.
charlou
3rd February 2012, 03:15 AM
Much worse than a pedophile (who could barely ruin a thousand lives a month) is a lady who advocates genocide against brown people. I would also defend her ability to post here.Inclusiveness is good. :yes:
But I think that there will come a time where you will have to decide if you want a niche site that acheives a "critical mass" or one that is a nest site of banned posters from other sites that might be periphereally related to this one.
I disagree. I think this doesn't give people credit for being capable of sharing a forum with those with extreme views and those with relatively ordinary views who express them in extreme (hyperbolic) ways. I have strong views, but I don't get banned from places .. and I like sharing space with a diversity of thinking .. it challenges me to engage, to draw people out, to not behave badly towards others (not always successful - smarmy fundies, group think and passive aggression particularly grate) while discussing their divergent views.
I expect many people are capable of a high level of interactive maturity, and this is the venue where it can happen.
But I think that there will come a time where you will have to decide if you want a niche site that acheives a "critical mass" or one that is a nest site of banned posters from other sites that might be periphereally related to this one.
I disagree. I think this doesn't give people credit for being capable of sharing a forum with those with extreme views and those with relatively ordinary views who express them in extreme (hyperbolic) ways. I have strong views, but I don't get banned from places .. and I like sharing space with a diversity of thinking .. it challenges me to engage, to draw people out, to not behave badly towards others (not always successful - smarmy fundies, group think and passive aggression particularly grate) while discussing their divergent views.
I expect many people are capable of a high level of interactive maturity, and this is the venue where it can happen.
FedUpWithFaith
3rd February 2012, 03:23 AM
I believe we're way overthinking this. [Snip] if somebody decided to flood the entire forum with your train-tripe, did it for weeks on end to the point where we couldn't reasonably navigate the forum and post then that asshole would need to go, lest you want to lose a lot of membership.
On the contrary. You are not thinking enough. The train-tripe is dealt with easily enough. Have you heard of the Ignore button? It enables you to navigate the forum and post easily enough, provided there are not too many other members who can't not look and can't not reply to train-tripe posts. But even then, my experience at Rationalia - and in any other forum come to think of it - is that the scroll wheel on the mouse is an easy to operate and convenient feature.
Actually, most of the forums I've been on haven't had an ignore button but I'd never use it under most practical situations (the train-tripe example being a possible exception) because:
1. I'd fear missing something cool
2. Where I have seen it used it usually creates more trouble than it's worth. Bickerers use it like a weapon that ends up causing silly disputes and disrupting discussion. If I'm in a dialogue with somebody on your ignore list and then you want to comment of my stuff (or I want your comments on mine in full context) where I haven't properly referenced your ignored context it becomes a mess.
But we're really hitting the obvious stuff. There are plently of ways of dealing with the simple spammers and train-tripers. Your solution is fine in the narrow case defined and frankly, I'm quite glad you're making these arguments. i feel we've had a role reversal. I used to be the one who always arguing against all the rules.
But where do you want to take all thist? See may reply to Borealis above since it was really intended for you.
On the contrary. You are not thinking enough. The train-tripe is dealt with easily enough. Have you heard of the Ignore button? It enables you to navigate the forum and post easily enough, provided there are not too many other members who can't not look and can't not reply to train-tripe posts. But even then, my experience at Rationalia - and in any other forum come to think of it - is that the scroll wheel on the mouse is an easy to operate and convenient feature.
Actually, most of the forums I've been on haven't had an ignore button but I'd never use it under most practical situations (the train-tripe example being a possible exception) because:
1. I'd fear missing something cool
2. Where I have seen it used it usually creates more trouble than it's worth. Bickerers use it like a weapon that ends up causing silly disputes and disrupting discussion. If I'm in a dialogue with somebody on your ignore list and then you want to comment of my stuff (or I want your comments on mine in full context) where I haven't properly referenced your ignored context it becomes a mess.
But we're really hitting the obvious stuff. There are plently of ways of dealing with the simple spammers and train-tripers. Your solution is fine in the narrow case defined and frankly, I'm quite glad you're making these arguments. i feel we've had a role reversal. I used to be the one who always arguing against all the rules.
But where do you want to take all thist? See may reply to Borealis above since it was really intended for you.
Mantisdreamz
3rd February 2012, 03:31 AM
I have always thought that when humanity discovers the best way to govern humans, it will be obvious because all humans will adopt it.Pipedream, but you're entitled.Pipedream it may be. I am not expecting to achieve it, but as a point to aim for.
The spark was devogue pissing and moaning over at Ratz again
It sure took a lot of piss from him over the years for you to get off your lazy ass.So I am slow and careful. I was waiting to watch you crash and burn a few more times.
I found it instructive.
To fuck with rights. What is needed are not rights to be granted like dropping dingleberries on the proletariat, but responsibilities to be grasped by those who have the desire.We sort of agree and disagree on this at the same time. You're perspective is rights deigned by govt. (forums grant) while I view it more like unalienable natural rights (forums owe). Both concepts are probably BS. The bottom line is that rights and responsiblities should be linked. They beg each other.
I don't think we disagree so much. The way to get rights, in my experience, is to take responsibility. For example, if you want the right to life, you should take responsibility for breathing in, and breathing out.
Better analogy might be that when my kids wanted the 'right' to choose their own bedtime, they had to take on the responsibility of getting themselves up in the morning in time to meet their obligations.
--------------------------------
re drawing people to mindromp .. kernel of an idea in mind along the lines of what the admins discussed initially .. there was interest in charitable pursuit .. I'll give it more thought
Please do, but consider this - what charity would want to team up with a guy called cunt who would defend everyone from censorship.
It sounds noble when I say it that way, but you KNOW I mean whichever people are 'the worst kind'.
We won't censor or ban burnt, baby-raping jokes, so Christian Childrens Fund is out.
I heard Christopher Hitchens recommend Oxfam a few times. It might be worth investigating.
-----------------------------
Interesting that the word "responsibility" gets tossed around without there ever being a clear definition of what that expectation entitles, lol.
It has been my experience that the prerequisite of assuming responsibility is the caveat of, "I am my own authority" within a group geared towards less interference from a central authority.
I don't think that it is easy to cultivate this mindset in a "power over" culture.
And not everyone is privy to the process of getting there. Most people's first instinct is to "appeal to authority", lol, just look at some of the more interesting (or drama filled) discussions wrt to science or creationism.
I think personal accountability is a more apt description, for preserving the integrity of the core values of this site.
For example, when someone posts a pedophile apologist argument, they ought to expect a certain amount of ridicule and ad hominems since this goes against the grain of what most people (especially those with children) deem palatable. This is where a pile on could happen and from the outside it looks like a mob mentality but there are those who would argue the outrage comes from moral decency.
Would you be willing to defend the people who make the pedophile apologist arguments? What about the rape ones?
"Everyone should have a voice" and I agree...to the extent that they are willing to be accountable for their posts and deal with the ensuing result and not crybaby to the staff when they are relentlessly pursued by those who deem themselves as the vigilantes of the interwebz.
it isn't an easy road to navigate, IMO.
I am also surprised that no one has brought up the social engineering piece which is pretty important.
Good post. :] Agreed. Same things happens in real life.. you say what you want, others react to you how they want. You put up with the reactions, accept them, deny them, whatever you want...
I really have come to dislike the protection of others on some forums. If they want to be a douche, they're going to hear about it. Also, with the protection of others via an FUA, etc. .. how are they going to learn that they're being idiots? And since there is no banning here, the ignore button will do just fine for those you can't hear anymore of.
The spark was devogue pissing and moaning over at Ratz again
It sure took a lot of piss from him over the years for you to get off your lazy ass.So I am slow and careful. I was waiting to watch you crash and burn a few more times.
I found it instructive.
To fuck with rights. What is needed are not rights to be granted like dropping dingleberries on the proletariat, but responsibilities to be grasped by those who have the desire.We sort of agree and disagree on this at the same time. You're perspective is rights deigned by govt. (forums grant) while I view it more like unalienable natural rights (forums owe). Both concepts are probably BS. The bottom line is that rights and responsiblities should be linked. They beg each other.
I don't think we disagree so much. The way to get rights, in my experience, is to take responsibility. For example, if you want the right to life, you should take responsibility for breathing in, and breathing out.
Better analogy might be that when my kids wanted the 'right' to choose their own bedtime, they had to take on the responsibility of getting themselves up in the morning in time to meet their obligations.
--------------------------------
re drawing people to mindromp .. kernel of an idea in mind along the lines of what the admins discussed initially .. there was interest in charitable pursuit .. I'll give it more thought
Please do, but consider this - what charity would want to team up with a guy called cunt who would defend everyone from censorship.
It sounds noble when I say it that way, but you KNOW I mean whichever people are 'the worst kind'.
We won't censor or ban burnt, baby-raping jokes, so Christian Childrens Fund is out.
I heard Christopher Hitchens recommend Oxfam a few times. It might be worth investigating.
-----------------------------
Interesting that the word "responsibility" gets tossed around without there ever being a clear definition of what that expectation entitles, lol.
It has been my experience that the prerequisite of assuming responsibility is the caveat of, "I am my own authority" within a group geared towards less interference from a central authority.
I don't think that it is easy to cultivate this mindset in a "power over" culture.
And not everyone is privy to the process of getting there. Most people's first instinct is to "appeal to authority", lol, just look at some of the more interesting (or drama filled) discussions wrt to science or creationism.
I think personal accountability is a more apt description, for preserving the integrity of the core values of this site.
For example, when someone posts a pedophile apologist argument, they ought to expect a certain amount of ridicule and ad hominems since this goes against the grain of what most people (especially those with children) deem palatable. This is where a pile on could happen and from the outside it looks like a mob mentality but there are those who would argue the outrage comes from moral decency.
Would you be willing to defend the people who make the pedophile apologist arguments? What about the rape ones?
"Everyone should have a voice" and I agree...to the extent that they are willing to be accountable for their posts and deal with the ensuing result and not crybaby to the staff when they are relentlessly pursued by those who deem themselves as the vigilantes of the interwebz.
it isn't an easy road to navigate, IMO.
I am also surprised that no one has brought up the social engineering piece which is pretty important.
Good post. :] Agreed. Same things happens in real life.. you say what you want, others react to you how they want. You put up with the reactions, accept them, deny them, whatever you want...
I really have come to dislike the protection of others on some forums. If they want to be a douche, they're going to hear about it. Also, with the protection of others via an FUA, etc. .. how are they going to learn that they're being idiots? And since there is no banning here, the ignore button will do just fine for those you can't hear anymore of.
Mantisdreamz
3rd February 2012, 03:33 AM
^ thread worthy, mantis.
I remember reis. He quit the board after embarrassing himself in mafia :hehe:
Like the idea of podcasts :thumbsup:
When not on tapa and if not thread ninja'd, will start thread on charity
haha, yea he did. I really wish he didn't do that.
Haven't read the rest of the thread yet, but do you think the podcasts should be revolved around a certain topic??
I remember reis. He quit the board after embarrassing himself in mafia :hehe:
Like the idea of podcasts :thumbsup:
When not on tapa and if not thread ninja'd, will start thread on charity
haha, yea he did. I really wish he didn't do that.
Haven't read the rest of the thread yet, but do you think the podcasts should be revolved around a certain topic??
Mantisdreamz
3rd February 2012, 03:39 AM
I am also surprised that no one has brought up the social engineering piece which is pretty important.
What do u mean exactly by social engineering? where one person's opinion is held higher than another's? (what you were saying before)
What do u mean exactly by social engineering? where one person's opinion is held higher than another's? (what you were saying before)
nostrum
3rd February 2012, 03:48 AM
^ thread worthy, mantis.
I remember reis. He quit the board after embarrassing himself in mafia :hehe:
Like the idea of podcasts :thumbsup:
When not on tapa and if not thread ninja'd, will start thread on charity
haha, yea he did. I really wish he didn't do that.
Haven't read the rest of the thread yet, but do you think the podcasts should be revolved around a certain topic??
Possibly, if there is a central theme that people are happy to work around. I could just see people doing podcasts on everything and anything*
*I am talking out my rear, never having been involved in a podcast. It's just where a group of people get together on Skype or similar and voice discuss something, isn't it?
I remember reis. He quit the board after embarrassing himself in mafia :hehe:
Like the idea of podcasts :thumbsup:
When not on tapa and if not thread ninja'd, will start thread on charity
haha, yea he did. I really wish he didn't do that.
Haven't read the rest of the thread yet, but do you think the podcasts should be revolved around a certain topic??
Possibly, if there is a central theme that people are happy to work around. I could just see people doing podcasts on everything and anything*
*I am talking out my rear, never having been involved in a podcast. It's just where a group of people get together on Skype or similar and voice discuss something, isn't it?
Mantisdreamz
3rd February 2012, 03:54 AM
... Thing is, in an environment like this, I think we are all safe enough to stop that shit and let people have their say. Even when it is offensive. Especially then.
Totally agree. Everyone has been wrong in their opinions, views at some point in life. What they say could be offensive, but it's not like we haven't (as humans as well) heard worse. Or basically.. anything said that is offensive, shouldn't be hushed aside because of sensitive ears. And if you do have sensitive ears, again - there's the ignore button. In analogy, similar to walking away, irl.
Totally agree. Everyone has been wrong in their opinions, views at some point in life. What they say could be offensive, but it's not like we haven't (as humans as well) heard worse. Or basically.. anything said that is offensive, shouldn't be hushed aside because of sensitive ears. And if you do have sensitive ears, again - there's the ignore button. In analogy, similar to walking away, irl.
FedUpWithFaith
3rd February 2012, 03:54 AM
Much worse than a pedophile (who could barely ruin a thousand lives a month) is a lady who advocates genocide against brown people. I would also defend her ability to post here.Inclusiveness is good. :yes:
But I think that there will come a time where you will have to decide if you want a niche site that acheives a "critical mass" or one that is a nest site of banned posters from other sites that might be periphereally related to this one.
I disagree. I think this doesn't give people credit for being capable of sharing a forum with those with extreme views and those with relatively ordinary views who express them in extreme (hyperbolic) ways. I have strong views, but I don't get banned from places .. and I like sharing space with a diversity of thinking .. it challenges me to engage, to draw people out, to not behave badly towards others (not always successful - smarmy fundies, group think and passive aggression particularly grate) while discussing their divergent views.
I expect many people are capable of a high level of interactive maturity, and this is the venue where it can happen.
Diva can speak for herself but I think you may have misinterpeted her.
In any case, it comes down to what you value in a forum personally and then, perhaps less or more importantly (depending on your values), what function the forum has for the greater good.
For some people, keeping bonds to old friends from RD and elsewhere and being able to continue dialogues with fellow atheists/rationalists/freethinkers is the main point, even if it devolves into nothing but chit chat. For them, this is viewed as success. That's fine.
But to me it almost seems like some people are too desparate to have some form of forum life. I shouldn't sound judgemental but it feels that way to me. Having visited each new splinter site and either see it fail or flounder I sort of feel like a dog going back to its own vomit myself sometimes. I have swallowed too many I told you so's (though I recall writing a post with that title once when I joined Ratz - couldn't help it.).
You can tell me all you want how with MindRomp, this time will be different, but history is not your friend. The history is one of a line of unbroken failures if you're looking for something that's a function of true free speech, diversification and depth. It's been all downhill since RD IMO though there have been flashes of light that could still shine. But we're like increasingly inbred hillbillies. I continue to maintain that a winning forum will have a driving mission for growth (which should be balanced and organic lest statistical whims drive us to chaos). The first one to do it will win out and will be able to do more for the greater good, to the extent you value that.
But I think that there will come a time where you will have to decide if you want a niche site that acheives a "critical mass" or one that is a nest site of banned posters from other sites that might be periphereally related to this one.
I disagree. I think this doesn't give people credit for being capable of sharing a forum with those with extreme views and those with relatively ordinary views who express them in extreme (hyperbolic) ways. I have strong views, but I don't get banned from places .. and I like sharing space with a diversity of thinking .. it challenges me to engage, to draw people out, to not behave badly towards others (not always successful - smarmy fundies, group think and passive aggression particularly grate) while discussing their divergent views.
I expect many people are capable of a high level of interactive maturity, and this is the venue where it can happen.
Diva can speak for herself but I think you may have misinterpeted her.
In any case, it comes down to what you value in a forum personally and then, perhaps less or more importantly (depending on your values), what function the forum has for the greater good.
For some people, keeping bonds to old friends from RD and elsewhere and being able to continue dialogues with fellow atheists/rationalists/freethinkers is the main point, even if it devolves into nothing but chit chat. For them, this is viewed as success. That's fine.
But to me it almost seems like some people are too desparate to have some form of forum life. I shouldn't sound judgemental but it feels that way to me. Having visited each new splinter site and either see it fail or flounder I sort of feel like a dog going back to its own vomit myself sometimes. I have swallowed too many I told you so's (though I recall writing a post with that title once when I joined Ratz - couldn't help it.).
You can tell me all you want how with MindRomp, this time will be different, but history is not your friend. The history is one of a line of unbroken failures if you're looking for something that's a function of true free speech, diversification and depth. It's been all downhill since RD IMO though there have been flashes of light that could still shine. But we're like increasingly inbred hillbillies. I continue to maintain that a winning forum will have a driving mission for growth (which should be balanced and organic lest statistical whims drive us to chaos). The first one to do it will win out and will be able to do more for the greater good, to the extent you value that.
Mantisdreamz
3rd February 2012, 03:59 AM
^ thread worthy, mantis.
I remember reis. He quit the board after embarrassing himself in mafia :hehe:
Like the idea of podcasts :thumbsup:
When not on tapa and if not thread ninja'd, will start thread on charity
haha, yea he did. I really wish he didn't do that.
Haven't read the rest of the thread yet, but do you think the podcasts should be revolved around a certain topic??
Possibly, if there is a central theme that people are happy to work around. I could just see people doing podcasts on everything and anything*
*I am talking out my rear, never having been involved in a podcast. It's just where a group of people get together on Skype or similar and voice discuss something, isn't it?
Ya. Pretty much. :p With a fairly decent recording program.
I guess there could always a thread where people pick a certain topic, people vote on which they like best, also considering how many people would be willing to take part.
I remember reis. He quit the board after embarrassing himself in mafia :hehe:
Like the idea of podcasts :thumbsup:
When not on tapa and if not thread ninja'd, will start thread on charity
haha, yea he did. I really wish he didn't do that.
Haven't read the rest of the thread yet, but do you think the podcasts should be revolved around a certain topic??
Possibly, if there is a central theme that people are happy to work around. I could just see people doing podcasts on everything and anything*
*I am talking out my rear, never having been involved in a podcast. It's just where a group of people get together on Skype or similar and voice discuss something, isn't it?
Ya. Pretty much. :p With a fairly decent recording program.
I guess there could always a thread where people pick a certain topic, people vote on which they like best, also considering how many people would be willing to take part.
borealis
3rd February 2012, 04:03 AM
I recently withdrew from a forum with almost exactly that setup. The entire membership with the exception of the janitorial style moderation team could up or down rate everybody else (staff included). Then, of course, we ran into the moral dilemma of someone who'd been downrated out of the main forums in response to his highly unpopular morality. Yet he was only vigorously defending his belief set. It was fairly easy to see that he was engaging in your XYZ set of qualifiers. The Supreme Court consisted several of us who defended his right to engage as he saw fit, given the nature of the place. Some others felt shamed or contrite and cobbled together a method of uprating him back into play. The downrating began again almost immediately. Before it could play out further, a sort of deus ex machina escorted him off the field.
I'm still a bit pissed about it.
That's understandable. But who knows, with a different set of tools, membership and forum history maybe it might have righted itself. Just setting up a wonderful constitution is not enough. If you dropped a constitution like America's on lots of different lands in different circumstances at different times and told them to reject or accept it (the commandment alone would distort the organic process - though it did sort of work on Japan), many or most of them would fail, including America itself at various times and conditions.
Nothing is perfect, what do you want me to say? Or more to the point, what is it that you want? Because I think I'm hearing that we should stay small with a minimum of rules trusting only a limited number of members self selected by a rather grueling forum splintering process. I don't like that either and never have as we have argued many times. But I may be putting words in your mouth, so forgive me if I am.
Sorry Borealis: I thought you were Seraph. So some of this post doesn't make sense since I'm not sure we ever met at another forum (did we?).
Probably not. I played mafia at rationalia and ratskeps as b.ternarius, because there was already a borealis there.
Several of mindromp's posters, including oblivion, were members of the forum I referred to. The hope had been that the members would achieve an equable form of group moderation. It was not a success and encouraged and rewarded groupthink.
Most of the members in fact came from the same Great Circle of current and defunct religious, skeptical, atheist, post atheist and science oriented forums that many of ratskep's and now mindromp's, members have inhabited at one time or another.
We're all looking for something, that perfect place with perfect freedom and perfect dynamics. I feel I should break out the Eurythmics. :D
Eurythmics Sweet Dreams - YouTube
I'm still a bit pissed about it.
That's understandable. But who knows, with a different set of tools, membership and forum history maybe it might have righted itself. Just setting up a wonderful constitution is not enough. If you dropped a constitution like America's on lots of different lands in different circumstances at different times and told them to reject or accept it (the commandment alone would distort the organic process - though it did sort of work on Japan), many or most of them would fail, including America itself at various times and conditions.
Nothing is perfect, what do you want me to say? Or more to the point, what is it that you want? Because I think I'm hearing that we should stay small with a minimum of rules trusting only a limited number of members self selected by a rather grueling forum splintering process. I don't like that either and never have as we have argued many times. But I may be putting words in your mouth, so forgive me if I am.
Sorry Borealis: I thought you were Seraph. So some of this post doesn't make sense since I'm not sure we ever met at another forum (did we?).
Probably not. I played mafia at rationalia and ratskeps as b.ternarius, because there was already a borealis there.
Several of mindromp's posters, including oblivion, were members of the forum I referred to. The hope had been that the members would achieve an equable form of group moderation. It was not a success and encouraged and rewarded groupthink.
Most of the members in fact came from the same Great Circle of current and defunct religious, skeptical, atheist, post atheist and science oriented forums that many of ratskep's and now mindromp's, members have inhabited at one time or another.
We're all looking for something, that perfect place with perfect freedom and perfect dynamics. I feel I should break out the Eurythmics. :D
Eurythmics Sweet Dreams - YouTube
FedUpWithFaith
3rd February 2012, 04:05 AM
I really have come to dislike the protection of others on some forums.
Wow, did you hit that nail on the head. The worst debacles I've ever had at forums all involved those who felt they needed to protect somebody else whether the "protector" was a fellow member or worse, a mod/admin. Add a little sexual chemistry or other behind the scenes BS and you hit a real shitstorm. The supposed "victims" often rarely got involved.
And I've seen it happen to others many times and often, when the "victim' finally speaks on the issue, they say they didn't even care in the first place.
Wow, did you hit that nail on the head. The worst debacles I've ever had at forums all involved those who felt they needed to protect somebody else whether the "protector" was a fellow member or worse, a mod/admin. Add a little sexual chemistry or other behind the scenes BS and you hit a real shitstorm. The supposed "victims" often rarely got involved.
And I've seen it happen to others many times and often, when the "victim' finally speaks on the issue, they say they didn't even care in the first place.
nick
3rd February 2012, 04:06 AM
My birthday is on Tuesday!
FedUpWithFaith
3rd February 2012, 04:08 AM
My birthday is on Tuesday!
Happy ? Birthday.
How old?
Happy ? Birthday.
How old?
nick
3rd February 2012, 04:11 AM
32!
Mantisdreamz
3rd February 2012, 04:21 AM
.
The second quote was a matter of personal preference ASSUMING, in an ideal world, that this cluttering poster was easy to define - which is very true for spammers right now but not for many other conditions you and I could argue about. So I turned an issue of selective positives on its head into one of avoiding false positives. In other words, let's pretend we had a forum where we could vote anyone off by majority rule EXCEPT that the vote would be invalidated by minimal evidence that the poster had done X, Y, Z, etc. Where X, Y, and Z could include, among many other things various aottributes of true dialogue engagement or any other qualifier of merit.
Again, this is ideal and no forum would be. It sort of implies a forum would have a sort of Supreme Court that could overide the masses. That's probably not very practical but some of the facets of an earlier post I made in this thread would be.
I recently withdrew from a forum with almost exactly that setup. The entire membership with the exception of the janitorial style moderation team could up or down rate everybody else (staff included). Then, of course, we ran into the moral dilemma of someone who'd been downrated out of the main forums in response to his highly unpopular morality. Yet he was only vigorously defending his belief set. It was fairly easy to see that he was engaging in your XYZ set of qualifiers. The Supreme Court consisted several of us who defended his right to engage as he saw fit, given the nature of the place. Some others felt shamed or contrite and cobbled together a method of uprating him back into play. The downrating began again almost immediately. Before it could play out further, a sort of deus ex machina escorted him off the field.
I'm still a bit pissed about it.
Sounds like a poor feature of the forum to do that....or maybe the feature was just abused by others.
The second quote was a matter of personal preference ASSUMING, in an ideal world, that this cluttering poster was easy to define - which is very true for spammers right now but not for many other conditions you and I could argue about. So I turned an issue of selective positives on its head into one of avoiding false positives. In other words, let's pretend we had a forum where we could vote anyone off by majority rule EXCEPT that the vote would be invalidated by minimal evidence that the poster had done X, Y, Z, etc. Where X, Y, and Z could include, among many other things various aottributes of true dialogue engagement or any other qualifier of merit.
Again, this is ideal and no forum would be. It sort of implies a forum would have a sort of Supreme Court that could overide the masses. That's probably not very practical but some of the facets of an earlier post I made in this thread would be.
I recently withdrew from a forum with almost exactly that setup. The entire membership with the exception of the janitorial style moderation team could up or down rate everybody else (staff included). Then, of course, we ran into the moral dilemma of someone who'd been downrated out of the main forums in response to his highly unpopular morality. Yet he was only vigorously defending his belief set. It was fairly easy to see that he was engaging in your XYZ set of qualifiers. The Supreme Court consisted several of us who defended his right to engage as he saw fit, given the nature of the place. Some others felt shamed or contrite and cobbled together a method of uprating him back into play. The downrating began again almost immediately. Before it could play out further, a sort of deus ex machina escorted him off the field.
I'm still a bit pissed about it.
Sounds like a poor feature of the forum to do that....or maybe the feature was just abused by others.
borealis
3rd February 2012, 04:28 AM
No. I would say pretty much everyone felt they were righteous in their downrating. I think the same thing would happen here if we turned on rep and used it to control people's behaviour.
oblivion
3rd February 2012, 04:29 AM
it was a poorly thought out feature IMO. I don't think members should be able to decide which posts are visible to someone else. But, I fully support being able to decide for yourself that you don't want to see certain posts or threads.
FedUpWithFaith
3rd February 2012, 04:30 AM
32!
30 or 33 would be more interesting.
30 or 33 would be more interesting.
Mantisdreamz
3rd February 2012, 04:35 AM
I really have come to dislike the protection of others on some forums.
Wow, did you hit that nail on the head. The worst debacles I've ever had at forums all involved those who felt they needed to protect somebody else whether the "protector" was a fellow member or worse, a mod/admin. Add a little sexual chemistry or other behind the scenes BS and you hit a real shitstorm. The supposed "victims" often rarely got involved.
And I've seen it happen to others many times and often, when the "victim' finally speaks on the issue, they say they didn't even care in the first place.
Yes, I've seen that kind of thing. Differences in opinions is the main thing in that case i think
Wow, did you hit that nail on the head. The worst debacles I've ever had at forums all involved those who felt they needed to protect somebody else whether the "protector" was a fellow member or worse, a mod/admin. Add a little sexual chemistry or other behind the scenes BS and you hit a real shitstorm. The supposed "victims" often rarely got involved.
And I've seen it happen to others many times and often, when the "victim' finally speaks on the issue, they say they didn't even care in the first place.
Yes, I've seen that kind of thing. Differences in opinions is the main thing in that case i think
divagreen
3rd February 2012, 05:08 AM
We're all looking for something, that perfect place with perfect freedom and perfect dynamics. I feel I should break out the Eurythmics. :D
:nada:
:nada:
Cunt
3rd February 2012, 05:38 AM
I believe we're way overthinking this. First of all, it doen't take much to have a dialogue. You seem to equate dialogue with "serious discussion". Secondly, the only time this issue comes up is when it becomes a serious matter of contention for at least some critical mass of members. I'm not suggesting there is some auto-ban the first time somebody posts the train tripe you posited.
If I seem overzealous, it's possibly because I am.
But if somebody decided to flood the entire forum with your train-tripe, did it for weeks on end to the point where we couldn't reasonably navigate the forum and post then that asshole would need to go, lest you want to lose a lot of membership. Well, maybe we could tolerate it if you wanted to do all the work every hour moving it to your "shit museum". But also consider that moving shit to the museum is already an implicit form of censorship you dickhead.
Excellent point. I feel like saying fuck you, but I should aim it at me this time. Thanks.
And at this stage at least, frankly, I wouldn't mind allowing a little spam in. It could be funny. I'm sure we could get lots of laughs from all your ads for viagra. Look what happened with your "Sty" threads. Throw us dogs a pig's ear and we'll often turn it into a silk purse.
We can afford to be flexible.
I think you are right. I try to envision this forum with thousands of active members. It's not going to be that realistic a problem for awhile yet. At least a month or two. We should be fine.
;)
-----------------------
And I've seen it happen to others many times and often, when the "victim' finally speaks on the issue, they say they didn't even care in the first place.
The ultimate troll! I think I will try to remember to reject that sort of protection DIVA
If I seem overzealous, it's possibly because I am.
But if somebody decided to flood the entire forum with your train-tripe, did it for weeks on end to the point where we couldn't reasonably navigate the forum and post then that asshole would need to go, lest you want to lose a lot of membership. Well, maybe we could tolerate it if you wanted to do all the work every hour moving it to your "shit museum". But also consider that moving shit to the museum is already an implicit form of censorship you dickhead.
Excellent point. I feel like saying fuck you, but I should aim it at me this time. Thanks.
And at this stage at least, frankly, I wouldn't mind allowing a little spam in. It could be funny. I'm sure we could get lots of laughs from all your ads for viagra. Look what happened with your "Sty" threads. Throw us dogs a pig's ear and we'll often turn it into a silk purse.
We can afford to be flexible.
I think you are right. I try to envision this forum with thousands of active members. It's not going to be that realistic a problem for awhile yet. At least a month or two. We should be fine.
;)
-----------------------
And I've seen it happen to others many times and often, when the "victim' finally speaks on the issue, they say they didn't even care in the first place.
The ultimate troll! I think I will try to remember to reject that sort of protection DIVA
Mantisdreamz
3rd February 2012, 05:46 AM
No. I would say pretty much everyone felt they were righteous in their downrating. I think the same thing would happen here if we turned on rep and used it to control people's behaviour.
That's true.. and so it wasn't abused. I guess i was more thinking, impulsiveness on the down rating based on a few interactions.
That's true.. and so it wasn't abused. I guess i was more thinking, impulsiveness on the down rating based on a few interactions.
FedUpWithFaith
3rd February 2012, 05:57 AM
No. I would say pretty much everyone felt they were righteous in their downrating. I think the same thing would happen here if we turned on rep and used it to control people's behaviour.
That's true.. and so it wasn't abused. I guess i was more thinking, impulsiveness on the down rating based on a few interactions.
I realize I misinterpreted Borealis before. i don't equate the rep function or other thumbs up signals with the type of voting I discussed. I think it could be codified more in that direction but without an agreed universal protocol it's not the same. If there is a specific alleged infraction against a pre-codified rule an organized deliberated vote placed on that judgment is different from the plethora of often instanteous reaction reasons people have to a set of posts. Voting methods that rely on instant reactions and don't provide for reflection or deliberation until after the vote has already essentially happened seems to be asking for trouble.
That's true.. and so it wasn't abused. I guess i was more thinking, impulsiveness on the down rating based on a few interactions.
I realize I misinterpreted Borealis before. i don't equate the rep function or other thumbs up signals with the type of voting I discussed. I think it could be codified more in that direction but without an agreed universal protocol it's not the same. If there is a specific alleged infraction against a pre-codified rule an organized deliberated vote placed on that judgment is different from the plethora of often instanteous reaction reasons people have to a set of posts. Voting methods that rely on instant reactions and don't provide for reflection or deliberation until after the vote has already essentially happened seems to be asking for trouble.
Mantisdreamz
3rd February 2012, 06:13 AM
No. I would say pretty much everyone felt they were righteous in their downrating. I think the same thing would happen here if we turned on rep and used it to control people's behaviour.
That's true.. and so it wasn't abused. I guess i was more thinking, impulsiveness on the down rating based on a few interactions.
I realize I misinterpreted Borealis before. i don't equate the rep function or other thumbs up signals with the type of voting I discussed. I think it could be codified more in that direction but without an agreed universal protocol it's not the same. If there is a specific alleged infraction against a pre-codified rule an organized deliberated vote placed on that judgment is different from the plethora of often instanteous reaction reasons people have to a set of posts. Voting methods that rely on instant reactions and don't provide for reflection or deliberation until after the vote has already essentially happened seems to be asking for trouble.
Yea, the impulsiveness of the moment can cause that sort of 'requesting to degrade' someone... it's just silly.
I've never really dealt with the rep thing before.. don't think i like the idea. But, ya - the thanks function is totally different, and is not related to any sort of up or down grading... it's a simple thanks
That's true.. and so it wasn't abused. I guess i was more thinking, impulsiveness on the down rating based on a few interactions.
I realize I misinterpreted Borealis before. i don't equate the rep function or other thumbs up signals with the type of voting I discussed. I think it could be codified more in that direction but without an agreed universal protocol it's not the same. If there is a specific alleged infraction against a pre-codified rule an organized deliberated vote placed on that judgment is different from the plethora of often instanteous reaction reasons people have to a set of posts. Voting methods that rely on instant reactions and don't provide for reflection or deliberation until after the vote has already essentially happened seems to be asking for trouble.
Yea, the impulsiveness of the moment can cause that sort of 'requesting to degrade' someone... it's just silly.
I've never really dealt with the rep thing before.. don't think i like the idea. But, ya - the thanks function is totally different, and is not related to any sort of up or down grading... it's a simple thanks
borealis
3rd February 2012, 01:08 PM
No. I would say pretty much everyone felt they were righteous in their downrating. I think the same thing would happen here if we turned on rep and used it to control people's behaviour.
That's true.. and so it wasn't abused. I guess i was more thinking, impulsiveness on the down rating based on a few interactions.
I realize I misinterpreted Borealis before. i don't equate the rep function or other thumbs up signals with the type of voting I discussed. I think it could be codified more in that direction but without an agreed universal protocol it's not the same. If there is a specific alleged infraction against a pre-codified rule an organized deliberated vote placed on that judgment is different from the plethora of often instanteous reaction reasons people have to a set of posts. Voting methods that rely on instant reactions and don't provide for reflection or deliberation until after the vote has already essentially happened seems to be asking for trouble.
I don't think you misinterpreted me. Let me explain further, as I may be misinterpreting you. The forum I've referred to was custom designed, not based on commercially available formats. Each post had an up arrow and a down arrow. The up arrow if clicked rewarded the author of the post with a reputation point. The down arrow (deleted a point) was specified as only to be used in the case of the post author's words being interpreted by the individual reader as flaming, trolling, or against some other specific forum rule such as spamming or porn. Five negative points buried the post from sight, though it could still be viewed if you chose to look at it.
The problems became obvious as people with way different subjective ideas about what constitutes flaming , spamming, or trolling did or did not downrate posts. People who disagreed with downrates might uprate. Rating wars ensued. It became obvious that even groups of people with the best of intentions, which I'd argue was the case, tend to disenfranchise the outsider and protect their own misfits.
Your idea appears to me to be based on similar principles except that you'd subject the infracting post to a vote separated from the thread in which it was contained, making it iyo a less immediate reaction, and possibly more considered.
I don't think the result would be much different. Voting is easy. Not everyone would bother to vote, from lack of interest, from ideological objection to the system, or from pessimism regarding results. A core group of people with compatible sensibilities would vote, and would by their being a larger demographic control the voices of the smaller groups and individuals.
But I still may not be grasping how you think your idea would work.
That's true.. and so it wasn't abused. I guess i was more thinking, impulsiveness on the down rating based on a few interactions.
I realize I misinterpreted Borealis before. i don't equate the rep function or other thumbs up signals with the type of voting I discussed. I think it could be codified more in that direction but without an agreed universal protocol it's not the same. If there is a specific alleged infraction against a pre-codified rule an organized deliberated vote placed on that judgment is different from the plethora of often instanteous reaction reasons people have to a set of posts. Voting methods that rely on instant reactions and don't provide for reflection or deliberation until after the vote has already essentially happened seems to be asking for trouble.
I don't think you misinterpreted me. Let me explain further, as I may be misinterpreting you. The forum I've referred to was custom designed, not based on commercially available formats. Each post had an up arrow and a down arrow. The up arrow if clicked rewarded the author of the post with a reputation point. The down arrow (deleted a point) was specified as only to be used in the case of the post author's words being interpreted by the individual reader as flaming, trolling, or against some other specific forum rule such as spamming or porn. Five negative points buried the post from sight, though it could still be viewed if you chose to look at it.
The problems became obvious as people with way different subjective ideas about what constitutes flaming , spamming, or trolling did or did not downrate posts. People who disagreed with downrates might uprate. Rating wars ensued. It became obvious that even groups of people with the best of intentions, which I'd argue was the case, tend to disenfranchise the outsider and protect their own misfits.
Your idea appears to me to be based on similar principles except that you'd subject the infracting post to a vote separated from the thread in which it was contained, making it iyo a less immediate reaction, and possibly more considered.
I don't think the result would be much different. Voting is easy. Not everyone would bother to vote, from lack of interest, from ideological objection to the system, or from pessimism regarding results. A core group of people with compatible sensibilities would vote, and would by their being a larger demographic control the voices of the smaller groups and individuals.
But I still may not be grasping how you think your idea would work.
charlou
3rd February 2012, 02:04 PM
I really have come to dislike the protection of others on some forums.
Wow, did you hit that nail on the head. The worst debacles I've ever had at forums all involved those who felt they needed to protect somebody else whether the "protector" was a fellow member or worse, a mod/admin. Add a little sexual chemistry or other behind the scenes BS and you hit a real shitstorm. The supposed "victims" often rarely got involved.
And I've seen it happen to others many times and often, when the "victim' finally speaks on the issue, they say they didn't even care in the first place.
Yes, I've seen that kind of thing. Differences in opinions is the main thing in that case i think
It's along similar lines to members taking it upon themselves to harangue a member off a forum for 'the good of the forum'.
The downgrading/rep thingy being discussed in recent posts is shite. Fuck off with it. Discuss something, or don't. Discussion is what a forum is for.
Wow, did you hit that nail on the head. The worst debacles I've ever had at forums all involved those who felt they needed to protect somebody else whether the "protector" was a fellow member or worse, a mod/admin. Add a little sexual chemistry or other behind the scenes BS and you hit a real shitstorm. The supposed "victims" often rarely got involved.
And I've seen it happen to others many times and often, when the "victim' finally speaks on the issue, they say they didn't even care in the first place.
Yes, I've seen that kind of thing. Differences in opinions is the main thing in that case i think
It's along similar lines to members taking it upon themselves to harangue a member off a forum for 'the good of the forum'.
The downgrading/rep thingy being discussed in recent posts is shite. Fuck off with it. Discuss something, or don't. Discussion is what a forum is for.
borealis
3rd February 2012, 02:17 PM
There, Elouise said it shorter. :D
Grumps
3rd February 2012, 02:33 PM
I really have come to dislike the protection of others on some forums.
Wow, did you hit that nail on the head. The worst debacles I've ever had at forums all involved those who felt they needed to protect somebody else whether the "protector" was a fellow member or worse, a mod/admin. Add a little sexual chemistry or other behind the scenes BS and you hit a real shitstorm. The supposed "victims" often rarely got involved.
And I've seen it happen to others many times and often, when the "victim' finally speaks on the issue, they say they didn't even care in the first place.
Yes, I've seen that kind of thing. Differences in opinions is the main thing in that case i think
It's along similar lines to members taking it upon themselves to harangue a member off a forum for 'the good of the forum'.
The downgrading/rep thingy being discussed in recent posts is shite. Fuck off with it. Discuss something, or don't. Discussion is what a forum is for.
The worst thing is not when you isolate and attack someone 'for the good of the forum' - it's when you practice precisely the same behaviour you're supposedly 'against', and employ this behaviour in the very same post you attack someone else for it.
Bonus hypocrisy points if you accuse someone of being immature.
Wow, did you hit that nail on the head. The worst debacles I've ever had at forums all involved those who felt they needed to protect somebody else whether the "protector" was a fellow member or worse, a mod/admin. Add a little sexual chemistry or other behind the scenes BS and you hit a real shitstorm. The supposed "victims" often rarely got involved.
And I've seen it happen to others many times and often, when the "victim' finally speaks on the issue, they say they didn't even care in the first place.
Yes, I've seen that kind of thing. Differences in opinions is the main thing in that case i think
It's along similar lines to members taking it upon themselves to harangue a member off a forum for 'the good of the forum'.
The downgrading/rep thingy being discussed in recent posts is shite. Fuck off with it. Discuss something, or don't. Discussion is what a forum is for.
The worst thing is not when you isolate and attack someone 'for the good of the forum' - it's when you practice precisely the same behaviour you're supposedly 'against', and employ this behaviour in the very same post you attack someone else for it.
Bonus hypocrisy points if you accuse someone of being immature.
nick
3rd February 2012, 02:42 PM
I'm against you posting
Grumps
3rd February 2012, 02:43 PM
I'm against you posting
You can be against me any day, honey.
You can be against me any day, honey.
nick
3rd February 2012, 02:47 PM
I AM STRAIGHT, DAMN IT! I WILL NOT BE VEERED INTO ANY OTHER DISGUSTINGLY GROTESQUE DIRECTION!!!!!
Grumps
3rd February 2012, 02:49 PM
I AM STRAIGHT, DAMN IT! I WILL NOT BE VEERED INTO ANY OTHER DISGUSTINGLY GROTESQUE DIRECTION!!!!!
That's not what you say when I give you a reach around.
That's not what you say when I give you a reach around.
oblivion
3rd February 2012, 02:51 PM
I really have come to dislike the protection of others on some forums.
Wow, did you hit that nail on the head. The worst debacles I've ever had at forums all involved those who felt they needed to protect somebody else whether the "protector" was a fellow member or worse, a mod/admin. Add a little sexual chemistry or other behind the scenes BS and you hit a real shitstorm. The supposed "victims" often rarely got involved.
And I've seen it happen to others many times and often, when the "victim' finally speaks on the issue, they say they didn't even care in the first place.
Yes, I've seen that kind of thing. Differences in opinions is the main thing in that case i think
It's along similar lines to members taking it upon themselves to harangue a member off a forum for 'the good of the forum'.
The downgrading/rep thingy being discussed in recent posts is shite. Fuck off with it. Discuss something, or don't. Discussion is what a forum is for.
The worst thing is not when you isolate and attack someone 'for the good of the forum' - it's when you practice precisely the same behaviour you're supposedly 'against', and employ this behaviour in the very same post you attack someone else for it.
Bonus hypocrisy points if you accuse someone of being immature.
agree. though observing this sort of attack with approval and applause is probably on a par with executing one.
Wow, did you hit that nail on the head. The worst debacles I've ever had at forums all involved those who felt they needed to protect somebody else whether the "protector" was a fellow member or worse, a mod/admin. Add a little sexual chemistry or other behind the scenes BS and you hit a real shitstorm. The supposed "victims" often rarely got involved.
And I've seen it happen to others many times and often, when the "victim' finally speaks on the issue, they say they didn't even care in the first place.
Yes, I've seen that kind of thing. Differences in opinions is the main thing in that case i think
It's along similar lines to members taking it upon themselves to harangue a member off a forum for 'the good of the forum'.
The downgrading/rep thingy being discussed in recent posts is shite. Fuck off with it. Discuss something, or don't. Discussion is what a forum is for.
The worst thing is not when you isolate and attack someone 'for the good of the forum' - it's when you practice precisely the same behaviour you're supposedly 'against', and employ this behaviour in the very same post you attack someone else for it.
Bonus hypocrisy points if you accuse someone of being immature.
agree. though observing this sort of attack with approval and applause is probably on a par with executing one.
Jerome
3rd February 2012, 02:54 PM
Keep in mind also that when someone votes for something, whatever it may be, they feel possession and an unconscious obligation to defend their owned position.
divagreen
3rd February 2012, 04:19 PM
One of the distinctions that I like about this thread is that it is taking place in the philosophy section and not in the forum mismanagment. :) Good job, Floppit! :cheer:
It gives a much greater breadth to the discussion I think. Some people might be taking positions that they do not actually hold for the sake of understanding differing values. Or not.
Would you be willing to defend the people who make the pedophile apologist arguments? What about the rape ones?
"Everyone should have a voice" and I agree...to the extent that they are willing to be accountable for their posts and deal with the ensuing result and not crybaby to the staff when they are relentlessly pursued by those who deem themselves as the vigilantes of the interwebz.
it isn't an easy road to navigate, IMO.
Our ethos is in defense of all people wrt being able to express their thoughts freely. There is no mechanism here by which members can 'crybaby' (or otherwise appeal) to anyone other than the membership who they are engaging with.
I think that you are missing my point on this. I was not talking about the staff here, I was disclosing my observations of other forums. And how the membership's views and opinions can shape the development of a forum.
I believe we're way overthinking this. [Snip] if somebody decided to flood the entire forum with your train-tripe, did it for weeks on end to the point where we couldn't reasonably navigate the forum and post then that asshole would need to go, lest you want to lose a lot of membership.
On the contrary. You are not thinking enough. The train-tripe is dealt with easily enough. Have you heard of the Ignore button? It enables you to navigate the forum and post as if the junk had never been posted, provided there are not too many other members who can't not look at and can't not reply to train-tripe posts. But even then, my experience at Rationalia - and in any other forum come to think of it - is that the scroll wheel on the mouse is an easy to operate and convenient feature.
Beejeesus, I love the ignore button albeit I use it very rarely. I just like having the option. The argument here is that almost an entire site can have someone on ignore and maybe 1 or 2 people will keep them engaged and that is all it takes to keep them posting. Then when new members come in and they abruptly leave, cos they are not interested in the board being spammed by crap that the person doing it probably doesn't even believe in but it is within the most active threadz!!!1!! and you hear about it, I wonder how much of an impact that will have on your views. Think of the newcomers, ffs.
Much worse than a pedophile (who could barely ruin a thousand lives a month) is a lady who advocates genocide against brown people. I would also defend her ability to post here.Inclusiveness is good. :yes:
But I think that there will come a time where you will have to decide if you want a niche site that acheives a "critical mass" or one that is a nest site of banned posters from other sites that might be periphereally related to this one.
I disagree. I think this doesn't give people credit for being capable of sharing a forum with those with extreme views and those with relatively ordinary views who express them in extreme (hyperbolic) ways. I have strong views, but I don't get banned from places .. and I like sharing space with a diversity of thinking .. it challenges me to engage, to draw people out, to not behave badly towards others (not always successful - smarmy fundies, group think and passive aggression particularly grate) while discussing their divergent views.
I expect many people are capable of a high level of interactive maturity, and this is the venue where it can happen.
Many people are capable of it but some choose not to, for whatever reason. What is even more puzzling is when there is a mature venue and people engage "accordingly", those forums seem to die off. Why?
I think that FedUp had an excellent point in that there needs to be a rallying point that has a common appeal but that it is not so small that it leaves out so many. Am I making sense here?
I am also surprised that no one has brought up the social engineering piece which is pretty important.
What do u mean exactly by social engineering? where one person's opinion is held higher than another's? (what you were saying before)
no, that isn't what I meant. Social engineering comes into play when someone who has a greater responsibility for the outcome of a situation (in most cases admins or mods) and will selectively strengthen a weakened area or minimise another one. For example, if the science subforum does not have enough going on in it, the idea would be to invite a sciencey type of person to the site and beef it up by encouraging them to start a thread and being active in that thread (assuming that you are interested). It does not mean that their voice has more weight than others (although some posters might treat them otherwise) but rather they have a level of expertise that can enhance what was otherwise a barren subforum. See who bites and decide if that is what is wanted on the menu.
The worst thing is not when you isolate and attack someone 'for the good of the forum' - it's when you practice precisely the same behaviour you're supposedly 'against', and employ this behaviour in the very same post you attack someone else for it.
Bonus hypocrisy points if you accuse someone of being immature.
define "attack"
agree about the hypocritical undercurrent.
It gives a much greater breadth to the discussion I think. Some people might be taking positions that they do not actually hold for the sake of understanding differing values. Or not.
Would you be willing to defend the people who make the pedophile apologist arguments? What about the rape ones?
"Everyone should have a voice" and I agree...to the extent that they are willing to be accountable for their posts and deal with the ensuing result and not crybaby to the staff when they are relentlessly pursued by those who deem themselves as the vigilantes of the interwebz.
it isn't an easy road to navigate, IMO.
Our ethos is in defense of all people wrt being able to express their thoughts freely. There is no mechanism here by which members can 'crybaby' (or otherwise appeal) to anyone other than the membership who they are engaging with.
I think that you are missing my point on this. I was not talking about the staff here, I was disclosing my observations of other forums. And how the membership's views and opinions can shape the development of a forum.
I believe we're way overthinking this. [Snip] if somebody decided to flood the entire forum with your train-tripe, did it for weeks on end to the point where we couldn't reasonably navigate the forum and post then that asshole would need to go, lest you want to lose a lot of membership.
On the contrary. You are not thinking enough. The train-tripe is dealt with easily enough. Have you heard of the Ignore button? It enables you to navigate the forum and post as if the junk had never been posted, provided there are not too many other members who can't not look at and can't not reply to train-tripe posts. But even then, my experience at Rationalia - and in any other forum come to think of it - is that the scroll wheel on the mouse is an easy to operate and convenient feature.
Beejeesus, I love the ignore button albeit I use it very rarely. I just like having the option. The argument here is that almost an entire site can have someone on ignore and maybe 1 or 2 people will keep them engaged and that is all it takes to keep them posting. Then when new members come in and they abruptly leave, cos they are not interested in the board being spammed by crap that the person doing it probably doesn't even believe in but it is within the most active threadz!!!1!! and you hear about it, I wonder how much of an impact that will have on your views. Think of the newcomers, ffs.
Much worse than a pedophile (who could barely ruin a thousand lives a month) is a lady who advocates genocide against brown people. I would also defend her ability to post here.Inclusiveness is good. :yes:
But I think that there will come a time where you will have to decide if you want a niche site that acheives a "critical mass" or one that is a nest site of banned posters from other sites that might be periphereally related to this one.
I disagree. I think this doesn't give people credit for being capable of sharing a forum with those with extreme views and those with relatively ordinary views who express them in extreme (hyperbolic) ways. I have strong views, but I don't get banned from places .. and I like sharing space with a diversity of thinking .. it challenges me to engage, to draw people out, to not behave badly towards others (not always successful - smarmy fundies, group think and passive aggression particularly grate) while discussing their divergent views.
I expect many people are capable of a high level of interactive maturity, and this is the venue where it can happen.
Many people are capable of it but some choose not to, for whatever reason. What is even more puzzling is when there is a mature venue and people engage "accordingly", those forums seem to die off. Why?
I think that FedUp had an excellent point in that there needs to be a rallying point that has a common appeal but that it is not so small that it leaves out so many. Am I making sense here?
I am also surprised that no one has brought up the social engineering piece which is pretty important.
What do u mean exactly by social engineering? where one person's opinion is held higher than another's? (what you were saying before)
no, that isn't what I meant. Social engineering comes into play when someone who has a greater responsibility for the outcome of a situation (in most cases admins or mods) and will selectively strengthen a weakened area or minimise another one. For example, if the science subforum does not have enough going on in it, the idea would be to invite a sciencey type of person to the site and beef it up by encouraging them to start a thread and being active in that thread (assuming that you are interested). It does not mean that their voice has more weight than others (although some posters might treat them otherwise) but rather they have a level of expertise that can enhance what was otherwise a barren subforum. See who bites and decide if that is what is wanted on the menu.
The worst thing is not when you isolate and attack someone 'for the good of the forum' - it's when you practice precisely the same behaviour you're supposedly 'against', and employ this behaviour in the very same post you attack someone else for it.
Bonus hypocrisy points if you accuse someone of being immature.
define "attack"
agree about the hypocritical undercurrent.
FedUpWithFaith
3rd February 2012, 04:41 PM
Beejeesus, I love the ignore button albeit I use it very rarely. I just like having the option. The argument here is that almost an entire site can have someone on ignore and maybe 1 or 2 people will keep them engaged and that is all it takes to keep them posting. Then when new members come in and they abruptly leave, cos they are not interested in the board being spammed by crap that the person doing it probably doesn't even believe in but it is within the most active threadz!!!1!! and you hear about it, I wonder how much of an impact that will have on your views. Think of the newcomers, ffs. .
Critical point. You've got it pegged. In the extreme. imagine a newcomer coming to the site Cunt posited and Seraph dismissed filled with crap. Immediate turnoff.
Used responsibly ignore has its place. But it is fundamentally divisive and in many ways potentially destructive to the proper functioning of a forum, especially one seeking diversity. I often wish I had an ignore button in real life and then realize how dumb that would be. Imagine if liberals turned on the ignore button against conservatives or vice versa. We shut out voices we dislike and we miss their impact unless we can contextualize it from direct observation. That type of society would implode. I don't want people voting on issues they've partially or totally pre-edited.
There is a subtle but important difference between deleting something from your world and having to make some effort, no matter how minor, to skip over it - like changing the channel.
Critical point. You've got it pegged. In the extreme. imagine a newcomer coming to the site Cunt posited and Seraph dismissed filled with crap. Immediate turnoff.
Used responsibly ignore has its place. But it is fundamentally divisive and in many ways potentially destructive to the proper functioning of a forum, especially one seeking diversity. I often wish I had an ignore button in real life and then realize how dumb that would be. Imagine if liberals turned on the ignore button against conservatives or vice versa. We shut out voices we dislike and we miss their impact unless we can contextualize it from direct observation. That type of society would implode. I don't want people voting on issues they've partially or totally pre-edited.
There is a subtle but important difference between deleting something from your world and having to make some effort, no matter how minor, to skip over it - like changing the channel.
ksen
3rd February 2012, 07:38 PM
But it's not deleted from your world. I've occasionally used ignore and I always end up seeing what the person I've ignored is saying because someone I don't have on ignore invariably ends up quoting the person I do have on ignore so I can see it anyway.
btw, would you say that the ignore feature is the worst kind of censorship?
btw, would you say that the ignore feature is the worst kind of censorship?
oblivion
3rd February 2012, 08:10 PM
When I use ignore, which is not very often, it's usually to prevent myself from heat-of-the-moment responses to someone. I either catch up with their posts later, click view and move on, or forget that they had made a post somewhere and go along in blithe ignorance.
Jerome
3rd February 2012, 08:36 PM
When I use ignore, which is not very often (mostly when playing mafia with Jerome), it's usually to prevent myself from heat-of-the-moment responses to someone. I either catch up with their posts later, click view and move on, or forget that they had made a post somewhere and go along in blithe ignorance.
:hug:
:hug:
oblivion
3rd February 2012, 08:40 PM
This message is hidden because JEROME DA GNOME is on your ignore list (http://mindromp.org/forum/profile.php?do=ignorelist).
Jerome
3rd February 2012, 08:43 PM
When I use ignore, which is not very often (mostly when playing mafia with Jerome), it's usually to prevent myself from heat-of-the-moment responses to someone. I either catch up with their posts later, click view and move on, or forget that they had made a post somewhere and go along in blithe ignorance.
:hug:
Could someone quote this please. :hehe:
:hug:
Could someone quote this please. :hehe:
FedUpWithFaith
3rd February 2012, 09:51 PM
Those are reasonable uses of ignore above. I'm not arguing this site shouldn't have an ignore button. Let's just not assume we can give it power to solve major problems where it is perhaps as likely to cause more harm.
Some of you may have seen my tongue-in-cheek friending and unfriending of Nick. I've actually seen that stuff occur seriously in forums and other online groups (reminds me of teenage girls on Facebook). I quit JREF shortly after witnessing an "Ignore War" that, believe it or not, I was not personally involved in. Various factions were trying to carry on a debate about consciousness where various participants were temporarily or permanently (or at least they claimed) setting some other members on ignore (and usually annoucing it prominently for effect). It made it nearly impossible for those caught in the middle to carry on dialogue with any reasonable continuity, not to mention the combatants. And the politics got silly and petty. Intermediaries would be pressured to quote posts from one ignored guy to another... Nonsense.
Some of you may have seen my tongue-in-cheek friending and unfriending of Nick. I've actually seen that stuff occur seriously in forums and other online groups (reminds me of teenage girls on Facebook). I quit JREF shortly after witnessing an "Ignore War" that, believe it or not, I was not personally involved in. Various factions were trying to carry on a debate about consciousness where various participants were temporarily or permanently (or at least they claimed) setting some other members on ignore (and usually annoucing it prominently for effect). It made it nearly impossible for those caught in the middle to carry on dialogue with any reasonable continuity, not to mention the combatants. And the politics got silly and petty. Intermediaries would be pressured to quote posts from one ignored guy to another... Nonsense.
oblivion
3rd February 2012, 10:03 PM
Those are reasonable uses of ignore above. I'm not arguing this site shouldn't have an ignore button. Let's just not assume we can give it power to solve major problems where it is perhaps as likely to cause more harm.
Some of you may have seen my tongue-in-cheek friending and unfriending of Nick. I've actually seen that stuff occur seriously in forums and other online groups (reminds me of teenage girls on Facebook). I quit JREF shortly after witnessing an "Ignore War" that, believe it or not, I was not personally involved in. Various factions were trying to carry on a debate about consciousness where various participants were temporarily or permanently (or at least they claimed) setting some other members on ignore (and usually annoucing it prominently for effect). It made it nearly impossible for those caught in the middle to carry on dialogue with any reasonable continuity, not to mention the combatants. And the politics got silly and petty. Intermediaries would be pressured to quote posts from one ignored guy to another... Nonsense.
I've seen the same, believe me. I think the ruleset has to take a portion of the blame, though. In a gloves-off, own-your-words setting, behaving childishly in any way - with the ignore system, with friends requests, with posts, with PMs, with any means by which the forum enables communication - comes at a cost.
Some of you may have seen my tongue-in-cheek friending and unfriending of Nick. I've actually seen that stuff occur seriously in forums and other online groups (reminds me of teenage girls on Facebook). I quit JREF shortly after witnessing an "Ignore War" that, believe it or not, I was not personally involved in. Various factions were trying to carry on a debate about consciousness where various participants were temporarily or permanently (or at least they claimed) setting some other members on ignore (and usually annoucing it prominently for effect). It made it nearly impossible for those caught in the middle to carry on dialogue with any reasonable continuity, not to mention the combatants. And the politics got silly and petty. Intermediaries would be pressured to quote posts from one ignored guy to another... Nonsense.
I've seen the same, believe me. I think the ruleset has to take a portion of the blame, though. In a gloves-off, own-your-words setting, behaving childishly in any way - with the ignore system, with friends requests, with posts, with PMs, with any means by which the forum enables communication - comes at a cost.
MSG
3rd February 2012, 10:12 PM
people who think TR is a board about a board should read this thread
Reliant
3rd February 2012, 10:14 PM
Nuthin special here it seems. I agree with a poster early on in this thread. Fragmentation of de athists is buggerin' de forums!
borealis
3rd February 2012, 10:18 PM
Nuthin special here it seems. I agree with a poster early on in this thread. Fragmentation of de athists is buggerin' de forums!
Mmm... don't assume all the current members here originated at RDF or rats, etc. Or are atheists, ftm.
Mmm... don't assume all the current members here originated at RDF or rats, etc. Or are atheists, ftm.
oblivion
3rd February 2012, 10:28 PM
people who think TR is a board about a board should read this thread
I think this is an excellent thread, and I love that it is in the philosophy forum. I wish there had been one like it at TR during the early days. I wish there COULD have been one like it at TR during the early days.
I think this is an excellent thread, and I love that it is in the philosophy forum. I wish there had been one like it at TR during the early days. I wish there COULD have been one like it at TR during the early days.
MSG
3rd February 2012, 10:55 PM
yes, I'm sure you do :p
FedUpWithFaith
3rd February 2012, 11:18 PM
Forum behavior follows its culture which emanates from it's history, a weighted distribution of active contributors and their personas, and a zeitgeist that points to the future direction of the forum, which can be stagnant or very exciting and forward looking towards some sustainable goal(s). The best rules and organization can't save a shitty culture and a great culture can be squandered if it loses sight of the principles that built it.
Forums and companies in my experience grow through stages and as they do they take on their own personality. Companies have an accountable mission and this forces them to take the venture seriously enough to behave and adapt to change for sustainability. I've loved building companies. They become like your kids and its great to see them grow up and stand on their own. The failures are also painful but if you learn from the mistakes, there need be no regrets. Some kids don't succeed.
Unfortunately, all the forums I've seen splinter since RD lack a mission and remain aimless chilldren and their members behave accordingly knowing there is little of value to really fight to grow and sustain. Splintering only further degrades diversity, which we know from evolution, further destroys the substrate for adaptibility. I continue to maintian that unless we address these core issues, all discussions of rules, organization, and technical tools will eventually come to naught.
Cunt tells me that I'm largely responsible for the creation and structure of the forum despite the fact that I didn't lift a finger or spend a dime. Maybe so. It pleased me to hear it. I like to take pride in what I create. I'd like to be able to show it to some friends and tell them hey, check this out, this place is fuckin' cool. Don't you?
MindRomp's made a nice start. It has potential and I think some of its people can help realize that potential But I'm not ready to brag about it yet.
Forums and companies in my experience grow through stages and as they do they take on their own personality. Companies have an accountable mission and this forces them to take the venture seriously enough to behave and adapt to change for sustainability. I've loved building companies. They become like your kids and its great to see them grow up and stand on their own. The failures are also painful but if you learn from the mistakes, there need be no regrets. Some kids don't succeed.
Unfortunately, all the forums I've seen splinter since RD lack a mission and remain aimless chilldren and their members behave accordingly knowing there is little of value to really fight to grow and sustain. Splintering only further degrades diversity, which we know from evolution, further destroys the substrate for adaptibility. I continue to maintian that unless we address these core issues, all discussions of rules, organization, and technical tools will eventually come to naught.
Cunt tells me that I'm largely responsible for the creation and structure of the forum despite the fact that I didn't lift a finger or spend a dime. Maybe so. It pleased me to hear it. I like to take pride in what I create. I'd like to be able to show it to some friends and tell them hey, check this out, this place is fuckin' cool. Don't you?
MindRomp's made a nice start. It has potential and I think some of its people can help realize that potential But I'm not ready to brag about it yet.
Cunt
4th February 2012, 01:35 AM
Nuthin special here it seems. I agree with a poster early on in this thread. Fragmentation of de athists is buggerin' de forums!
Nothing special? Okay, but I think you're special!
Nothing special? Okay, but I think you're special!
Cunt
4th February 2012, 01:54 AM
When we were discussing this plan, I suggested being more commercial and was met with (if I recall correctly) nearly unanimous opposition. I still don't agree, but I think it's a bit thick to oppose so many people who I respect enough to have solicited their input.
I will continue to support the 'side' of staying non-commercial.
So this is awkward, and I thought I would think it out here and see where it goes.
I have an idea. It's a plainy commercial idea, meaning I think it would suck more done in a non-commercial way. I don't want to do it in a non-commercial way. It doesn't have to be done here at all, so there is no conflict.
There is this nagging detail, though. I think if this idea were done here, and done commercially, it would blend so beautifully with what we have that I can predict some hyper-critical old fucker (I picture Elouise here, because she is top-of-the-heap for me where forum women are concerned)
Said hyper-critical-old-fucker (or, HCOF) would be resistant, then after hearing the idea, would hold a moment or ten and say 'Shit! That IS really good and really DOES dovetail with our core.
I still don't know if it would change anyone's mind about getting commercial involvement here, but I honestly think it may.
Now, how can I discuss this without totally giving my idea away, and with the group I like?
I have thought about sharing it exclusively with FedUpWithFaith, not because of the trust I have for him (a lot) but because if he fucked me over for a million-dollar idea, I think I could milk it back out of him through his sis.
This is either a really honestly great idea with brilliant potential, or I'm wrong again. Please give the conundrum a thought.
I will continue to support the 'side' of staying non-commercial.
So this is awkward, and I thought I would think it out here and see where it goes.
I have an idea. It's a plainy commercial idea, meaning I think it would suck more done in a non-commercial way. I don't want to do it in a non-commercial way. It doesn't have to be done here at all, so there is no conflict.
There is this nagging detail, though. I think if this idea were done here, and done commercially, it would blend so beautifully with what we have that I can predict some hyper-critical old fucker (I picture Elouise here, because she is top-of-the-heap for me where forum women are concerned)
Said hyper-critical-old-fucker (or, HCOF) would be resistant, then after hearing the idea, would hold a moment or ten and say 'Shit! That IS really good and really DOES dovetail with our core.
I still don't know if it would change anyone's mind about getting commercial involvement here, but I honestly think it may.
Now, how can I discuss this without totally giving my idea away, and with the group I like?
I have thought about sharing it exclusively with FedUpWithFaith, not because of the trust I have for him (a lot) but because if he fucked me over for a million-dollar idea, I think I could milk it back out of him through his sis.
This is either a really honestly great idea with brilliant potential, or I'm wrong again. Please give the conundrum a thought.
charlou
4th February 2012, 01:54 AM
Cunt tells me that I'm largely responsible for the creation and structure of the forum despite the fact that I didn't lift a finger or spend a dime. Maybe so. It pleased me to hear it.
For Cunt, perhaps.
My interest and driving motivation for creating MindRomp was and is much larger than any one person. It's about inclusion for everyone.
I've seen many instances of people rounding on a member and others piling on for what I consider to be reasons largely to do with unpopularity, either of the person/persona, or the person's ideas. People being labelled and oppressed and hunted off. OTT hyperbolic mischaracterisation and paranoia. Passive aggressive needling and overt harrassment. Nannying, including some people thinking they have the right to decide for others who can speak.
MindRomp's core ethos sets out to minimise this .. total elimination of it would be just fucking grand.
For Cunt, perhaps.
My interest and driving motivation for creating MindRomp was and is much larger than any one person. It's about inclusion for everyone.
I've seen many instances of people rounding on a member and others piling on for what I consider to be reasons largely to do with unpopularity, either of the person/persona, or the person's ideas. People being labelled and oppressed and hunted off. OTT hyperbolic mischaracterisation and paranoia. Passive aggressive needling and overt harrassment. Nannying, including some people thinking they have the right to decide for others who can speak.
MindRomp's core ethos sets out to minimise this .. total elimination of it would be just fucking grand.
oblivion
4th February 2012, 01:55 AM
<snip>
Unfortunately, all the forums I've seen splinter since RD lack a mission and remain aimless chilldren and their members behave accordingly knowing there is little of value to really fight to grow and sustain. Splintering only further degrades diversity, which we know from evolution, further destroys the substrate for adaptibility. I continue to maintian that unless we address these core issues, all discussions of rules, organization, and technical tools will eventually come to naught.
<snip>
I agree with a lot of what you wrote in the above post. There's one section I'd like to hear more about. The one I snipped.
What sort of mission do you think would unite a diverse and dispersed community? This is a splintered community. Or more accurately, maybe it's a community that is spread across and shared by several offshoot RDFS forums of which MR is the newest kid on the block. There are some folks who may eventually post only here or mostly here. There are others who will make this one of their regular stops. And there are others who may remember MR once every week or month or two, when they are reminded of it on forums where they spend most of their time.
I think the reasons that sites like RDFS eventually implode and splinter have to do with valuing missions much more strongly than communities. Some famous guy or some foundation puts up a website and a forum for the purpose of attracting people to support a cause or causes. They come. They support. They spread out in the forum and make connections, they meet people they like, dislike, love, hate, or forget immediately. They have discussions. They argue. Passionately. Vituperously. Comically. and in many other ways. But that's not what the forum was created for - it's just an offshoot, a side effect as far as the forum owner is concerned.
Most (not all) splinter forums on the other hand usually give at best lip service to the original mission of the parent site. They value the community - the discussions - the relationships. What I would like to find is a way to have community - and prioritize it - and make the mission an organic outgrowth of that community and its interests and values.
Maybe set up a dedicated section for members to discuss causes and opportunities to make a difference socially, politically, culturally and materially.
Unfortunately, all the forums I've seen splinter since RD lack a mission and remain aimless chilldren and their members behave accordingly knowing there is little of value to really fight to grow and sustain. Splintering only further degrades diversity, which we know from evolution, further destroys the substrate for adaptibility. I continue to maintian that unless we address these core issues, all discussions of rules, organization, and technical tools will eventually come to naught.
<snip>
I agree with a lot of what you wrote in the above post. There's one section I'd like to hear more about. The one I snipped.
What sort of mission do you think would unite a diverse and dispersed community? This is a splintered community. Or more accurately, maybe it's a community that is spread across and shared by several offshoot RDFS forums of which MR is the newest kid on the block. There are some folks who may eventually post only here or mostly here. There are others who will make this one of their regular stops. And there are others who may remember MR once every week or month or two, when they are reminded of it on forums where they spend most of their time.
I think the reasons that sites like RDFS eventually implode and splinter have to do with valuing missions much more strongly than communities. Some famous guy or some foundation puts up a website and a forum for the purpose of attracting people to support a cause or causes. They come. They support. They spread out in the forum and make connections, they meet people they like, dislike, love, hate, or forget immediately. They have discussions. They argue. Passionately. Vituperously. Comically. and in many other ways. But that's not what the forum was created for - it's just an offshoot, a side effect as far as the forum owner is concerned.
Most (not all) splinter forums on the other hand usually give at best lip service to the original mission of the parent site. They value the community - the discussions - the relationships. What I would like to find is a way to have community - and prioritize it - and make the mission an organic outgrowth of that community and its interests and values.
Maybe set up a dedicated section for members to discuss causes and opportunities to make a difference socially, politically, culturally and materially.
Jerome
4th February 2012, 01:58 AM
forward looking towards some sustainable goal(s).
What goal(s)?
What goal(s)?
charlou
4th February 2012, 01:59 AM
I don't trust FUWF to that degree, Cunt. His ego and narcissism get in the way.
But, yes, this HCOF does want to hear more about your idea. Please.
But, yes, this HCOF does want to hear more about your idea. Please.
charlou
4th February 2012, 02:03 AM
Maybe set up a dedicated section for members to discuss causes and opportunities to make a difference socially, politically, culturally and materially.
Yes, let's do this.
Yes, let's do this.
charlou
4th February 2012, 02:04 AM
Create a subforum of this, the philosophy forum, perhaps?
Jerome
4th February 2012, 02:05 AM
My idea is terrible
:nada:
:nada:
Jerome
4th February 2012, 02:06 AM
My interest and driving motivation ... is much larger than any one person. It's about inclusion for everyone.
I dig it. :blinksmile:
I dig it. :blinksmile:
oblivion
4th February 2012, 02:13 AM
Create a subforum of this, the philosophy forum, perhaps?
I think that could work. Depending on where it goes and how many ideas actually get off the ground, we might wind up with a new category with a few forums below it.
I think that could work. Depending on where it goes and how many ideas actually get off the ground, we might wind up with a new category with a few forums below it.
Hermit
4th February 2012, 02:21 AM
Could someone quote this please. :hehe:There you go. :D
FedUpWithFaith
4th February 2012, 02:35 AM
Cunt tells me that I'm largely responsible for the creation and structure of the forum despite the fact that I didn't lift a finger or spend a dime. Maybe so. It pleased me to hear it.
For Cunt, perhaps.
My interest and driving motivation for creating MindRomp was and is much larger than any one person. It's about inclusion for everyone.
I've seen many instances of people rounding on a member and others piling on for what I consider to be reasons largely to do with unpopularity, either of the person/persona, or the person's ideas. People being labelled and oppressed and hunted off. OTT hyperbolic mischaracterisation and paranoia. Passive aggressive needling and overt harrassment. Nannying, including some people thinking they have the right to decide for others who can speak.
MindRomp's core ethos sets out to minimise this .. total elimination of it would be just fucking grand.
Your statement about wanting "inclusion for everyone", as part of an antithetical response to the quote suggests I don't want that. That's untrue, misleading, and manipulative.
I found it quite odd you felt the need to post this, and unfortunate, since I have respect for you and have said so. It is pretty damn clear that your views have changed a lot over the years about what a forum should be and they have migrated to mine almost completely with the possible exception of supporting a greater mission, which you used to not want, but now seem open to. We had pretty deep discussions both public and by PM going all the way back to RD. You may want to deny this had an impact on you, but I doubt it. Denial would only tell me your ego is the one in the way, not mine.
You have also been part of the mobs that have harranged people, including me and others. -Not as frequent and you have usually been more graceful about it, but it has not been beyond you. So get off your high horse.
For Cunt, perhaps.
My interest and driving motivation for creating MindRomp was and is much larger than any one person. It's about inclusion for everyone.
I've seen many instances of people rounding on a member and others piling on for what I consider to be reasons largely to do with unpopularity, either of the person/persona, or the person's ideas. People being labelled and oppressed and hunted off. OTT hyperbolic mischaracterisation and paranoia. Passive aggressive needling and overt harrassment. Nannying, including some people thinking they have the right to decide for others who can speak.
MindRomp's core ethos sets out to minimise this .. total elimination of it would be just fucking grand.
Your statement about wanting "inclusion for everyone", as part of an antithetical response to the quote suggests I don't want that. That's untrue, misleading, and manipulative.
I found it quite odd you felt the need to post this, and unfortunate, since I have respect for you and have said so. It is pretty damn clear that your views have changed a lot over the years about what a forum should be and they have migrated to mine almost completely with the possible exception of supporting a greater mission, which you used to not want, but now seem open to. We had pretty deep discussions both public and by PM going all the way back to RD. You may want to deny this had an impact on you, but I doubt it. Denial would only tell me your ego is the one in the way, not mine.
You have also been part of the mobs that have harranged people, including me and others. -Not as frequent and you have usually been more graceful about it, but it has not been beyond you. So get off your high horse.
charlou
4th February 2012, 02:42 AM
There was no intent to mislead or manipulate, only to comment that my motivation has been different to Cunt's, as you portrayed Cunt's motivation.
I think you may be applying my comment that your ego doesn't allow me to trust you to take a leadership role in the way Cunt trusts you to the post you quoted. The two comments are separate. I am not here to mislead, manipulate or to offend.
I think you may be applying my comment that your ego doesn't allow me to trust you to take a leadership role in the way Cunt trusts you to the post you quoted. The two comments are separate. I am not here to mislead, manipulate or to offend.
charlou
4th February 2012, 02:44 AM
Edited post for clarity. ^
Hopefully. :)
Hopefully. :)
charlou
4th February 2012, 02:48 AM
Apart from the fact that I do not even want to, I give people here far more credit for reading and comprehension than to think I could mislead or manipulate them.
FedUpWithFaith
4th February 2012, 02:58 AM
I don't trust FUWF to that degree, Cunt. His ego and narcissism get in the way.
But, yes, this HCOF does want to hear more about your idea. Please.
So let me understand, Cunt thinks he might have a million dollar commerical idea that could help the forum but he doesn't trust publically sharing it but indicates he'd like to share it in confidence with me, an old friend.
You took it upon yourself to announce publically that I can't be trusted but that you can, which disclosure would presumably then be done in private with you.
Hmmm...
What level of narcissism and ego did it take to write that?!
Cunt is a friend of Andy, the guy behind FUWF. Cunt knows my real name and he can or did research my reputation, which is one of impeccable integrity. Somebody I might add, who unlike you, has built successful multi-million dollar enterprises. Ego and narcissism, to whatever extent they define me (Andy), don't steal other people's ideas. Dishonesty and greed do.
TO CUNT:
As good friends as you think we are, we have never met in person. Unless you really did due diligence on me, which I doubt, you shouldn't share your idea with me or anyone else without a non-disclosure agreement NDA that includes non-use clauses (esp. for online apps). It's not foolproof but it makes it less likely you'd get screwed.
I've been screwed by people I thought I knew personally very well. Money and greed can turn decent people bad.
I have generic copies of these agreements I can email you for your use. I would be willing to sign an NDA if you wish to share the idea with me or anyone else. And if you don't I won't be offended.
Andy
But, yes, this HCOF does want to hear more about your idea. Please.
So let me understand, Cunt thinks he might have a million dollar commerical idea that could help the forum but he doesn't trust publically sharing it but indicates he'd like to share it in confidence with me, an old friend.
You took it upon yourself to announce publically that I can't be trusted but that you can, which disclosure would presumably then be done in private with you.
Hmmm...
What level of narcissism and ego did it take to write that?!
Cunt is a friend of Andy, the guy behind FUWF. Cunt knows my real name and he can or did research my reputation, which is one of impeccable integrity. Somebody I might add, who unlike you, has built successful multi-million dollar enterprises. Ego and narcissism, to whatever extent they define me (Andy), don't steal other people's ideas. Dishonesty and greed do.
TO CUNT:
As good friends as you think we are, we have never met in person. Unless you really did due diligence on me, which I doubt, you shouldn't share your idea with me or anyone else without a non-disclosure agreement NDA that includes non-use clauses (esp. for online apps). It's not foolproof but it makes it less likely you'd get screwed.
I've been screwed by people I thought I knew personally very well. Money and greed can turn decent people bad.
I have generic copies of these agreements I can email you for your use. I would be willing to sign an NDA if you wish to share the idea with me or anyone else. And if you don't I won't be offended.
Andy
amused
4th February 2012, 03:06 AM
Most of the rational/skeptic/reason/brights sites have that basic idea as the focus. MindRomp sounds less stuffy and more potential fun. If there were a way to hand out virtual acid, the forum could become very popular...
Charlie the Unicorn - YouTube
Charlie the Unicorn - YouTube
Jerome
4th February 2012, 03:09 AM
if you have a big idea, it is imperative that you meet person to person.
charlou
4th February 2012, 03:23 AM
I don't trust FUWF to that degree, Cunt. His ego and narcissism get in the way.
But, yes, this HCOF does want to hear more about your idea. Please.
So let me understand, Cunt thinks he might have a million dollar commerical idea that could help the forum but he doesn't trust publically sharing it but indicates he'd like to share it in confidence with me, an old friend.
You took it upon yourself to announce publically that I can't be trusted but that you can, which disclosure would presumably then be done in private with you.
Hmmm...
What level of narcissism and ego did it take to write that?!
Cunt is a friend of Andy, the guy behind FUWF. Cunt knows my real name and he can or did research my reputation, which is one of impeccable integrity. Somebody I might add, who unlike you, has built successful multi-million dollar enterprises. Ego and narcissism, to whatever extent they define me (Andy), don't steal other people's ideas. Dishonesty and greed do.
re the bit I've bolded. I didn't invite private disclosure .. quite the contrary .. I'm inviting Cunt to share his idea with the forum because I thought he was raising it as an idea of forum focus.
It was with that thought in mind (an idea for the forum) that I disagreed with Cunt that you're best placed to share the idea with in my opinion. My interest is in a more inclusive and democratic approach to any ventures this forum may take on.
If Cunt's talking about a separate enterprise, then I misunderstood.
But, yes, this HCOF does want to hear more about your idea. Please.
So let me understand, Cunt thinks he might have a million dollar commerical idea that could help the forum but he doesn't trust publically sharing it but indicates he'd like to share it in confidence with me, an old friend.
You took it upon yourself to announce publically that I can't be trusted but that you can, which disclosure would presumably then be done in private with you.
Hmmm...
What level of narcissism and ego did it take to write that?!
Cunt is a friend of Andy, the guy behind FUWF. Cunt knows my real name and he can or did research my reputation, which is one of impeccable integrity. Somebody I might add, who unlike you, has built successful multi-million dollar enterprises. Ego and narcissism, to whatever extent they define me (Andy), don't steal other people's ideas. Dishonesty and greed do.
re the bit I've bolded. I didn't invite private disclosure .. quite the contrary .. I'm inviting Cunt to share his idea with the forum because I thought he was raising it as an idea of forum focus.
It was with that thought in mind (an idea for the forum) that I disagreed with Cunt that you're best placed to share the idea with in my opinion. My interest is in a more inclusive and democratic approach to any ventures this forum may take on.
If Cunt's talking about a separate enterprise, then I misunderstood.
FedUpWithFaith
4th February 2012, 03:27 AM
<snip>
Unfortunately, all the forums I've seen splinter since RD lack a mission and remain aimless chilldren and their members behave accordingly knowing there is little of value to really fight to grow and sustain. Splintering only further degrades diversity, which we know from evolution, further destroys the substrate for adaptibility. I continue to maintian that unless we address these core issues, all discussions of rules, organization, and technical tools will eventually come to naught.
<snip>
I agree with a lot of what you wrote in the above post. There's one section I'd like to hear more about. The one I snipped.
What sort of mission do you think would unite a diverse and dispersed community? This is a splintered community. Or more accurately, maybe it's a community that is spread across and shared by several offshoot RDFS forums of which MR is the newest kid on the block. There are some folks who may eventually post only here or mostly here. There are others who will make this one of their regular stops. And there are others who may remember MR once every week or month or two, when they are reminded of it on forums where they spend most of their time.
I think the reasons that sites like RDFS eventually implode and splinter have to do with valuing missions much more strongly than communities. Some famous guy or some foundation puts up a website and a forum for the purpose of attracting people to support a cause or causes. They come. They support. They spread out in the forum and make connections, they meet people they like, dislike, love, hate, or forget immediately. They have discussions. They argue. Passionately. Vituperously. Comically. and in many other ways. But that's not what the forum was created for - it's just an offshoot, a side effect as far as the forum owner is concerned.
Most (not all) splinter forums on the other hand usually give at best lip service to the original mission of the parent site. They value the community - the discussions - the relationships. What I would like to find is a way to have community - and prioritize it - and make the mission an organic outgrowth of that community and its interests and values.
Maybe set up a dedicated section for members to discuss causes and opportunities to make a difference socially, politically, culturally and materially.
Oblivion,
Perhaps you missed one of my early posts in this thread. Maybe it will answer your questions:
http://mindromp.org/forum/showthread.php?p=13017#post13017
I don't claim to know the right mission for the forum. There could be more than one. The above post includes some basic ideas. But it should be something most people agree is worthwhile. It should feel organic.
But first you have to agree that to stand still is to stagnant and make it easy to die. I know that some here only want a chummy coffee-klatch. That's fine but don't expect it to stay around long and get very interesting. It's probably fine for those that simply want to play mafia with the same usual gang. If that's what you want, fine. People like me won't stick around though and again, you might think that's even better. That's fine too. That doesn't offend me.
We can find a mission in several ways. We should brainstorm and leverage all our creative friends who might help inside and outside the forum.
But brainstorming might not bring us something we all get excited about. So here's what i do in my life and businesses. I prepare myself for success which often takes a bit of luck. As Coolidge said, "Success is opportunity meeting preparedness".
So here's what I'd do:
1. Take measures to increase membership now. The more people you have the higher the chance you'll luck onto a great idea/contact/partnership. There are plenty of ways to do this including many that are free (though require sweat-equity). If we want to spend money we can do more.
2. Experiment. Set up a Youtube channel, podcasts, roundtables, a charity, and/or other stuff We need to be out there with hooks if we want to catch fish. But we should do stuff primarily we enjoy doing anyway or we'll get bored and stop - so we have fun while we hope that chance takes a turn. Like i said in the other post, it only takes one big YouTube hit or one of us doing something that garners national/international interest that can get the ball rolling. Once you've got a ball rolling you can harness it to take you other places. We have to be flexible.
3. Have fun. Work is fun if you love it. Success requires some passion. Productive fun will be contagious.
Unfortunately, all the forums I've seen splinter since RD lack a mission and remain aimless chilldren and their members behave accordingly knowing there is little of value to really fight to grow and sustain. Splintering only further degrades diversity, which we know from evolution, further destroys the substrate for adaptibility. I continue to maintian that unless we address these core issues, all discussions of rules, organization, and technical tools will eventually come to naught.
<snip>
I agree with a lot of what you wrote in the above post. There's one section I'd like to hear more about. The one I snipped.
What sort of mission do you think would unite a diverse and dispersed community? This is a splintered community. Or more accurately, maybe it's a community that is spread across and shared by several offshoot RDFS forums of which MR is the newest kid on the block. There are some folks who may eventually post only here or mostly here. There are others who will make this one of their regular stops. And there are others who may remember MR once every week or month or two, when they are reminded of it on forums where they spend most of their time.
I think the reasons that sites like RDFS eventually implode and splinter have to do with valuing missions much more strongly than communities. Some famous guy or some foundation puts up a website and a forum for the purpose of attracting people to support a cause or causes. They come. They support. They spread out in the forum and make connections, they meet people they like, dislike, love, hate, or forget immediately. They have discussions. They argue. Passionately. Vituperously. Comically. and in many other ways. But that's not what the forum was created for - it's just an offshoot, a side effect as far as the forum owner is concerned.
Most (not all) splinter forums on the other hand usually give at best lip service to the original mission of the parent site. They value the community - the discussions - the relationships. What I would like to find is a way to have community - and prioritize it - and make the mission an organic outgrowth of that community and its interests and values.
Maybe set up a dedicated section for members to discuss causes and opportunities to make a difference socially, politically, culturally and materially.
Oblivion,
Perhaps you missed one of my early posts in this thread. Maybe it will answer your questions:
http://mindromp.org/forum/showthread.php?p=13017#post13017
I don't claim to know the right mission for the forum. There could be more than one. The above post includes some basic ideas. But it should be something most people agree is worthwhile. It should feel organic.
But first you have to agree that to stand still is to stagnant and make it easy to die. I know that some here only want a chummy coffee-klatch. That's fine but don't expect it to stay around long and get very interesting. It's probably fine for those that simply want to play mafia with the same usual gang. If that's what you want, fine. People like me won't stick around though and again, you might think that's even better. That's fine too. That doesn't offend me.
We can find a mission in several ways. We should brainstorm and leverage all our creative friends who might help inside and outside the forum.
But brainstorming might not bring us something we all get excited about. So here's what i do in my life and businesses. I prepare myself for success which often takes a bit of luck. As Coolidge said, "Success is opportunity meeting preparedness".
So here's what I'd do:
1. Take measures to increase membership now. The more people you have the higher the chance you'll luck onto a great idea/contact/partnership. There are plenty of ways to do this including many that are free (though require sweat-equity). If we want to spend money we can do more.
2. Experiment. Set up a Youtube channel, podcasts, roundtables, a charity, and/or other stuff We need to be out there with hooks if we want to catch fish. But we should do stuff primarily we enjoy doing anyway or we'll get bored and stop - so we have fun while we hope that chance takes a turn. Like i said in the other post, it only takes one big YouTube hit or one of us doing something that garners national/international interest that can get the ball rolling. Once you've got a ball rolling you can harness it to take you other places. We have to be flexible.
3. Have fun. Work is fun if you love it. Success requires some passion. Productive fun will be contagious.
FedUpWithFaith
4th February 2012, 03:37 AM
I don't trust FUWF to that degree, Cunt. His ego and narcissism get in the way.
But, yes, this HCOF does want to hear more about your idea. Please.
So let me understand, Cunt thinks he might have a million dollar commerical idea that could help the forum but he doesn't trust publically sharing it but indicates he'd like to share it in confidence with me, an old friend.
You took it upon yourself to announce publically that I can't be trusted but that you can, which disclosure would presumably then be done in private with you.
Hmmm...
What level of narcissism and ego did it take to write that?!
Cunt is a friend of Andy, the guy behind FUWF. Cunt knows my real name and he can or did research my reputation, which is one of impeccable integrity. Somebody I might add, who unlike you, has built successful multi-million dollar enterprises. Ego and narcissism, to whatever extent they define me (Andy), don't steal other people's ideas. Dishonesty and greed do.
re the bit I've bolded. I didn't invite private disclosure .. quite the contrary .. I'm inviting Cunt to share his idea with the forum because I thought he was raising it as an idea of forum focus.
It was with that thought in mind (an idea for the forum) that I disagreed with Cunt that you're best placed to share the idea with in my opinion. My interest is in a more inclusive and democratic approach to any ventures this forum may take on.
If Cunt's talking about a separate enterprise, then I misunderstood.
Eloise,
I want to give you the benefit of the doubt but i doubt many would read your original post the way you now explain and your explanation seems tortured to me.
You're basically now saying don't trust FUWF but share your$ million idea with the forum? If he shouldn't trust me, why should he make it public - especially after he's already indicated he doesn't trust everybody enough to make it public? That makes no sense.
And if he's going to make it public what difference does it make whether you trust me or he does?
:dunno:
But, yes, this HCOF does want to hear more about your idea. Please.
So let me understand, Cunt thinks he might have a million dollar commerical idea that could help the forum but he doesn't trust publically sharing it but indicates he'd like to share it in confidence with me, an old friend.
You took it upon yourself to announce publically that I can't be trusted but that you can, which disclosure would presumably then be done in private with you.
Hmmm...
What level of narcissism and ego did it take to write that?!
Cunt is a friend of Andy, the guy behind FUWF. Cunt knows my real name and he can or did research my reputation, which is one of impeccable integrity. Somebody I might add, who unlike you, has built successful multi-million dollar enterprises. Ego and narcissism, to whatever extent they define me (Andy), don't steal other people's ideas. Dishonesty and greed do.
re the bit I've bolded. I didn't invite private disclosure .. quite the contrary .. I'm inviting Cunt to share his idea with the forum because I thought he was raising it as an idea of forum focus.
It was with that thought in mind (an idea for the forum) that I disagreed with Cunt that you're best placed to share the idea with in my opinion. My interest is in a more inclusive and democratic approach to any ventures this forum may take on.
If Cunt's talking about a separate enterprise, then I misunderstood.
Eloise,
I want to give you the benefit of the doubt but i doubt many would read your original post the way you now explain and your explanation seems tortured to me.
You're basically now saying don't trust FUWF but share your$ million idea with the forum? If he shouldn't trust me, why should he make it public - especially after he's already indicated he doesn't trust everybody enough to make it public? That makes no sense.
And if he's going to make it public what difference does it make whether you trust me or he does?
:dunno:
oblivion
4th February 2012, 03:37 AM
<snip>
Unfortunately, all the forums I've seen splinter since RD lack a mission and remain aimless chilldren and their members behave accordingly knowing there is little of value to really fight to grow and sustain. Splintering only further degrades diversity, which we know from evolution, further destroys the substrate for adaptibility. I continue to maintian that unless we address these core issues, all discussions of rules, organization, and technical tools will eventually come to naught.
<snip>
I agree with a lot of what you wrote in the above post. There's one section I'd like to hear more about. The one I snipped.
What sort of mission do you think would unite a diverse and dispersed community? This is a splintered community. Or more accurately, maybe it's a community that is spread across and shared by several offshoot RDFS forums of which MR is the newest kid on the block. There are some folks who may eventually post only here or mostly here. There are others who will make this one of their regular stops. And there are others who may remember MR once every week or month or two, when they are reminded of it on forums where they spend most of their time.
I think the reasons that sites like RDFS eventually implode and splinter have to do with valuing missions much more strongly than communities. Some famous guy or some foundation puts up a website and a forum for the purpose of attracting people to support a cause or causes. They come. They support. They spread out in the forum and make connections, they meet people they like, dislike, love, hate, or forget immediately. They have discussions. They argue. Passionately. Vituperously. Comically. and in many other ways. But that's not what the forum was created for - it's just an offshoot, a side effect as far as the forum owner is concerned.
Most (not all) splinter forums on the other hand usually give at best lip service to the original mission of the parent site. They value the community - the discussions - the relationships. What I would like to find is a way to have community - and prioritize it - and make the mission an organic outgrowth of that community and its interests and values.
Maybe set up a dedicated section for members to discuss causes and opportunities to make a difference socially, politically, culturally and materially.
Oblivion,
Perhaps you missed one of my early posts in this thread. Maybe it will answer your questions:
http://mindromp.org/forum/showthread.php?p=13017#post13017
I don't claim to know the right mission for the forum. There could be more than one. The above post includes some basic ideas. But it should be something most people agree is worthwhile. It should feel organic.
But first you have to agree that to stand still is to stagnant and make it easy to die. I know that some here only want a chummy coffee-klatch. That's fine but don't expect it to stay around long and get very interesting. It's probably fine for those that simply want to play mafia with the same usual gang. If that's what you want, fine. People like me won't stick around though and again, you might think that's even better. That's fine too. That doesn't offend me.
We can find a mission in several ways. We should brainstorm and leverage all our creative friends who might help inside and outside the forum.
But brainstorming might not bring us something we all get excited about. So here's what i do in my life and businesses. I prepare myself for success which often takes a bit of luck. As Coolidge said, "Success is opportunity meeting preparedness".
So here's what I'd do:
1. Take measures to increase membership now. The more people you have the higher the chance you'll luck onto a great idea/contact/partnership. There are plenty of ways to do this including many that are free (though require sweat-equity). If we want to spend money we can do more.
2. Experiment. Set up a Youtube channel, podcasts, roundtables, a charity, and/or other stuff We need to be out there with hooks if we want to catch fish. But we should do stuff primarily we enjoy doing anyway or we'll get bored and stop - so we have fun while we hope that chance takes a turn. Like i said in the other post, it only takes one big YouTube hit or one of us doing something that garners national/international interest that can get the ball rolling. Once you've got a ball rolling you can harness it to take you other places. We have to be flexible.
3. Have fun. Work is fun if you love it. Success requires some passion. Productive fun will be contagious.
I did see that post. I guess it seemed more about searching externally for something big to become the focal point - the mission.
we'll see where it goes, but I doubt MR is going to wind up a coffee-katch forum. There is already at least one of those in the satellite of spin-offs, and IMO they do that bit very well. I don't see any point in trying to duplicate it. Why would we want to do that?
Community goes a little deeper than that IMO. and I have a bit of a fear of a big capital letter IDEA or MISSION or PERSONALITY overshadowing that. I'm not a veteran of the RDF schism, but I've seen a few other implosions.
Unfortunately, all the forums I've seen splinter since RD lack a mission and remain aimless chilldren and their members behave accordingly knowing there is little of value to really fight to grow and sustain. Splintering only further degrades diversity, which we know from evolution, further destroys the substrate for adaptibility. I continue to maintian that unless we address these core issues, all discussions of rules, organization, and technical tools will eventually come to naught.
<snip>
I agree with a lot of what you wrote in the above post. There's one section I'd like to hear more about. The one I snipped.
What sort of mission do you think would unite a diverse and dispersed community? This is a splintered community. Or more accurately, maybe it's a community that is spread across and shared by several offshoot RDFS forums of which MR is the newest kid on the block. There are some folks who may eventually post only here or mostly here. There are others who will make this one of their regular stops. And there are others who may remember MR once every week or month or two, when they are reminded of it on forums where they spend most of their time.
I think the reasons that sites like RDFS eventually implode and splinter have to do with valuing missions much more strongly than communities. Some famous guy or some foundation puts up a website and a forum for the purpose of attracting people to support a cause or causes. They come. They support. They spread out in the forum and make connections, they meet people they like, dislike, love, hate, or forget immediately. They have discussions. They argue. Passionately. Vituperously. Comically. and in many other ways. But that's not what the forum was created for - it's just an offshoot, a side effect as far as the forum owner is concerned.
Most (not all) splinter forums on the other hand usually give at best lip service to the original mission of the parent site. They value the community - the discussions - the relationships. What I would like to find is a way to have community - and prioritize it - and make the mission an organic outgrowth of that community and its interests and values.
Maybe set up a dedicated section for members to discuss causes and opportunities to make a difference socially, politically, culturally and materially.
Oblivion,
Perhaps you missed one of my early posts in this thread. Maybe it will answer your questions:
http://mindromp.org/forum/showthread.php?p=13017#post13017
I don't claim to know the right mission for the forum. There could be more than one. The above post includes some basic ideas. But it should be something most people agree is worthwhile. It should feel organic.
But first you have to agree that to stand still is to stagnant and make it easy to die. I know that some here only want a chummy coffee-klatch. That's fine but don't expect it to stay around long and get very interesting. It's probably fine for those that simply want to play mafia with the same usual gang. If that's what you want, fine. People like me won't stick around though and again, you might think that's even better. That's fine too. That doesn't offend me.
We can find a mission in several ways. We should brainstorm and leverage all our creative friends who might help inside and outside the forum.
But brainstorming might not bring us something we all get excited about. So here's what i do in my life and businesses. I prepare myself for success which often takes a bit of luck. As Coolidge said, "Success is opportunity meeting preparedness".
So here's what I'd do:
1. Take measures to increase membership now. The more people you have the higher the chance you'll luck onto a great idea/contact/partnership. There are plenty of ways to do this including many that are free (though require sweat-equity). If we want to spend money we can do more.
2. Experiment. Set up a Youtube channel, podcasts, roundtables, a charity, and/or other stuff We need to be out there with hooks if we want to catch fish. But we should do stuff primarily we enjoy doing anyway or we'll get bored and stop - so we have fun while we hope that chance takes a turn. Like i said in the other post, it only takes one big YouTube hit or one of us doing something that garners national/international interest that can get the ball rolling. Once you've got a ball rolling you can harness it to take you other places. We have to be flexible.
3. Have fun. Work is fun if you love it. Success requires some passion. Productive fun will be contagious.
I did see that post. I guess it seemed more about searching externally for something big to become the focal point - the mission.
we'll see where it goes, but I doubt MR is going to wind up a coffee-katch forum. There is already at least one of those in the satellite of spin-offs, and IMO they do that bit very well. I don't see any point in trying to duplicate it. Why would we want to do that?
Community goes a little deeper than that IMO. and I have a bit of a fear of a big capital letter IDEA or MISSION or PERSONALITY overshadowing that. I'm not a veteran of the RDF schism, but I've seen a few other implosions.
oblivion
4th February 2012, 03:39 AM
I don't trust FUWF to that degree, Cunt. His ego and narcissism get in the way.
But, yes, this HCOF does want to hear more about your idea. Please.
So let me understand, Cunt thinks he might have a million dollar commerical idea that could help the forum but he doesn't trust publically sharing it but indicates he'd like to share it in confidence with me, an old friend.
You took it upon yourself to announce publically that I can't be trusted but that you can, which disclosure would presumably then be done in private with you.
Hmmm...
What level of narcissism and ego did it take to write that?!
Cunt is a friend of Andy, the guy behind FUWF. Cunt knows my real name and he can or did research my reputation, which is one of impeccable integrity. Somebody I might add, who unlike you, has built successful multi-million dollar enterprises. Ego and narcissism, to whatever extent they define me (Andy), don't steal other people's ideas. Dishonesty and greed do.
re the bit I've bolded. I didn't invite private disclosure .. quite the contrary .. I'm inviting Cunt to share his idea with the forum because I thought he was raising it as an idea of forum focus.
It was with that thought in mind (an idea for the forum) that I disagreed with Cunt that you're best placed to share the idea with in my opinion. My interest is in a more inclusive and democratic approach to any ventures this forum may take on.
If Cunt's talking about a separate enterprise, then I misunderstood.
Eloise,
I want to give you the benefit of the doubt but i doubt many would read your original post the way you now explain and your explanation seems tortured to me.
You're basically now saying don't trust FUWF but share your$ million idea with the forum? If he shouldn't trust me, why should he make it public - especially after he's already indicated he doesn't trust everybody enough to make it public? That makes no sense.
And if he's going to make it public what difference does it make whether you trust me or he does?
:dunno:
I read her original post to mean what she's reiterated and elaborated. I did not get what you got from it at all.
But, yes, this HCOF does want to hear more about your idea. Please.
So let me understand, Cunt thinks he might have a million dollar commerical idea that could help the forum but he doesn't trust publically sharing it but indicates he'd like to share it in confidence with me, an old friend.
You took it upon yourself to announce publically that I can't be trusted but that you can, which disclosure would presumably then be done in private with you.
Hmmm...
What level of narcissism and ego did it take to write that?!
Cunt is a friend of Andy, the guy behind FUWF. Cunt knows my real name and he can or did research my reputation, which is one of impeccable integrity. Somebody I might add, who unlike you, has built successful multi-million dollar enterprises. Ego and narcissism, to whatever extent they define me (Andy), don't steal other people's ideas. Dishonesty and greed do.
re the bit I've bolded. I didn't invite private disclosure .. quite the contrary .. I'm inviting Cunt to share his idea with the forum because I thought he was raising it as an idea of forum focus.
It was with that thought in mind (an idea for the forum) that I disagreed with Cunt that you're best placed to share the idea with in my opinion. My interest is in a more inclusive and democratic approach to any ventures this forum may take on.
If Cunt's talking about a separate enterprise, then I misunderstood.
Eloise,
I want to give you the benefit of the doubt but i doubt many would read your original post the way you now explain and your explanation seems tortured to me.
You're basically now saying don't trust FUWF but share your$ million idea with the forum? If he shouldn't trust me, why should he make it public - especially after he's already indicated he doesn't trust everybody enough to make it public? That makes no sense.
And if he's going to make it public what difference does it make whether you trust me or he does?
:dunno:
I read her original post to mean what she's reiterated and elaborated. I did not get what you got from it at all.
FedUpWithFaith
4th February 2012, 03:54 AM
I don't trust FUWF to that degree, Cunt. His ego and narcissism get in the way.
But, yes, this HCOF does want to hear more about your idea. Please.
So let me understand, Cunt thinks he might have a million dollar commerical idea that could help the forum but he doesn't trust publically sharing it but indicates he'd like to share it in confidence with me, an old friend.
You took it upon yourself to announce publically that I can't be trusted but that you can, which disclosure would presumably then be done in private with you.
Hmmm...
What level of narcissism and ego did it take to write that?!
Cunt is a friend of Andy, the guy behind FUWF. Cunt knows my real name and he can or did research my reputation, which is one of impeccable integrity. Somebody I might add, who unlike you, has built successful multi-million dollar enterprises. Ego and narcissism, to whatever extent they define me (Andy), don't steal other people's ideas. Dishonesty and greed do.
re the bit I've bolded. I didn't invite private disclosure .. quite the contrary .. I'm inviting Cunt to share his idea with the forum because I thought he was raising it as an idea of forum focus.
It was with that thought in mind (an idea for the forum) that I disagreed with Cunt that you're best placed to share the idea with in my opinion. My interest is in a more inclusive and democratic approach to any ventures this forum may take on.
If Cunt's talking about a separate enterprise, then I misunderstood.
Eloise,
I want to give you the benefit of the doubt but i doubt many would read your original post the way you now explain and your explanation seems tortured to me.
You're basically now saying don't trust FUWF but share your$ million idea with the forum? If he shouldn't trust me, why should he make it public - especially after he's already indicated he doesn't trust everybody enough to make it public? That makes no sense.
And if he's going to make it public what difference does it make whether you trust me or he does?
:dunno:
I read her original post to mean what she's reiterated and elaborated. I did not get what you got from it at all.
Perhaps it is easier for me to interpret it that way because of my experience with IP (intellectual property) and business. Because in that light, it makes even less sense.
If Cunt has a potentially valuable idea, then making it public (this forum is public and even if we have special restricted sections they probably do not constitute sufficient protection under the IP law of most countries) puts him at great risk of him (and us) losing it. It may be patentable. Or perhaps it involves a trade secret. The bottom line is, if it isn't protectable, he might as well make it public anyway because it's worthless.
So anybody who understands this about IP, and I don't think it is just people like me (Eloise is very smart and worldly) would not suggest Cunt share it with the forum. It only makes sense that she meant share it with her privately and again, he already said he didn't want to make it public.
Again, I'm willing to give Eloise the benefit of the doubt, but they are many.
But, yes, this HCOF does want to hear more about your idea. Please.
So let me understand, Cunt thinks he might have a million dollar commerical idea that could help the forum but he doesn't trust publically sharing it but indicates he'd like to share it in confidence with me, an old friend.
You took it upon yourself to announce publically that I can't be trusted but that you can, which disclosure would presumably then be done in private with you.
Hmmm...
What level of narcissism and ego did it take to write that?!
Cunt is a friend of Andy, the guy behind FUWF. Cunt knows my real name and he can or did research my reputation, which is one of impeccable integrity. Somebody I might add, who unlike you, has built successful multi-million dollar enterprises. Ego and narcissism, to whatever extent they define me (Andy), don't steal other people's ideas. Dishonesty and greed do.
re the bit I've bolded. I didn't invite private disclosure .. quite the contrary .. I'm inviting Cunt to share his idea with the forum because I thought he was raising it as an idea of forum focus.
It was with that thought in mind (an idea for the forum) that I disagreed with Cunt that you're best placed to share the idea with in my opinion. My interest is in a more inclusive and democratic approach to any ventures this forum may take on.
If Cunt's talking about a separate enterprise, then I misunderstood.
Eloise,
I want to give you the benefit of the doubt but i doubt many would read your original post the way you now explain and your explanation seems tortured to me.
You're basically now saying don't trust FUWF but share your$ million idea with the forum? If he shouldn't trust me, why should he make it public - especially after he's already indicated he doesn't trust everybody enough to make it public? That makes no sense.
And if he's going to make it public what difference does it make whether you trust me or he does?
:dunno:
I read her original post to mean what she's reiterated and elaborated. I did not get what you got from it at all.
Perhaps it is easier for me to interpret it that way because of my experience with IP (intellectual property) and business. Because in that light, it makes even less sense.
If Cunt has a potentially valuable idea, then making it public (this forum is public and even if we have special restricted sections they probably do not constitute sufficient protection under the IP law of most countries) puts him at great risk of him (and us) losing it. It may be patentable. Or perhaps it involves a trade secret. The bottom line is, if it isn't protectable, he might as well make it public anyway because it's worthless.
So anybody who understands this about IP, and I don't think it is just people like me (Eloise is very smart and worldly) would not suggest Cunt share it with the forum. It only makes sense that she meant share it with her privately and again, he already said he didn't want to make it public.
Again, I'm willing to give Eloise the benefit of the doubt, but they are many.
oblivion
4th February 2012, 03:57 AM
I don't trust FUWF to that degree, Cunt. His ego and narcissism get in the way.
But, yes, this HCOF does want to hear more about your idea. Please.
So let me understand, Cunt thinks he might have a million dollar commerical idea that could help the forum but he doesn't trust publically sharing it but indicates he'd like to share it in confidence with me, an old friend.
You took it upon yourself to announce publically that I can't be trusted but that you can, which disclosure would presumably then be done in private with you.
Hmmm...
What level of narcissism and ego did it take to write that?!
Cunt is a friend of Andy, the guy behind FUWF. Cunt knows my real name and he can or did research my reputation, which is one of impeccable integrity. Somebody I might add, who unlike you, has built successful multi-million dollar enterprises. Ego and narcissism, to whatever extent they define me (Andy), don't steal other people's ideas. Dishonesty and greed do.
re the bit I've bolded. I didn't invite private disclosure .. quite the contrary .. I'm inviting Cunt to share his idea with the forum because I thought he was raising it as an idea of forum focus.
It was with that thought in mind (an idea for the forum) that I disagreed with Cunt that you're best placed to share the idea with in my opinion. My interest is in a more inclusive and democratic approach to any ventures this forum may take on.
If Cunt's talking about a separate enterprise, then I misunderstood.
Eloise,
I want to give you the benefit of the doubt but i doubt many would read your original post the way you now explain and your explanation seems tortured to me.
You're basically now saying don't trust FUWF but share your$ million idea with the forum? If he shouldn't trust me, why should he make it public - especially after he's already indicated he doesn't trust everybody enough to make it public? That makes no sense.
And if he's going to make it public what difference does it make whether you trust me or he does?
:dunno:
I read her original post to mean what she's reiterated and elaborated. I did not get what you got from it at all.
Perhaps it is easier for me to interpret it that way because of my experience with IP (intellectual property) and business. Because in that light, it makes even less sense.
If Cunt has a potentially valuable idea, then making it public (this forum is public and even if we have special restricted sections they probably do not constitute sufficient protection under the IP law of most countries) puts him at great risk of him (and us) losing it. It may be patentable. Or perhaps it involves a trade secret. The bottom line is, if it isn't protectable, he might as well make it public anyway because it's worthless.
So anybody who understands this about IP, and I don't think it is just people like me (Eloise is very smart and worldly) would not suggest Cunt share it with the forum. It only makes sense that she meant share it with her privately and again, he already said he didn't want to make it public.
Again, I'm willing to give Eloise the benefit of the doubt, but they are
This is one of the reasons why I am concerned about MR having a capital letter Mission. IP concerns. secrets. people who know stuff. people who don't. people who never will.
ugh. been there. done that. dealing with the lingering effects of hosting secrets whose writers had an expectation that they wouldn't become public. Nuking the damn stuff from orbit is an attractive option.
But, yes, this HCOF does want to hear more about your idea. Please.
So let me understand, Cunt thinks he might have a million dollar commerical idea that could help the forum but he doesn't trust publically sharing it but indicates he'd like to share it in confidence with me, an old friend.
You took it upon yourself to announce publically that I can't be trusted but that you can, which disclosure would presumably then be done in private with you.
Hmmm...
What level of narcissism and ego did it take to write that?!
Cunt is a friend of Andy, the guy behind FUWF. Cunt knows my real name and he can or did research my reputation, which is one of impeccable integrity. Somebody I might add, who unlike you, has built successful multi-million dollar enterprises. Ego and narcissism, to whatever extent they define me (Andy), don't steal other people's ideas. Dishonesty and greed do.
re the bit I've bolded. I didn't invite private disclosure .. quite the contrary .. I'm inviting Cunt to share his idea with the forum because I thought he was raising it as an idea of forum focus.
It was with that thought in mind (an idea for the forum) that I disagreed with Cunt that you're best placed to share the idea with in my opinion. My interest is in a more inclusive and democratic approach to any ventures this forum may take on.
If Cunt's talking about a separate enterprise, then I misunderstood.
Eloise,
I want to give you the benefit of the doubt but i doubt many would read your original post the way you now explain and your explanation seems tortured to me.
You're basically now saying don't trust FUWF but share your$ million idea with the forum? If he shouldn't trust me, why should he make it public - especially after he's already indicated he doesn't trust everybody enough to make it public? That makes no sense.
And if he's going to make it public what difference does it make whether you trust me or he does?
:dunno:
I read her original post to mean what she's reiterated and elaborated. I did not get what you got from it at all.
Perhaps it is easier for me to interpret it that way because of my experience with IP (intellectual property) and business. Because in that light, it makes even less sense.
If Cunt has a potentially valuable idea, then making it public (this forum is public and even if we have special restricted sections they probably do not constitute sufficient protection under the IP law of most countries) puts him at great risk of him (and us) losing it. It may be patentable. Or perhaps it involves a trade secret. The bottom line is, if it isn't protectable, he might as well make it public anyway because it's worthless.
So anybody who understands this about IP, and I don't think it is just people like me (Eloise is very smart and worldly) would not suggest Cunt share it with the forum. It only makes sense that she meant share it with her privately and again, he already said he didn't want to make it public.
Again, I'm willing to give Eloise the benefit of the doubt, but they are
This is one of the reasons why I am concerned about MR having a capital letter Mission. IP concerns. secrets. people who know stuff. people who don't. people who never will.
ugh. been there. done that. dealing with the lingering effects of hosting secrets whose writers had an expectation that they wouldn't become public. Nuking the damn stuff from orbit is an attractive option.
charlou
4th February 2012, 03:58 AM
I didn't see at as a million dollar idea (I don't even know what the idea is) .. just an idea proposed (I thought in the context of this thread) for the forum. I may have misunderstood and only Cunt can confirm this. If I did misunderstand, I'm not sure why Cunt brought it up in this thread. What the two of you (or anyone) wants to do privately and separately from this forum, is not really relevant here, is it?
charlou
4th February 2012, 03:59 AM
^ My post addressed to FUWF.
charlou
4th February 2012, 04:03 AM
This is one of the reasons why I am concerned about MR having a capital letter Mission. IP concerns. secrets. people who know stuff. people who don't. people who never will.
Ayep, my stance hasn't changed in that regard.
Ideas for encouraging and developing empathic and charitable values and activities, yes.
Ayep, my stance hasn't changed in that regard.
Ideas for encouraging and developing empathic and charitable values and activities, yes.
charlou
4th February 2012, 04:11 AM
FUWF, I can see my comment about your ego has caused offense. I will try to explain it further if you like, but for now I will say it's a part of you that I accept and does not get in the way of my liking or respecting you for many other reasons.
FedUpWithFaith
4th February 2012, 04:17 AM
I didn't see at as a million dollar idea (I don't even know what the idea is) .. just an idea proposed (I thought in the context of this thread) for the forum. I may have misunderstood and only Cunt can confirm this. If I did misunderstand, I'm not sure why Cunt brought it up in this thread. What the two of you (or anyone) wants to do privately and separately from this forum, is not really relevant here, is it?
How could you see it as anything since he hasn't disclosed anything yet?
I have an idea. It's a plainy commercial idea, meaning I think it would suck more done in a non-commercial way. I don't want to do it in a non-commercial way. It doesn't have to be done here at all, so there is no conflict.
There is this nagging detail, though. I think if this idea were done here, and done commercially, it would blend so beautifully with what we have that I can predict some hyper-critical old fucker (I picture Elouise here, because she is top-of-the-heap for me where forum women are concerned)
Said hyper-critical-old-fucker (or, HCOF) would be resistant, then after hearing the idea, would hold a moment or ten and say 'Shit! That IS really good and really DOES dovetail with our core.
I still don't know if it would change anyone's mind about getting commercial involvement here, but I honestly think it may.
Now, how can I discuss this without totally giving my idea away, and with the group I like?
I have thought about sharing it exclusively with FedUpWithFaith, not because of the trust I have for him (a lot) but because if he fucked me over for a million-dollar idea, I think I could milk it back out of him through his sis.
This is either a really honestly great idea with brilliant potential, or I'm wrong again. Please give the conundrum a thought.
Seems like when somebody says they might have a million dollar idea you give them the benefit of the doubt when the risk of sharing it is all theirs.
Cunt, who is completely naive as to the legal implications, is basically saying here that he'd like to whisper the idea in your ear (you being identified as the prime HCOF as you yourself later acknowledged) and mine. So it seems only logical to interpret your post as, "no, whisper it in mine but not FUWFs.
I think you're digging yourself in deeper.
How could you see it as anything since he hasn't disclosed anything yet?
I have an idea. It's a plainy commercial idea, meaning I think it would suck more done in a non-commercial way. I don't want to do it in a non-commercial way. It doesn't have to be done here at all, so there is no conflict.
There is this nagging detail, though. I think if this idea were done here, and done commercially, it would blend so beautifully with what we have that I can predict some hyper-critical old fucker (I picture Elouise here, because she is top-of-the-heap for me where forum women are concerned)
Said hyper-critical-old-fucker (or, HCOF) would be resistant, then after hearing the idea, would hold a moment or ten and say 'Shit! That IS really good and really DOES dovetail with our core.
I still don't know if it would change anyone's mind about getting commercial involvement here, but I honestly think it may.
Now, how can I discuss this without totally giving my idea away, and with the group I like?
I have thought about sharing it exclusively with FedUpWithFaith, not because of the trust I have for him (a lot) but because if he fucked me over for a million-dollar idea, I think I could milk it back out of him through his sis.
This is either a really honestly great idea with brilliant potential, or I'm wrong again. Please give the conundrum a thought.
Seems like when somebody says they might have a million dollar idea you give them the benefit of the doubt when the risk of sharing it is all theirs.
Cunt, who is completely naive as to the legal implications, is basically saying here that he'd like to whisper the idea in your ear (you being identified as the prime HCOF as you yourself later acknowledged) and mine. So it seems only logical to interpret your post as, "no, whisper it in mine but not FUWFs.
I think you're digging yourself in deeper.
Hermit
4th February 2012, 04:26 AM
Here we go again. http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x59/Hermit_graphics/Smileys/Facepalmemoticon.gif
Why don't you post one of your truth tables on the matter, FU? That'll convince us that you are right and everybody else is wrong. Or the next 200 posts in this thread could be just about you.
Why don't you post one of your truth tables on the matter, FU? That'll convince us that you are right and everybody else is wrong. Or the next 200 posts in this thread could be just about you.
FedUpWithFaith
4th February 2012, 04:28 AM
FUWF, I can see my comment about your ego has caused offense. I will try to explain it further if you like, but for now I will say it's a part of you that I accept and does not get in the way of my liking or respecting you for many other reasons.
Comments about my ego never offend me if they're honestly intended as I assume yours was. You've criticized my ego many times and have usually been correct - though I'm not ashamed about what you think I should be ashamed of. I feel I earned my ego. Most people don't. I've proffered criticism of my own giant ego far worse than you ever have.
What I'm sick and tired of is your repeated assertions that I'm dishonest, deceitful, and can't be trusted - whether driven by ego, narcissism or a bad hair day. I am not dishonest. I'm probably the most honest person you'll ever meet and its the one criticism that really pisses me off and you know it. You did it before I quit Ratz and you're doing it again.
Comments about my ego never offend me if they're honestly intended as I assume yours was. You've criticized my ego many times and have usually been correct - though I'm not ashamed about what you think I should be ashamed of. I feel I earned my ego. Most people don't. I've proffered criticism of my own giant ego far worse than you ever have.
What I'm sick and tired of is your repeated assertions that I'm dishonest, deceitful, and can't be trusted - whether driven by ego, narcissism or a bad hair day. I am not dishonest. I'm probably the most honest person you'll ever meet and its the one criticism that really pisses me off and you know it. You did it before I quit Ratz and you're doing it again.
FedUpWithFaith
4th February 2012, 04:30 AM
Here we go again. http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x59/Hermit_graphics/Smileys/Facepalmemoticon.gif
Why don't you post one of your truth tables on the matter, FU? That'll convince us that you are right and everybody else is wrong. Or the next 200 posts in this thread could be just about you.
Wondered how long before the passive-aggressive boyfriend would step in...
I'm not the one who initiated the needless posts that set this off. Your GF was.
Why don't you post one of your truth tables on the matter, FU? That'll convince us that you are right and everybody else is wrong. Or the next 200 posts in this thread could be just about you.
Wondered how long before the passive-aggressive boyfriend would step in...
I'm not the one who initiated the needless posts that set this off. Your GF was.
Cunt
4th February 2012, 04:40 AM
I have generic copies of these agreements I can email you for your use. I would be willing to sign an NDA if you wish to share the idea with me or anyone else. And if you don't I won't be offended.
Andy
oh fuck...um...can you guys wait...I'm having trouble keeping up. Just gimme a few minutes...
Andy
oh fuck...um...can you guys wait...I'm having trouble keeping up. Just gimme a few minutes...
Hermit
4th February 2012, 04:49 AM
Wondered how long before the passive-aggressive boyfriend would step in...Oh, you are quite the bitch. http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x59/Hermit_graphics/Smileys/55e6b5f6.gif Allow me to speak in my own right, thanks.
I'm not the one who initiated the needless posts that set this off. Your GF was.What set this off was your peculiar interpretation of what Elouise posted, but I'm sure a truth table will disabuse us of our erroneous thinking. http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x59/Hermit_graphics/Smileys/cdee7832.gif
I'm not the one who initiated the needless posts that set this off. Your GF was.What set this off was your peculiar interpretation of what Elouise posted, but I'm sure a truth table will disabuse us of our erroneous thinking. http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x59/Hermit_graphics/Smileys/cdee7832.gif
oblivion
4th February 2012, 04:53 AM
people who think TR is a board about a board should read this thread
see what you did? :omgwtf:
see what you did? :omgwtf:
MSG
4th February 2012, 04:54 AM
ah come on, conflict is the life force of a discussion forum
FedUpWithFaith
4th February 2012, 05:01 AM
This is one of the reasons why I am concerned about MR having a capital letter Mission. IP concerns. secrets. people who know stuff. people who don't. people who never will.
ugh. been there. done that. dealing with the lingering effects of hosting secrets whose writers had an expectation that they wouldn't become public. Nuking the damn stuff from orbit is an attractive option.
I share your concern and said so in my previous post on the matter. Unfortunately, we're stuck between a rock and hard place IMO. Either stagnate and flounder about or risk a growth mission that could invite disunity and harmful politics.
Seems to me we've tried option 1 enough. Why not try the risk?
But then I thought some more. Maybe we're just fucked and this isn't worth my effort. I'm reflecting on this silly battle between Eloise and I when she and I should be working together. I suspect that if Eloise and I met in person we get along famously and things could be very productive.
I'm currently involved (more peripherally than centrally) with an economic website and movement that is very successful. The people are passionate, there's a mission, and although it doesn't have a forum like this one, it does have an extensive communication platform that covers a wide range of topics beyond economics (though nowhere near as much freedom as here). It makes good money but there there is not infighting or serious political problems. And it was founded by a bunch of men and women with huge egos.
I have no doubt that if these personalities had interacted in a forum like this one only, they'd be squabbling even worse. The difference is they all made the effort of time and money to meet in person and stay in touch on a regular basis. Come to think of it, I believe that was true of other successful places like RD.net. Maybe this can't work purely in the virtual world.
So, in terms of what I want, I guess MindRomp is fucked. I'll just try to enjoy this place awhile until my sister and home rebuild no longer needs all my attention or this place suffocates like the rest, whichever comes first.
ugh. been there. done that. dealing with the lingering effects of hosting secrets whose writers had an expectation that they wouldn't become public. Nuking the damn stuff from orbit is an attractive option.
I share your concern and said so in my previous post on the matter. Unfortunately, we're stuck between a rock and hard place IMO. Either stagnate and flounder about or risk a growth mission that could invite disunity and harmful politics.
Seems to me we've tried option 1 enough. Why not try the risk?
But then I thought some more. Maybe we're just fucked and this isn't worth my effort. I'm reflecting on this silly battle between Eloise and I when she and I should be working together. I suspect that if Eloise and I met in person we get along famously and things could be very productive.
I'm currently involved (more peripherally than centrally) with an economic website and movement that is very successful. The people are passionate, there's a mission, and although it doesn't have a forum like this one, it does have an extensive communication platform that covers a wide range of topics beyond economics (though nowhere near as much freedom as here). It makes good money but there there is not infighting or serious political problems. And it was founded by a bunch of men and women with huge egos.
I have no doubt that if these personalities had interacted in a forum like this one only, they'd be squabbling even worse. The difference is they all made the effort of time and money to meet in person and stay in touch on a regular basis. Come to think of it, I believe that was true of other successful places like RD.net. Maybe this can't work purely in the virtual world.
So, in terms of what I want, I guess MindRomp is fucked. I'll just try to enjoy this place awhile until my sister and home rebuild no longer needs all my attention or this place suffocates like the rest, whichever comes first.
divagreen
4th February 2012, 05:01 AM
ah come on, conflict is the life force of a discussion forum
yeah I am waiting for you to get your hands dirty instead of just stirring the pot. :p
yeah I am waiting for you to get your hands dirty instead of just stirring the pot. :p
Cunt
4th February 2012, 05:04 AM
ugh. been there. done that. dealing with the lingering effects of hosting secrets whose writers had an expectation that they wouldn't become public. Nuking the damn stuff from orbit is an attractive option.
I was daydreaming about what it would be like to tell you folks (especially Elouise). Not seriously, and maybe I will after considering it (as it may not be protectable, but still worth big huzaas...unless I'm wrong)
I think a meta-study could be done here. How to nurture, protect, develop and implement an idea for profit. All with the help of my friends (if you all would stop barking at each other).
Also, what fucking Andy fails to understand is that I truly wouldn't mind it being stolen, if by him. See, I agree with all he says about matters legal. I just don't give a flying fuck (in his case/this case) for reasons good enough for me. I have ideas all the time. I aint scared.
--------------------
Here we go again. http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x59/Hermit_graphics/Smileys/Facepalmemoticon.gif
Why don't you post one of your truth tables on the matter, FU? That'll convince us that you are right and everybody else is wrong. Or the next 200 posts in this thread could be just about you.
oh fuck. I would trust a truth table a lot more than a sarcastic drive-by.
After making a sarcastic comment to an Inuit man, he told me that they had a different word for sarcasm.
The word was 'lying'.
-------------------------
Wondered how long before the passive-aggressive boyfriend would step in...
I'm not the one who initiated the needless posts that set this off. Your GF was.
Can you fucking chill. If the trust thing you and Elouise are tossing back and forth is important, I can't imagine why.
It sounds like both of you think you know better than me. I assure you, neither of you do (about the matter of who I can trust, I mean) Frankly it's a bit of a piss off to think that you both feel the need to jump in and nanny me. If I need nannying, I will ask (actually, I do occasionally) but shoving it at me leaves a bad feeling. I am going to drink water and get rid of it.
-----------------------
If Cunt's talking about a separate enterprise, then I misunderstood.
I am talking about something separate, but which could really fit well here and serve us in a number of ways.
I wish you guys would stop distrusting each other. If I recall, I don't have any of the 'keys' and neither does FedUpWithFaith. If you 'ran off' with THIS idea (and I am LOVING MindRomp!) I would still like you, and be happy with my effort. I am indeed possessive about some things, but deciding to be absolutely UN-possessive about some things is something I do for my own weird reasons. I don't know that I can explain them all (take some time) but I assure you I have thought about them and they satisfy me. Also, they are a bit more mechanical than they seem.
__________________________
There was no intent to mislead or manipulate, only to comment that my motivation has been different to Cunt's, as you portrayed Cunt's motivation.
I think you may be applying my comment that your ego doesn't allow me to trust you to take a leadership role in the way Cunt trusts you to the post you quoted. The two comments are separate. I am not here to mislead, manipulate or to offend.
Lemme clarify. I said I trust him quite a bit. I do. If it turns out I am wrong, I will still be glad I did.
If he stole an idea from me, it would be wrong.
If he stole this idea and profited hugely, I would be okay with it. Happy, actually. For strange reasons, maybe, but there it is.
-------------------------
When we were discussing missions, back on discuss, I mentioned championing people with intellectual/developmental disabilities.
My friend, whose name I can't share at the moment, has such a disability and had as much influence on my goals here as FedUpWithFaith. I wish he could join and take an interest, but I think we are not inclusive enough for him.
If I could sum up the mission of the nationwide ACL's (associations for community living) it would be inclusion.
I think a couple of people said that they had no knowledge of or interest in that issue, and we moved on.
Then I heard 'inclusion' a few times. It really does sum up in a word what I want here. I almost felt guilty...as if I had directed everyone to the community living movement. I don't mind being subversive, but didn't intend it with you :)
Inclusion...not the way those ACL's deliver it (fucking nannies) but truly, that is what I would want. What can be done when strategy demands inclusion but some tactics require exclusion (for instance, we fairly firmly exclude the illiterate, and those without internet access, but in time...)
I was daydreaming about what it would be like to tell you folks (especially Elouise). Not seriously, and maybe I will after considering it (as it may not be protectable, but still worth big huzaas...unless I'm wrong)
I think a meta-study could be done here. How to nurture, protect, develop and implement an idea for profit. All with the help of my friends (if you all would stop barking at each other).
Also, what fucking Andy fails to understand is that I truly wouldn't mind it being stolen, if by him. See, I agree with all he says about matters legal. I just don't give a flying fuck (in his case/this case) for reasons good enough for me. I have ideas all the time. I aint scared.
--------------------
Here we go again. http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x59/Hermit_graphics/Smileys/Facepalmemoticon.gif
Why don't you post one of your truth tables on the matter, FU? That'll convince us that you are right and everybody else is wrong. Or the next 200 posts in this thread could be just about you.
oh fuck. I would trust a truth table a lot more than a sarcastic drive-by.
After making a sarcastic comment to an Inuit man, he told me that they had a different word for sarcasm.
The word was 'lying'.
-------------------------
Wondered how long before the passive-aggressive boyfriend would step in...
I'm not the one who initiated the needless posts that set this off. Your GF was.
Can you fucking chill. If the trust thing you and Elouise are tossing back and forth is important, I can't imagine why.
It sounds like both of you think you know better than me. I assure you, neither of you do (about the matter of who I can trust, I mean) Frankly it's a bit of a piss off to think that you both feel the need to jump in and nanny me. If I need nannying, I will ask (actually, I do occasionally) but shoving it at me leaves a bad feeling. I am going to drink water and get rid of it.
-----------------------
If Cunt's talking about a separate enterprise, then I misunderstood.
I am talking about something separate, but which could really fit well here and serve us in a number of ways.
I wish you guys would stop distrusting each other. If I recall, I don't have any of the 'keys' and neither does FedUpWithFaith. If you 'ran off' with THIS idea (and I am LOVING MindRomp!) I would still like you, and be happy with my effort. I am indeed possessive about some things, but deciding to be absolutely UN-possessive about some things is something I do for my own weird reasons. I don't know that I can explain them all (take some time) but I assure you I have thought about them and they satisfy me. Also, they are a bit more mechanical than they seem.
__________________________
There was no intent to mislead or manipulate, only to comment that my motivation has been different to Cunt's, as you portrayed Cunt's motivation.
I think you may be applying my comment that your ego doesn't allow me to trust you to take a leadership role in the way Cunt trusts you to the post you quoted. The two comments are separate. I am not here to mislead, manipulate or to offend.
Lemme clarify. I said I trust him quite a bit. I do. If it turns out I am wrong, I will still be glad I did.
If he stole an idea from me, it would be wrong.
If he stole this idea and profited hugely, I would be okay with it. Happy, actually. For strange reasons, maybe, but there it is.
-------------------------
When we were discussing missions, back on discuss, I mentioned championing people with intellectual/developmental disabilities.
My friend, whose name I can't share at the moment, has such a disability and had as much influence on my goals here as FedUpWithFaith. I wish he could join and take an interest, but I think we are not inclusive enough for him.
If I could sum up the mission of the nationwide ACL's (associations for community living) it would be inclusion.
I think a couple of people said that they had no knowledge of or interest in that issue, and we moved on.
Then I heard 'inclusion' a few times. It really does sum up in a word what I want here. I almost felt guilty...as if I had directed everyone to the community living movement. I don't mind being subversive, but didn't intend it with you :)
Inclusion...not the way those ACL's deliver it (fucking nannies) but truly, that is what I would want. What can be done when strategy demands inclusion but some tactics require exclusion (for instance, we fairly firmly exclude the illiterate, and those without internet access, but in time...)
Jerome
4th February 2012, 05:07 AM
snip
i advocate that the currency is good feelings
i advocate that the currency is good feelings
FedUpWithFaith
4th February 2012, 05:10 AM
I'm not the one who initiated the needless posts that set this off. Your GF was.What set this off was your peculiar interpretation of what Elouise posted, but I'm sure a truth table will disabuse us of our erroneous thinking. http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x59/Hermit_graphics/Smileys/cdee7832.gif
That post of Eloise was also preceeded by this provocative post (http://mindromp.org/forum/showthread.php?p=14413#post14413). That's purely a matter of opinion since you simply assume there was nothing for me to take offense at. As I've said, I'll give her the benefit of the doubt, but each successive response she's given me, in view of the entire context, indicates otherwise. Eloise has basically said what she doesn't mean but now their are lots of holes then in what she did. frankly, i really don't care any more and would be happy to just drop it.
But I'm still putting you on IGNORE bitch.
WAW WAW WAW I Cant Hear Youuuuuuuu!!!
That post of Eloise was also preceeded by this provocative post (http://mindromp.org/forum/showthread.php?p=14413#post14413). That's purely a matter of opinion since you simply assume there was nothing for me to take offense at. As I've said, I'll give her the benefit of the doubt, but each successive response she's given me, in view of the entire context, indicates otherwise. Eloise has basically said what she doesn't mean but now their are lots of holes then in what she did. frankly, i really don't care any more and would be happy to just drop it.
But I'm still putting you on IGNORE bitch.
WAW WAW WAW I Cant Hear Youuuuuuuu!!!
Jerome
4th February 2012, 05:11 AM
How to nurture, protect, develop and implement an idea for profit.
the first key is to not have a goal of profit, the journey is the profit for all, the goal is mutual happiness fostered within the journey
I sound like a fucking hippy
:facepalm:
the first key is to not have a goal of profit, the journey is the profit for all, the goal is mutual happiness fostered within the journey
I sound like a fucking hippy
:facepalm:
MSG
4th February 2012, 05:12 AM
ah come on, conflict is the life force of a discussion forum
yeah I am waiting for you to get your hands dirty instead of just stirring the pot. :p
history suggests it would take Algis to produce that result
yeah I am waiting for you to get your hands dirty instead of just stirring the pot. :p
history suggests it would take Algis to produce that result
oblivion
4th February 2012, 05:13 AM
would a living breathing geocentrist be an adequate substitute?
FedUpWithFaith
4th February 2012, 05:15 AM
Also, what fucking Andy fails to understand is that I truly wouldn't mind it being stolen, if by him. See, I agree with all he says about matters legal. I just don't give a flying fuck (in his case/this case) for reasons good enough for me. I have ideas all the time. I aint scared.
Want to point out right away something important I glancingly mentioned in a post and my email to you. Even if you want to be so kind as to give it to the forum, if it has any value and can really distinguish MindRomp, the disclosure has to be made properly. Otherwise, any MindRomp competitor can use it - unless you don't care about that either.
Now I stand ready to steal your idea old buddy...
Want to point out right away something important I glancingly mentioned in a post and my email to you. Even if you want to be so kind as to give it to the forum, if it has any value and can really distinguish MindRomp, the disclosure has to be made properly. Otherwise, any MindRomp competitor can use it - unless you don't care about that either.
Now I stand ready to steal your idea old buddy...
charlou
4th February 2012, 05:17 AM
FUWF, I can see my comment about your ego has caused offense. I will try to explain it further if you like, but for now I will say it's a part of you that I accept and does not get in the way of my liking or respecting you for many other reasons.
Comments about my ego never offend me if they're honestly intended as I assume yours was. You've criticized my ego many times and have usually been correct - though I'm not ashamed about what you think I should be ashamed of. I feel I earned my ego. Most people don't. I've proffered criticism of my own giant ego far worse than you ever have.
What I'm sick and tired of is your repeated assertions that I'm dishonest, deceitful, and can't be trusted - whether driven by ego, narcissism or a bad hair day. I am not dishonest. I'm probably the most honest person you'll ever meet and its the one criticism that really pisses me off and you know it. You did it before I quit Ratz and you're doing it again.
re the bit I've bolded ... I didn't say or think that. I only said I don't trust you to lead us in any mission related to the forum because I believe your ego and narcissism gets in the way.
I'm leaving it there.
Comments about my ego never offend me if they're honestly intended as I assume yours was. You've criticized my ego many times and have usually been correct - though I'm not ashamed about what you think I should be ashamed of. I feel I earned my ego. Most people don't. I've proffered criticism of my own giant ego far worse than you ever have.
What I'm sick and tired of is your repeated assertions that I'm dishonest, deceitful, and can't be trusted - whether driven by ego, narcissism or a bad hair day. I am not dishonest. I'm probably the most honest person you'll ever meet and its the one criticism that really pisses me off and you know it. You did it before I quit Ratz and you're doing it again.
re the bit I've bolded ... I didn't say or think that. I only said I don't trust you to lead us in any mission related to the forum because I believe your ego and narcissism gets in the way.
I'm leaving it there.
FedUpWithFaith
4th February 2012, 05:18 AM
How to nurture, protect, develop and implement an idea for profit.
the first key is to not have a goal of profit, the journey is the profit for all, the goal is mutual happiness fostered within the journey
I sound like a fucking hippy
:facepalm:
The profits could all become the property of the forum community, to be used for gatherings, charity, or whatnot. Whether we start a business or a charity (as I and others have proposed), you'll have pretty much the same political risks.
the first key is to not have a goal of profit, the journey is the profit for all, the goal is mutual happiness fostered within the journey
I sound like a fucking hippy
:facepalm:
The profits could all become the property of the forum community, to be used for gatherings, charity, or whatnot. Whether we start a business or a charity (as I and others have proposed), you'll have pretty much the same political risks.
MSG
4th February 2012, 05:18 AM
would a living breathing geocentrist be an adequate substitute?
don't think so. my interests are too narrow, and also that is too far off beam to be taken seriously.
clarification: the historical record will show that at one time I did try to Algis seriously. long before TR though. I even (God forgive me) encouraged him to undertake some scientific research to try to support his contentions about wading...
don't think so. my interests are too narrow, and also that is too far off beam to be taken seriously.
clarification: the historical record will show that at one time I did try to Algis seriously. long before TR though. I even (God forgive me) encouraged him to undertake some scientific research to try to support his contentions about wading...
divagreen
4th February 2012, 05:19 AM
ah come on, conflict is the life force of a discussion forum
yeah I am waiting for you to get your hands dirty instead of just stirring the pot. :p
history suggests it would take Algis to produce that result
Right-ee-o, Jim. :hehe:
yeah I am waiting for you to get your hands dirty instead of just stirring the pot. :p
history suggests it would take Algis to produce that result
Right-ee-o, Jim. :hehe:
charlou
4th February 2012, 05:23 AM
How to nurture, protect, develop and implement an idea for profit.
the first key is to not have a goal of profit, the journey is the profit for all, the goal is mutual happiness fostered within the journey
I sound like a fucking hippy
:facepalm:
The profits could all become the property of the forum community, to be used for gatherings, charity, or whatnot. Whether we start a business or a charity (as I and others have proposed), you'll have pretty much the same political risks.
Are we still talking about Cunt's idea? Is this being proposed as a forum venture, or a separate venture?
the first key is to not have a goal of profit, the journey is the profit for all, the goal is mutual happiness fostered within the journey
I sound like a fucking hippy
:facepalm:
The profits could all become the property of the forum community, to be used for gatherings, charity, or whatnot. Whether we start a business or a charity (as I and others have proposed), you'll have pretty much the same political risks.
Are we still talking about Cunt's idea? Is this being proposed as a forum venture, or a separate venture?
FedUpWithFaith
4th February 2012, 05:25 AM
re the bit I've bolded ... I didn't say or think that. I only said I don't trust you to lead us in any mission related to the forum because I believe your ego and narcissism gets in the way.
I'm leaving it there.
I'm happy to leave it there regarding the trust issue. That's the biggie.. But where did Cunt or I suggest I lead anything? I've always tried to help with ideas but you have never seen me try to run anything in a forum (actually once I did before laumch at HOC but that was to call Toxic's bluff on her BS). I've never wanted to be a mod or have any leadership role in any forum you or I have ever been on.
I like my ideas to infuence and if they have merit they will and if they don't they won't. Or do you feel that Cunt is so naive or stupid that I will somehow steamroller him? Is that your fear?
I'm leaving it there.
I'm happy to leave it there regarding the trust issue. That's the biggie.. But where did Cunt or I suggest I lead anything? I've always tried to help with ideas but you have never seen me try to run anything in a forum (actually once I did before laumch at HOC but that was to call Toxic's bluff on her BS). I've never wanted to be a mod or have any leadership role in any forum you or I have ever been on.
I like my ideas to infuence and if they have merit they will and if they don't they won't. Or do you feel that Cunt is so naive or stupid that I will somehow steamroller him? Is that your fear?
charlou
4th February 2012, 05:26 AM
Okay, not leaving it there, because I have to add that I didn't say or think you should be ashamed of anything, either, FUWF.
Back later.
Back later.
charlou
4th February 2012, 05:28 AM
I've already said I may have misunderstood what Cunt is proposing. I still have no idea.
Really going now. :D
Really going now. :D
charlou
4th February 2012, 05:30 AM
Also, can you stop reading things into this that I am not thinking or saying, please. TIA.
Arrgggg ... the shower will be welcomely cooling .. hehe.
Arrgggg ... the shower will be welcomely cooling .. hehe.
FedUpWithFaith
4th February 2012, 05:30 AM
Are we still talking about Cunt's idea? Is this being proposed as a forum venture, or a separate venture?
LOL, I'm losing track myself. I always assumed this would be something that would benefit the forum, whether it was directly part of it or not.
If Cunt had an idea for something commercial akin to what JREF (non-commercial) is to its forum, that's fine. For people worried about forum politics, it might be better to have some arm's length separation.
LOL, I'm losing track myself. I always assumed this would be something that would benefit the forum, whether it was directly part of it or not.
If Cunt had an idea for something commercial akin to what JREF (non-commercial) is to its forum, that's fine. For people worried about forum politics, it might be better to have some arm's length separation.
Jerome
4th February 2012, 05:33 AM
Arrgggg ... the shower will be welcomely cooling .. hehe.
hot itt
hot itt
FedUpWithFaith
4th February 2012, 05:34 AM
Also, can you stop reading things into this that I am not thinking or saying, please. TIA.
Arrgggg ... the shower will be welcomely cooling .. hehe.
I think this is cool dear. I can see you're sincere. We both have a prickly past together. Now let's have the makeup sex. I'll even let Seraph watch.
:hug::hehe:
Arrgggg ... the shower will be welcomely cooling .. hehe.
I think this is cool dear. I can see you're sincere. We both have a prickly past together. Now let's have the makeup sex. I'll even let Seraph watch.
:hug::hehe:
Hermit
4th February 2012, 05:34 AM
Here we go again. http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x59/Hermit_graphics/Smileys/Facepalmemoticon.gif
Why don't you post one of your truth tables on the matter, FU? That'll convince us that you are right and everybody else is wrong. Or the next 200 posts in this thread could be just about you.
oh fuck. I would trust a truth table a lot more than a sarcastic drive-by.
After making a sarcastic comment to an Inuit man, he told me that they had a different word for sarcasm.
The word was 'lying'.
It wasn't a drive-by, Cunt. It was a reply to this:I'm not the one who initiated the needless posts that set this off. Your GF was.
The reply was prompted by repeated references to my relationship with Eloise, and I reserve the right to request he remount his high horse instead of making snide and unjustified remarks. Has it occurred to you (and him) that I might just be voicing an opinion in my own right? Do either of you really think I might defend Eloise's point of view even if I disagreed with it? Really, Cunt, FU's post was an attempt to land a punch below the belt. You ought to take him to task over that rather than have a go at my reply to his crappy, low and ridiculous approach to discussing the issue.
FedUpWith Faith, if you persist fucking around like that, you will get it back in spades. Or I'll actually put you on ignore. That would be the first time I used that function since I routinely ignored flooders on IRC channels in the nineties and one experiment in a chat room attached to a forum in 2004 or 5.
Why don't you post one of your truth tables on the matter, FU? That'll convince us that you are right and everybody else is wrong. Or the next 200 posts in this thread could be just about you.
oh fuck. I would trust a truth table a lot more than a sarcastic drive-by.
After making a sarcastic comment to an Inuit man, he told me that they had a different word for sarcasm.
The word was 'lying'.
It wasn't a drive-by, Cunt. It was a reply to this:I'm not the one who initiated the needless posts that set this off. Your GF was.
The reply was prompted by repeated references to my relationship with Eloise, and I reserve the right to request he remount his high horse instead of making snide and unjustified remarks. Has it occurred to you (and him) that I might just be voicing an opinion in my own right? Do either of you really think I might defend Eloise's point of view even if I disagreed with it? Really, Cunt, FU's post was an attempt to land a punch below the belt. You ought to take him to task over that rather than have a go at my reply to his crappy, low and ridiculous approach to discussing the issue.
FedUpWith Faith, if you persist fucking around like that, you will get it back in spades. Or I'll actually put you on ignore. That would be the first time I used that function since I routinely ignored flooders on IRC channels in the nineties and one experiment in a chat room attached to a forum in 2004 or 5.
Cunt
4th February 2012, 05:34 AM
Also, what fucking Andy fails to understand is that I truly wouldn't mind it being stolen, if by him. See, I agree with all he says about matters legal. I just don't give a flying fuck (in his case/this case) for reasons good enough for me. I have ideas all the time. I aint scared.
Want to point out right away something important I glancingly mentioned in a post and my email to you. Even if you want to be so kind as to give it to the forum, if it has any value and can really distinguish MindRomp, the disclosure has to be made properly. Otherwise, any MindRomp competitor can use it - unless you don't care about that either.
Now I stand ready to steal your idea old buddy...
It might have the kind of value to MindRomp that you think of, so I won't let anything go yet.
You know, I think it can distinguish mindromp.
---------------
re the bit I've bolded ... I didn't say or think that. I only said I don't trust you to lead us in any mission related to the forum because I believe your ego and narcissism gets in the way.
I'm leaving it there.
Leave that, by all means. (and thanks)
I want to pick at you a bit, though. I hope you realize how well I think of you.
Your lack of ego (or is it anti-ego) would cause me to not trust you to lead me in any mission related to a business.
I am a lot like you in this respect. I do respect it as a character trait. I have it on myself most of the time.
I would rather hire a skilled bookkeeper and a suspicious, old accountant to watch the bookkeeper. If there gets to be too much for a suspicious accountant to watch, then I guess a tax lawyer to watch ALL of them. Sounds about as appealing to me as jacking off with a handful of gravel, but I understand that I could end up owing terribly if I don't protect myself. Plus, if I ended up owing terribly, my sweetheart would likely be affected negatively. I am a very conservative sort, sort of.
Want to point out right away something important I glancingly mentioned in a post and my email to you. Even if you want to be so kind as to give it to the forum, if it has any value and can really distinguish MindRomp, the disclosure has to be made properly. Otherwise, any MindRomp competitor can use it - unless you don't care about that either.
Now I stand ready to steal your idea old buddy...
It might have the kind of value to MindRomp that you think of, so I won't let anything go yet.
You know, I think it can distinguish mindromp.
---------------
re the bit I've bolded ... I didn't say or think that. I only said I don't trust you to lead us in any mission related to the forum because I believe your ego and narcissism gets in the way.
I'm leaving it there.
Leave that, by all means. (and thanks)
I want to pick at you a bit, though. I hope you realize how well I think of you.
Your lack of ego (or is it anti-ego) would cause me to not trust you to lead me in any mission related to a business.
I am a lot like you in this respect. I do respect it as a character trait. I have it on myself most of the time.
I would rather hire a skilled bookkeeper and a suspicious, old accountant to watch the bookkeeper. If there gets to be too much for a suspicious accountant to watch, then I guess a tax lawyer to watch ALL of them. Sounds about as appealing to me as jacking off with a handful of gravel, but I understand that I could end up owing terribly if I don't protect myself. Plus, if I ended up owing terribly, my sweetheart would likely be affected negatively. I am a very conservative sort, sort of.
Jerome
4th February 2012, 05:35 AM
JREF (non-commercial)
You are an idiot.
You are an idiot.
FedUpWithFaith
4th February 2012, 05:57 AM
[Lemme clarify. I said I trust him quite a bit. I do. If it turns out I am wrong, I will still be glad I did.
If he stole an idea from me, it would be wrong.
If he stole this idea and profited hugely, I would be okay with it. Happy, actually. For strange reasons, maybe, but there it is.
You are a trip Cunt. Large in spirit and soft on self-interest. I admire that. Frankly, if Eloise was trying to protect you, it was rather sweet. You need it you jackass.
After I steal the idea, I'm not going to give you or this forum a dime, just to teach you a lesson. What that lesson is though, I don't have a clue. Because you won't care.
When we were discussing missions, back on discuss, I mentioned championing people with intellectual/developmental disabilities.
My friend, whose name I can't share at the moment, has such a disability and had as much influence on my goals here as FedUpWithFaith. I wish he could join and take an interest, but I think we are not inclusive enough for him.
If I could sum up the mission of the nationwide ACL's (associations for community living) it would be inclusion.
This is magnificent idea, though I don't see how it could be anything but a peripheral idea to the forum.
So forget the forum for a sec. This sounds like the group you emailed me about when we were discussing my sis. I'd email this too lest somebody out there see get ideas from what I'm about to tell you that can help this forum too.
I have a good friend who is a Professor at Johns Hopkins and also has a company dedicated to community medical outreach. The company he founded has amazing software that is used to connect outpatients (mostly for substance abuse) with a local treatment community and with each other. It allows health care providers to monitor and engage these people on a regular basis and for the participants to engage in group therapy. it has many interactive tools and the ability to catalog and semantically manipulate the dialogues. Frankly, i could see this software revolutionizing how we have forums. But you may be interested in having your friend check it out. If interested, let me know and I will give you more info to put this together.
If he stole an idea from me, it would be wrong.
If he stole this idea and profited hugely, I would be okay with it. Happy, actually. For strange reasons, maybe, but there it is.
You are a trip Cunt. Large in spirit and soft on self-interest. I admire that. Frankly, if Eloise was trying to protect you, it was rather sweet. You need it you jackass.
After I steal the idea, I'm not going to give you or this forum a dime, just to teach you a lesson. What that lesson is though, I don't have a clue. Because you won't care.
When we were discussing missions, back on discuss, I mentioned championing people with intellectual/developmental disabilities.
My friend, whose name I can't share at the moment, has such a disability and had as much influence on my goals here as FedUpWithFaith. I wish he could join and take an interest, but I think we are not inclusive enough for him.
If I could sum up the mission of the nationwide ACL's (associations for community living) it would be inclusion.
This is magnificent idea, though I don't see how it could be anything but a peripheral idea to the forum.
So forget the forum for a sec. This sounds like the group you emailed me about when we were discussing my sis. I'd email this too lest somebody out there see get ideas from what I'm about to tell you that can help this forum too.
I have a good friend who is a Professor at Johns Hopkins and also has a company dedicated to community medical outreach. The company he founded has amazing software that is used to connect outpatients (mostly for substance abuse) with a local treatment community and with each other. It allows health care providers to monitor and engage these people on a regular basis and for the participants to engage in group therapy. it has many interactive tools and the ability to catalog and semantically manipulate the dialogues. Frankly, i could see this software revolutionizing how we have forums. But you may be interested in having your friend check it out. If interested, let me know and I will give you more info to put this together.
FedUpWithFaith
4th February 2012, 05:59 AM
JREF (non-commercial)
You are an idiot.
It's not a non-profit (not that that necessaily means anything)?
You are an idiot.
It's not a non-profit (not that that necessaily means anything)?
Grumps
4th February 2012, 06:06 AM
Christ, there is a lot of sand in a lot of vaginas in this thread.
nostrum
4th February 2012, 06:11 AM
Hmm I think FUWF and Elouise might be having make up sex, so perhaps this is redundant. But, reading the past few pages, I thought cunt was talking about something he'd already talked about in the discussion forum. I suspect Elouise thought the same? So her point of wishing to make it all open for public discussion and consumption is something I whole heartedly agree with.
Turns out I was mistaken. So... just so you can see perhaps where Elouise might have been coming from...?
Turns out I was mistaken. So... just so you can see perhaps where Elouise might have been coming from...?
FedUpWithFaith
4th February 2012, 06:15 AM
It wasn't a drive-by, Cunt. It was a reply to this:I'm not the one who initiated the needless posts that set this off. Your GF was.
The reply was prompted by repeated references to my relationship with Eloise, and I reserve the right to request he remount his high horse instead of making snide and unjustified remarks. Has it occurred to you (and him) that I might just be voicing an opinion in my own right? Do either of you really think I might defend Eloise's point of view even if I disagreed with it? Really, Cunt, FU's post was an attempt to land a punch below the belt. You ought to take him to task over that rather than have a go at my reply to his crappy, low and ridiculous approach to discussing the issue.
FedUpWith Faith, if you persist fucking around like that, you will get it back in spades. Or I'll actually put you on ignore. That would be the first time I used that function since I routinely ignored flooders on IRC channels in the nineties and one experiment in a chat room attached to a forum in 2004 or 5.
You accuse me of perpetuating shit. It seemed the shit was over but now you want to perpetuate it. Fine. I don't give a shit if you give it to me in "spades" or put me on ignore. You seem to think I find you this major threat or intellectual equal who I dare not cross. To the extent you have an opinion, and ideas of your own, and I believe you do, they are not as intelligent and unique as you seem to think they are. I can easily find them duplicated among others of equal or greater intelligence and creativity here.
You make a lot of statements of fact that are mere opinion. I think it is a pretty silly he-said she-said exercise you want to engage in. So put up your own truth table. I don't care. I'm really not interested in arguing who started it. At this point I'll simply maintain that reasonable and fair people reading the whole exchange could come down either way.
As far as your other bitching. I never said or meant to imply that the things you said were not your own ideas or that you didn't really believe them. But I've now been on how many forums with you and Eloise. The number of times I've seen you disagree is almost negligible and in matters involving me - NEVER. You are always johnny on the spot within minutes after you percieve I've attacked Eloise. Big deal. I do the same thing with my wife. The point isn't what your ideas are. It's how you express them and the timing.
The reply was prompted by repeated references to my relationship with Eloise, and I reserve the right to request he remount his high horse instead of making snide and unjustified remarks. Has it occurred to you (and him) that I might just be voicing an opinion in my own right? Do either of you really think I might defend Eloise's point of view even if I disagreed with it? Really, Cunt, FU's post was an attempt to land a punch below the belt. You ought to take him to task over that rather than have a go at my reply to his crappy, low and ridiculous approach to discussing the issue.
FedUpWith Faith, if you persist fucking around like that, you will get it back in spades. Or I'll actually put you on ignore. That would be the first time I used that function since I routinely ignored flooders on IRC channels in the nineties and one experiment in a chat room attached to a forum in 2004 or 5.
You accuse me of perpetuating shit. It seemed the shit was over but now you want to perpetuate it. Fine. I don't give a shit if you give it to me in "spades" or put me on ignore. You seem to think I find you this major threat or intellectual equal who I dare not cross. To the extent you have an opinion, and ideas of your own, and I believe you do, they are not as intelligent and unique as you seem to think they are. I can easily find them duplicated among others of equal or greater intelligence and creativity here.
You make a lot of statements of fact that are mere opinion. I think it is a pretty silly he-said she-said exercise you want to engage in. So put up your own truth table. I don't care. I'm really not interested in arguing who started it. At this point I'll simply maintain that reasonable and fair people reading the whole exchange could come down either way.
As far as your other bitching. I never said or meant to imply that the things you said were not your own ideas or that you didn't really believe them. But I've now been on how many forums with you and Eloise. The number of times I've seen you disagree is almost negligible and in matters involving me - NEVER. You are always johnny on the spot within minutes after you percieve I've attacked Eloise. Big deal. I do the same thing with my wife. The point isn't what your ideas are. It's how you express them and the timing.
FedUpWithFaith
4th February 2012, 06:17 AM
JREF (non-commercial)
You are an idiot.
It's not a non-profit (not that that necessaily means anything)?
Fine, I am an idiot.
You are an idiot.
It's not a non-profit (not that that necessaily means anything)?
Fine, I am an idiot.
Cunt
4th February 2012, 06:19 AM
[Lemme clarify. I said I trust him quite a bit. I do. If it turns out I am wrong, I will still be glad I did.
If he stole an idea from me, it would be wrong.
If he stole this idea and profited hugely, I would be okay with it. Happy, actually. For strange reasons, maybe, but there it is.
You are a trip Cunt. Large in spirit and soft on self-interest. I admire that. Frankly, if Eloise was trying to protect you, it was rather sweet. You need it you jackass.Fuck you I do. And fucking stop trying to baby me. I don't appreciate it.
Plus it's a bit creepy.
After I steal the idea, I'm not going to give you or this forum a dime, just to teach you a lesson. What that lesson is though, I don't have a clue. Because you won't care.Actually, if you did, I would have my goal achieved. It's a lot more selfish than you might realize.
This is magnificent idea, though I don't see how it could be anything but a peripheral idea to the forum.Well it is more already, since the folks I meant (people with intellectual/developmental disabilities) often get ostracised because they are real social fuck-ups. They really get shit wrong.
I managed to influence the creation of this place so that the ugliest of them will have a place if he or she wants it (though at the moment we are limited to the literate)
So forget the forum for a sec. This sounds like the group you emailed me about when we were discussing my sis. I'd email this too lest somebody out there see get ideas from what I'm about to tell you that can help this forum too.
I have a good friend who is a Professor at Johns Hopkins and also has a company dedicated to community medical outreach. The company he founded has amazing software that is used to connect outpatients (mostly for substance abuse) with a local treatment community and with each other. It allows health care providers to monitor and engage these people on a regular basis and for the participants to engage in group therapy. it has many interactive tools and the ability to catalog and semantically manipulate the dialogues. Frankly, i could see this software revolutionizing how we have forums. But you may be interested in having your friend check it out. If interested, let me know and I will give you more info to put this together.
I'm not too sure what semantically means there...but unless you are misunderstanding gigantically I am quite interested.
If he stole an idea from me, it would be wrong.
If he stole this idea and profited hugely, I would be okay with it. Happy, actually. For strange reasons, maybe, but there it is.
You are a trip Cunt. Large in spirit and soft on self-interest. I admire that. Frankly, if Eloise was trying to protect you, it was rather sweet. You need it you jackass.Fuck you I do. And fucking stop trying to baby me. I don't appreciate it.
Plus it's a bit creepy.
After I steal the idea, I'm not going to give you or this forum a dime, just to teach you a lesson. What that lesson is though, I don't have a clue. Because you won't care.Actually, if you did, I would have my goal achieved. It's a lot more selfish than you might realize.
This is magnificent idea, though I don't see how it could be anything but a peripheral idea to the forum.Well it is more already, since the folks I meant (people with intellectual/developmental disabilities) often get ostracised because they are real social fuck-ups. They really get shit wrong.
I managed to influence the creation of this place so that the ugliest of them will have a place if he or she wants it (though at the moment we are limited to the literate)
So forget the forum for a sec. This sounds like the group you emailed me about when we were discussing my sis. I'd email this too lest somebody out there see get ideas from what I'm about to tell you that can help this forum too.
I have a good friend who is a Professor at Johns Hopkins and also has a company dedicated to community medical outreach. The company he founded has amazing software that is used to connect outpatients (mostly for substance abuse) with a local treatment community and with each other. It allows health care providers to monitor and engage these people on a regular basis and for the participants to engage in group therapy. it has many interactive tools and the ability to catalog and semantically manipulate the dialogues. Frankly, i could see this software revolutionizing how we have forums. But you may be interested in having your friend check it out. If interested, let me know and I will give you more info to put this together.
I'm not too sure what semantically means there...but unless you are misunderstanding gigantically I am quite interested.
Jerome
4th February 2012, 06:20 AM
Does anyone in California or Washington have a medical cocaine and hooker license?
divagreen
4th February 2012, 06:26 AM
Does anyone in California or Washington have a medical cocaine and hooker license?
shut up
shut up
Jerome
4th February 2012, 06:27 AM
wat
divagreen
4th February 2012, 06:30 AM
do you have a sandy vagina, jerome
Jerome
4th February 2012, 06:30 AM
:no:
FedUpWithFaith
4th February 2012, 06:33 AM
[Lemme clarify. I said I trust him quite a bit. I do. If it turns out I am wrong, I will still be glad I did.
If he stole an idea from me, it would be wrong.
If he stole this idea and profited hugely, I would be okay with it. Happy, actually. For strange reasons, maybe, but there it is.
You are a trip Cunt. Large in spirit and soft on self-interest. I admire that. Frankly, if Eloise was trying to protect you, it was rather sweet. You need it you jackass.Fuck you I do. And fucking stop trying to baby me. I don't appreciate it.
Plus it's a bit creepy.
Sorry, really, for the paternalism. But it was said out of genuine care.
After I steal the idea, I'm not going to give you or this forum a dime, just to teach you a lesson. What that lesson is though, I don't have a clue. Because you won't care.Actually, if you did, I would have my goal achieved. It's a lot more selfish than you might realize.
Sounds like there is some real method to your madness. I'm very curious and want to hear the idea as soon as you're comfortable sharing it.
So forget the forum for a sec. This sounds like the group you emailed me about when we were discussing my sis. I'd email this too lest somebody out there see get ideas from what I'm about to tell you that can help this forum too.
I have a good friend who is a Professor at Johns Hopkins and also has a company dedicated to community medical outreach. The company he founded has amazing software that is used to connect outpatients (mostly for substance abuse) with a local treatment community and with each other. It allows health care providers to monitor and engage these people on a regular basis and for the participants to engage in group therapy. it has many interactive tools and the ability to catalog and semantically manipulate the dialogues. Frankly, i could see this software revolutionizing how we have forums. But you may be interested in having your friend check it out. If interested, let me know and I will give you more info to put this together.
I'm not too sure what semantically means there...but unless you are misunderstanding gigantically I am quite interested.
Forgive me if I misinterpreted you but it sounded like you wanted to help a community of handicapped or disadvantaged people and I was introducing you to a software system that enables them to be connected to a community of aid-workers and each other for mutual benefit and treatment as well as observation by professionals.
If he stole an idea from me, it would be wrong.
If he stole this idea and profited hugely, I would be okay with it. Happy, actually. For strange reasons, maybe, but there it is.
You are a trip Cunt. Large in spirit and soft on self-interest. I admire that. Frankly, if Eloise was trying to protect you, it was rather sweet. You need it you jackass.Fuck you I do. And fucking stop trying to baby me. I don't appreciate it.
Plus it's a bit creepy.
Sorry, really, for the paternalism. But it was said out of genuine care.
After I steal the idea, I'm not going to give you or this forum a dime, just to teach you a lesson. What that lesson is though, I don't have a clue. Because you won't care.Actually, if you did, I would have my goal achieved. It's a lot more selfish than you might realize.
Sounds like there is some real method to your madness. I'm very curious and want to hear the idea as soon as you're comfortable sharing it.
So forget the forum for a sec. This sounds like the group you emailed me about when we were discussing my sis. I'd email this too lest somebody out there see get ideas from what I'm about to tell you that can help this forum too.
I have a good friend who is a Professor at Johns Hopkins and also has a company dedicated to community medical outreach. The company he founded has amazing software that is used to connect outpatients (mostly for substance abuse) with a local treatment community and with each other. It allows health care providers to monitor and engage these people on a regular basis and for the participants to engage in group therapy. it has many interactive tools and the ability to catalog and semantically manipulate the dialogues. Frankly, i could see this software revolutionizing how we have forums. But you may be interested in having your friend check it out. If interested, let me know and I will give you more info to put this together.
I'm not too sure what semantically means there...but unless you are misunderstanding gigantically I am quite interested.
Forgive me if I misinterpreted you but it sounded like you wanted to help a community of handicapped or disadvantaged people and I was introducing you to a software system that enables them to be connected to a community of aid-workers and each other for mutual benefit and treatment as well as observation by professionals.
charlou
4th February 2012, 06:46 AM
I see there's some talk about me being someone's "GF". Ummm no. I'm me, a woman, my own person. :)
re the bit I've bolded ... I didn't say or think that. I only said I don't trust you to lead us in any mission related to the forum because I believe your ego and narcissism gets in the way.
I'm leaving it there.
Leave that, by all means. (and thanks)
I want to pick at you a bit, though. I hope you realize how well I think of you.
Your lack of ego (or is it anti-ego) would cause me to not trust you to lead me in any mission related to a business.
I'm not sure if you understood anything I said in this thread to mean that I was wanting to lead you in something..? Just in case you had, I'll remind you that when we were discussing the MindRomp ethos I voiced a preference for no leaders at MindRomp. That hasn't changed. ;)
re the bit I've bolded ... I didn't say or think that. I only said I don't trust you to lead us in any mission related to the forum because I believe your ego and narcissism gets in the way.
I'm leaving it there.
Leave that, by all means. (and thanks)
I want to pick at you a bit, though. I hope you realize how well I think of you.
Your lack of ego (or is it anti-ego) would cause me to not trust you to lead me in any mission related to a business.
I'm not sure if you understood anything I said in this thread to mean that I was wanting to lead you in something..? Just in case you had, I'll remind you that when we were discussing the MindRomp ethos I voiced a preference for no leaders at MindRomp. That hasn't changed. ;)
Cunt
4th February 2012, 06:56 AM
Forgive me if I misinterpreted you but it sounded like you wanted to help a community of handicapped or disadvantaged people and I was introducing you to a software system that enables them to be connected to a community of aid-workers and each other for mutual benefit and treatment as well as observation by professionals.
Now THAT could do a lot of business up here! There is government gravy available, too...though I really hate the taste of it.
And SOFTware?!?! Even better! Please send the info along.
Now THAT could do a lot of business up here! There is government gravy available, too...though I really hate the taste of it.
And SOFTware?!?! Even better! Please send the info along.
charlou
4th February 2012, 07:01 AM
Forgive me if I misinterpreted you but it sounded like you wanted to help a community of handicapped or disadvantaged people and I was introducing you to a software system that enables them to be connected to a community of aid-workers and each other for mutual benefit and treatment as well as observation by professionals.
Now THAT could do a lot of business up here! There is government gravy available, too...though I really hate the taste of it.
And SOFTware?!?! Even better! Please send the info along.
Just discussing this as an idea/venture separate to this forum ... I'm curious where/how the profit comes into this, let alone a million dollar profit?
Now THAT could do a lot of business up here! There is government gravy available, too...though I really hate the taste of it.
And SOFTware?!?! Even better! Please send the info along.
Just discussing this as an idea/venture separate to this forum ... I'm curious where/how the profit comes into this, let alone a million dollar profit?
Cunt
4th February 2012, 07:04 AM
I see there's some talk about me being someone's "GF". Ummm no. I'm me, a woman, my own person. :)
re the bit I've bolded ... I didn't say or think that. I only said I don't trust you to lead us in any mission related to the forum because I believe your ego and narcissism gets in the way.
I'm leaving it there.
Leave that, by all means. (and thanks)
I want to pick at you a bit, though. I hope you realize how well I think of you.
Your lack of ego (or is it anti-ego) would cause me to not trust you to lead me in any mission related to a business.
I'm not sure if you understood anything I said in this thread to mean that I was wanting to lead you in something..? Just in case you had, I'll remind you that when we were discussing the MindRomp ethos I voiced a preference for no leaders at MindRomp. That hasn't changed. ;)
I was trying to gently outline that I think you are not fit for leading (me) in any business sense...very similarly to the way you expressed your thought that another had too much ego to get involved with leading MR.
A business needs a leader (I think so, anyway) and it's a specialized set of skills. I have not created or run a business, but I have watched closely while friends have, with varying success. I have a sense of what is needed, and it is just the kind of practicality that I hear from FedUpWithFaith. It makes me itch. I fucking hate it. My very dear friend in town (for the last 5 or 6 years) is an accountant who is building a family accounting firm. He sounds the same way. I made a few suggestions about elements of his business (IT and HR mainly) and when I see one of them taken along I feel all creepy because I am 'the man' sort of. It definitely runs against my grain but I have to accept it in certain parts of my life.
MindRomp is doing fine without. Glad to leave it that way, too. If there is any business stuff near it, though, that will likely have to be 'led' by someone or other. (I haven't heard of a leaderless business...)
re the bit I've bolded ... I didn't say or think that. I only said I don't trust you to lead us in any mission related to the forum because I believe your ego and narcissism gets in the way.
I'm leaving it there.
Leave that, by all means. (and thanks)
I want to pick at you a bit, though. I hope you realize how well I think of you.
Your lack of ego (or is it anti-ego) would cause me to not trust you to lead me in any mission related to a business.
I'm not sure if you understood anything I said in this thread to mean that I was wanting to lead you in something..? Just in case you had, I'll remind you that when we were discussing the MindRomp ethos I voiced a preference for no leaders at MindRomp. That hasn't changed. ;)
I was trying to gently outline that I think you are not fit for leading (me) in any business sense...very similarly to the way you expressed your thought that another had too much ego to get involved with leading MR.
A business needs a leader (I think so, anyway) and it's a specialized set of skills. I have not created or run a business, but I have watched closely while friends have, with varying success. I have a sense of what is needed, and it is just the kind of practicality that I hear from FedUpWithFaith. It makes me itch. I fucking hate it. My very dear friend in town (for the last 5 or 6 years) is an accountant who is building a family accounting firm. He sounds the same way. I made a few suggestions about elements of his business (IT and HR mainly) and when I see one of them taken along I feel all creepy because I am 'the man' sort of. It definitely runs against my grain but I have to accept it in certain parts of my life.
MindRomp is doing fine without. Glad to leave it that way, too. If there is any business stuff near it, though, that will likely have to be 'led' by someone or other. (I haven't heard of a leaderless business...)
FedUpWithFaith
4th February 2012, 07:16 AM
Forgive me if I misinterpreted you but it sounded like you wanted to help a community of handicapped or disadvantaged people and I was introducing you to a software system that enables them to be connected to a community of aid-workers and each other for mutual benefit and treatment as well as observation by professionals.
Now THAT could do a lot of business up here! There is government gravy available, too...though I really hate the taste of it.
And SOFTware?!?! Even better! Please send the info along.
Just discussing this as an idea/venture separate to this forum ... I'm curious where/how the profit comes into this, let alone a million dollar profit?
EL,
Just to prevent misunderstandings or if you skipped over some posts, right now i have no idea whether this is related to Cunt's "million dollar" idea or not. I was simply telling him about a software solution I'm aware of to some challenges one of his friends faces with a challenged community of people in CA.
i have no rights to this software and have no idea whether my friend would agree to allow it be adapted to Cunt's application or this forum. But just learning about it might give him some ideas (and us).
It may turn out to be off-topic and if so I'll take it offline to Cunt.
Now THAT could do a lot of business up here! There is government gravy available, too...though I really hate the taste of it.
And SOFTware?!?! Even better! Please send the info along.
Just discussing this as an idea/venture separate to this forum ... I'm curious where/how the profit comes into this, let alone a million dollar profit?
EL,
Just to prevent misunderstandings or if you skipped over some posts, right now i have no idea whether this is related to Cunt's "million dollar" idea or not. I was simply telling him about a software solution I'm aware of to some challenges one of his friends faces with a challenged community of people in CA.
i have no rights to this software and have no idea whether my friend would agree to allow it be adapted to Cunt's application or this forum. But just learning about it might give him some ideas (and us).
It may turn out to be off-topic and if so I'll take it offline to Cunt.
Nhận xét
Đăng nhận xét