Just when I thought it was safe to come out of the water to play with a Welcome Wagon Diary, I log on and find another fracas.
It is predictable that whenever the pot starts to boil long absent posters come out of the woodwork and stir the pot some more. Seems that some folks can never get over one thing or another and they are bound and determined that we all hear the recriminations once again. Seems also they can’t stay away from this site even though they protest it greatly.
So what’s to be done, what’s to keep other posters here, new members happy to be here, old members feeling safe enough to come back and post again?
Well I don’t have the answers, I have only have the questions. So now I am asking this question, what would satisfy the majority as to the site rules. Can we have a discussion on that. Can we come to a consensus.
Would you like to see site rules, short and consise, prominately posted. To me this is the obvious answer. Come to a conclusion about what the rules are and then post for all to see. Personally I feel the ‘don’t be a prick’ rule is too loose a rule and can be interpreted within a person’s own framework to allow for them a different interpretation to suit them. Also it might be helpful to add the 2 diaries a day limit onto the new diary entry page. So here it is, lets have a discussion without rancor, please.
I have been wanting to post a Welcome Wagon Diary for a long time, but every time I think ok, things are calmed down enough to allow for this, but boom, the next thing you know all hell breaks loose and it doesn’t seem fitting to welcome anyone.
So I have come here today to plead with you all to resolve these issues. I am with some reservation going to now hit the submit button.
Hello Diane! Well, I knew there was a two diary a day limit, so I am surprised that others did not. Maybe a more prominent posting is necessary.
It’s inevitable when a site gets as big as BT that people are going to get their feathers ruffled from time to time. We all need to adhere to some basic rules to be fair to everyone. Seems pretty simple to me, but what do I know?
Hi Laura, the two diary a day rule would seem to me to be common sense. A couple weeks ago I had a member on Village Blue post 16 new diaries in one day, in fact in one hour. On my site I can put diaries on a submission que, which I did and then wrote an email to the diariest to that effect, but lordy, 16 diaries is just too much.
On a political site it seems even more important to limit diaries. People work a long time on some of these diaries and they don’t want to see them pushed to the bottom so quickly and they do go fast nowadays with all the members.
You noticed that too?
Hey! Since you’re in the know, who exactly are these “long absent” posters?
You know what, I never thought you’d been absent, and I’m not getting sucked into this any more today.
I’m off to dinner with the CabinBoys. Have a nice night, yaright.
Yahoo! More vague, amorphous accusations thrown out at “those people”.
Hasn’t THIS also been an issue?
Enjoy your boys, E.!
Dang Brinnaine, what have I missed these past few months?
If I’d been lurking, as I read Diane’s vague accusation at the evil conniving “them”, I surely would have popped back in for the big blowout in February I saw you link to in another diary. Guess I don’t cut it as a co-conspirator after all.
So who else is in your evil, pot-stirring club?
(seems like my last comments here were about defending folks getting caught up in a witchhunt, and asking for clarification which never came. Its not that I doubt there are folks who would come here to stir up trouble. Just that the ones I see called out aren’t the ones I see doing the stirring. But then, most of the calling out is against the nameless “them” (you’ll know them by their ill-specified deeds), so maybe they are… hmmmm.)
Comeon yaright, do you have to blow this out of proportion. Yes there are folks that only post when there is a conflict…did I call them evil, did I call them coniving…no, merely pointed out the obvious. I do not in anyway see this as an evil act, but rather one that is uncomfortable for the majority on this site.
then why not just OUT the names — who are you talking about?
Brinn, I like you..you have a brilliant mind and a wonderful personality. But I think calling people out to name names is just being combative and serves no purpose other than to foster hard feelings.
Really? and what do you think the result of throwing vague, over-gernalized accusations out there is? The same or worse in my opinion. I’ve seen it over an over and over again in my time here.
Thank you for the compliments, btw. I think the world of you too.
Speaking for myself,
I think a lot more hard feelings are caused by vague accusations against “them” who are never named, but merely hinted at obliquely by references to behavior (popping up and stirring shit, for example).
See, already Brinnaine seems to have her feelings hurt. Same for me. But Diane said she didn’t know I was gone (so how could I pop up?), and you said you respect Brinnaine (so you don’t think she’s one of “them” either).
So, yes, I think naming names causes less harm than vague accusations. Just saying.
I’ll respond to both of you here if you don’t mind and then I’m going to bow out because I think this is destructive.
I don’t think of it as throwing around vague accusations. I think someone was making an observation based on who’s been around and who hasn’t. Someone else said they observed the same thing. If anyone else is curious they can go back and read for themselves and check on comment histories etc.
How would it make your life better if they said, yes, it’s you Yaright, or yes it’s you Brinn.?
How exactly, Laura is someone supposed to go back and “look a comment histories” if no one wants to step up to the plate and SAY who the fuck they’re talking about?
I’m sorry, but that doesn’t make ANY sense.
Starkravinglunaticradical?
Dunno, just asking.
Floated in last night and saw a string of diaries by that poster all in a row on the Recent List. Didn’t stay. Didn’t read them. Didn’t comment. Should I have read them to understand what this diary’s about?
I didn’t know/remember posters were only allowed two diaries a day. Not that I ever have done two. Maybe I should review the rules?
Eh.
Well, to resolve an issue, I think the groundrules are that you don’t spout off on one side, first.
Speaking as one “long absent” poster who’s actually been back for a week or so, I’m not doing anything other than looking for challenging and insightful commentary from folks I agree with and folks I don’t so much agree with — and offering up commentary in return.
I walked away from this site shortly after the Parker banning. Too many people were under too much stress in their personal lives, and I’d hoped that was why things were getting so reactionary here.
Last week I found myself missing the faster pace of this place compared to where I’d wandered off too, so I came back.
This current fracas came and went before I got a chance to add my two cents. While it might be convenient for you to drop blame on me, or Brinnaine (who’s been at least lurking for as long as I’ve been back, check out the ratings she’s been giving folks), its hardly fair.
Seems ductape even got involved in his sly, subtle way. Is he one of the “long absent” posters too?
Sorry diane, but evidently things weren’t perfect in the pond before a few of us popped back in, and I kinda resent you attempting to dismiss it in this fashion.
If the purpose was to resolve things, you might try a diary that sets the stage for such a thing. Starting with “rally the insiders, and repel the invaders” isn’t the best approach.
Anyhow, I too asked for the rules to actually be listed and displayed via a prominant link in a comment, before you even wrote this diary. So at least on the substance we’re in agreement.
Here’s another idea — bannings should be rare enough they’re worth at least an announcement. Might be good for the site operators to post their version of events before word spreads (because it will), and everyone goes off half-cocked based on the fragmentary information they glean 2nd and 3rd hand from random comments and speculation spread across multiple diaries.
Gee, I am really sorry that you resent me for the way I wrote this diary, perhaps you could have written a better one. I wrote what I felt, have been feeling for a long time and I suspect others do as well, sorry that you took it personally.
Thank you for your comment.
Well, dammit, Yaright, don’t you know it is ALWAYS my fault?!
Come ON, get with the program!! I am a ‘shit-stirrer’, I am rude, I don’t know how to interacty with people, oh, and above all, I am in need of mental help.
I have to agree with Yaright, here, Diane, you want issues resolved? Well, there has to be:
a) a WILL to resolve them
b) LEADERSHIP of some kind that bespeaks and embodies that WILL
Yeah, people have hurt feelings, yeah, people have relationships with other people, but things don’t go from great to shit for no reason, and anyone on this site who has brought up those reasons in the past 4 months has either been summarily dismissed or dragged over the coals in the MOST disrespectful way.
So, good luck with this, but I don’t see it going anywhere.
Brinnaine I have sympathized with you on many occasions, even when I did not agree with your methods or your agenda, mostly because I felt your point about clear rules was a legitimate concern. Thank you for your comment and I do hope this can be resolved.
Darn, so it isn’t me or Brinnaine. I’m stumped. Anyone else got some guesses as to who the mysterious pop-up shit-stirrers are?
My next guess is…. Benjamin! (there were only a handful of folks who even questioned Stark’s banning, and fewer still who questioned Booman directly on it. It really shouldn’t be this hard to figure out, but we’re running out of names!)
My agenda? I don’t suppose there would be a snowball’s chance in hell that you’d like to define that for me, Diane?
I can’t type any more, atm, laughing too hard.
Gee I am glad that you are getting some enjoyment out of this Brinnaine, so I guess that means this is a happy diary now.
a·gen·da (ə-jĕn’də)
n., pl. -das.
A list or program of things to be done or considered:
This is the context in which I used the word agenda, nothing sinister in it whatsoever.
Ooooh! Brinnaine has an agenda all to herself!
No fair, Brinnaine! Share!
(or is this a reference to Brinnaine’s calls for a 3rd party and scrapping the Dems? I haven’t been around for a while, so I don’t know if that ever comes up now or not)
Since no one here wants to actually trouble themselves and actually say what’s on their mind, I guess I can speculate out loud amd try to fill in the gaps for the home audience.
You GO!!
Fill those gaps, assume assume assume away!
😉
Oookay. But are you sure I won’t end up offending people more with my speculation and assumptions? Or at least offending more people than if the folks who know what the heck their gripe is come forward and just own up to their feelings instead of half-repressing them?
Okay, how’s this for starters:
One clique wants unanimous support for Dems, no matter how rignt wing, anti-woman, or party-defeating they are. Except this clique wants to reserve the right to complain about them, in a non-commital, not-too-harsh way. You know, like a real Dem in Washington.
One group of freespirits (the don’t coordinate with each other, or I’d call them a clique too) wants to bash everyone who doesn’t fit their ideal version of a liberal. They’re not afraid to sink the slaveship they’re on. Principle uber alles. (Parker was here, maybe stark too).
One group is the happy-happy get along crowd. They hate dissent if it involves raised voices, or strongly disagreeing. Especially if you disagree with one of their personal friends (where personal means anything from march-friend to blog buddy). Defending friends is a higher priority than anything else. Very loyal crowd.
The moralists like to stand for something, and let everyone know about it. Whatever the consequences, they’re willing to pay them. Buncha self-righteous know-it-alls. They come in a variety of flavors, from reactionary to wise teacher who shames the wayward student in very palatable ways.
Site owner and frontpagers (except the ex-CIA guys, I guess they are “yucky”) are honorary members of the happy-happy club. They don’t have to play by its rules, but they are the most vehemently defended.
And there is the fuck-the-dems, only a 3rd party can save us now crowd. Easier to walk away from the awful wreckage that is the Democratic party than to fix it. All they need is some signs, a platform, a perfect candidate who’s willing to forgo the major parties, and, oh yeah, those pesky ignorant voters.
And of course, the good honorable upright people who don’t fit into any of those awful nasty stereotyped groups *cough*.
How’s that for speculation? Now please, no one take offense. This is only aimed at the few troublemakers from each category, and most especially doesn’t mean you. Of course not.
I’d name names of who I’m thinking of, but gee, that might hurt feelings. But I don’t mean you! Honest.
Ooo . .nasties! That’s exciting!
that you don’t always agree with MY AGENDA — I want to know what you think that is. I think you may be assuming waaay too much.
Oh, and thank you for insulting my intelligence with the definition of the word “agenda” — I didn’t say anything about “sinisterness”, I was laughing because I find it amusing that you would be so clear on “my agenda” — I am sincerely interested in what you think that is:
My list or program of things to be considered
What is it? From your perspective, of course.
You know it’s really very difficult to write to you at times, you want to delve into each line and find hidden meanings or take affront to words that are said. I did not say good or bad agenda, right or wrong, merely as a way of connotating groups of words or lists. In what way did I insult your intelligence by defining the word “I” was using, it was rather to say, which I did say to clarify my useage of the word.
what I do NOT know is what you MEAN when you speak of “my agenda” — it is this that I am inquiring about and for whatever reason, you do not want to address.
If I were taking offesne at what you said, i would have said so. I’m not — I am trying to understand you and what you MEANT by the words you used. If you don’t want to communicate in that way, fine. I’m over it — I was curious.
I simply do not know how to make clearer the meaning of my words.
“my agenda” in whatever form it means to you. Perhaps others know what you mean — if you ever feel like sharing it with ME, just let me know. I won’t bother asking for clarification again.
Agenda….a list…I don’t care what’s on it…that was not my point, everyone it seems has some agenda on some days at some time….’my’agenda right now is to try to find some solution to site fights, but it’s beginning to look like all you care about is what I think your agenda is….
.’my’agenda right now is to try to find some solution to site fights
And as I said, good luck with that — I have attempted to engage with my thoughts on that subject many a time. In this case, I was attempting to protect myself from being the object of yet another mischarecterization by trying to communicate — alas, to no avail.
It matters not. This is SO small.
I am inserting this further definition of the word to perhaps clarify not insulting your intelligence with the above definition, Once again, I reiterate, it was a word used merely to denote a list or collection of words, not as an action verb. And no I do not always agree with your words or anyone else’s words or lists or subjects or agenda but I had nothing specific or nefarious in mind when saying that.
so let’s just end this here.
To me, this is coming across as SUPER-condescending, but since we are not reaching ANY sort of understanding about what the other’s concerns/meanings are….
For future reference:
I earned an MA in Enlgish about 17 years ago, so there’s is no ay in hell I would have ever assumed that ‘agenda’ was being used as an action verb. But thanks.
You are so right, we are not communicating..
I say what I meant when I used the word and it does not satisfy you, what more can I say…supercondescending, that just floors me. First you say I insulted your intelligence by explaining and now I am condescending when I try to answer your question again.
What in the hell do you want me to say, must I run all my words by you first to see if they are acceptable to you.
Good that you have a degree in English, then you should be able to understand what I meant unless, I am not speaking English, maybe that’s it.
If I had meant more than that I would have said so in lo these many comments.
Now I am going to be petty, I will continue as long as you do:
“run your words by me”? No. When you attribute an AGENDA to me and then go on to say you otfen disagree with it, damn straight I’m going to ask you what the hell you mean — what is so hard to understand there?
Then you quote dictionary definitions at me? What are you, 15? No, wait, you siad yourself, you’re an “old woman” whose wisdom one could respect and I DID, that’s why I wanted to know what you meant. But no…..
Enjoy your high-n-mighty lofy status as an “old woman” — whattheFUCKever — happy happy joy joy joy joy happy.
Let’s all just fucking get along — yeah. That works. Better now??
Over the top you go…now to the attack of me personally….all because I used the word agenda and you could not be satisfied with my response. What do you want, what would satisfy you.
What if I substituted the word ‘comments’for agenda, would that be better for you. BTW every freaking person has some sort of agenda, every freaking person has their agenda’s, and I do not agree with every freaking person’s agenda, comments or words, that is all.
I quoted dict. definitions to clarify my meaning of my words…not at you, but about me do you get that, to explain the context of the word that I used, that is all….you are finding fault with everything I write, it does not satisfy or appease you, it appears that you are unwilling to accept my words and want me to have further meaning that is simply not there.
Attack you personally?? In what way? The “old woman” were your OWN words, do you mean something else?
Where was the personal attack? (Don’t worry, I don’t expect an answer to that question any more than I expected an answer to the fourth time I asked about what you could possibly mean by “my agenda”).
If I am over the top, then you are stratosphereic.
I should have ended this discourse with you long ago, but I didn’t, now I will.
What could you possibly be thinking when you say I have refused to answer you, when I have made numerous attempts.
What is your problem? Telling me I sounded like I was 15 but no an old lady, that is not insulting.
to a person who has just asked you to clarify what you mean.
Yeah, I went over the top, but not as a frist resort. Begging for communication is not my style — I try twice and maybe again, then I just get ANGRY (yes, and I am uite aware that that is not “allowed”, but angry I am anyway).
I said I was being petty — you want to end this exchange, please do (calling it a “discourse” is a MIGHTY strech, sorry, but fancy words do not a communication make.
Okay. This has been a lot of wordage caused by a very very short post:
Now, that’s almost entirely flattering, so I can guess you intended it as 100% flattering (from your subsequent reactions). The confusion centers on this bit:
Now, I don’t think anyone is implying that ya’ll should have the same methods or agenda. But you made it a point to observe that you don’t always agree with Brinnaine’s agenda. Notice, she never questioned your disagreeing on methods. But since you pointed out you disagree with her agenda (sometimes), she asked for clarification.
I suppose you could have just given one example of a time you didn’t sympathize with agenda, but did support her call for clear rules (from original quote). I think that would have clarified what you meant. You obviously don’t think any clarification was necessary (based on your explaining what ‘agenda’ meant).
If you wrote that about me, I wouldn’t be surprised that you felt I had an agenda you didn’t sympathize with, but I might be curious what you thought my agenda was in those times you didn’t sympathize with it.
Geesch, I had no specific agenda in mind when I wrote that, I just know that I have not always agreed, I cannot dredge up specifics, it was just a general statement, that I do not always agree but that the one theme I know that I do agree with was site rules. So I called it agenda, should have called it comments I suppose, but at the time when I was reaching for a word, that one came to me.
I don’t agree always with anyone’s agenda or comments, even my dear friend Shirl.
I think her ‘agenda’ right now is to determine if you think she’s part of the problem with the site, or a site-problem-sympathizer.
Secondary concwern is probably if you think her agenda is incompatible with the purpose of the site.
Because, when you specifically call out someone for having an ‘agenda’, generally you don’t mean “everyone has an agenda”. Because, what’s the point of mentioning that one person has an agenda when everyone does. Might as well say “you breathe”. Its a bit off topic.
But if her agenda was not compatible with the site, or if it colored her reaction to the current kerfuffle. well, then it would make good sense to mention that she has an agenda, to get everyone to think about what it might be, and scrutinize her for ulterior motives.
Now, you seem pretty good with the English language, so I don’t think the whole “breathe” version makes any sense. I’m not at all surprised if Brinnaine suspects you meant the latter explanations.
So, if you can’t name names, can you at least say what you thought her ‘agenda’ was in this diary (even if it was just a run-of-the-mill agenda, like everyone has. Even if its transitory, and would be different on a different day or in a different diary?)
You two are ridiculing Diane for her observations. There is a difference between a sincere call for mature dialogue and sheer meanness.
You think that my attempts at CLEAR and UNAMBIGOUS communication equal “meanness”? Because I want NOT TO ASSUME what she means and instead am asking about it, I am ridiculing her?
Omifuckinggodde. That is sad.
I have answered you and it does not satisfy you, what does it take. I don’t know what your political position is if that’s what you think I am getting at, it is not…why do you insist there is a deeper meaning than that.
I don’t KNOW what you’re getting at, that is why I asked. And I am interested in you, have spoken with you, etc. otherwise I would not bother. I just would ask that you refrain from disagreeing with “my agenda” if you do not know what you think it is — that isn’t too much to ask, is it?
Well, I could try to respond with a “I certainly don’t mean it that way, and am sorry you feel I did”. Its true, but its not really satisfying is it? (I think that’s how Diane responded to Brinnaine’s response to having the word ‘agenda’ quoted to her out of a dictionary)
Myself, I don’t mean it as meanness. Maybe as satire tho. I’ve already tried the mature dialogue route — see my comments on “did you mean me? did you mean brinnaine? Who exactly did you mean by pop-up shit-stirrer?”. Because after all, Diane implied some pretty unpleasant things about those darn pop-up shit-stirrers. It almost sounded like they’re behind most of the disharmony at this site. That’s not good.
But since that didn’t get me any answers, this whole situation reminds me of the witchhunts before I left before. I come back, and Booman has a recipe for sniffing out trolls that also happens to include honest dissenters who are unsatisfied with the Democratic party. Um, what real Dem is satisified with the Democratic party?
So yes, I’m mocking the whole witchhunt aspect of this situation. Now, she’s entitled to her observations, but I’m hardly going to lend any credence to them if she can’t back them up with names. I don’t want to compare Diane to McCarthy, but he had a secret list of traitors too. Sheesh. Doesn’t it seem a bit ridiculous to anyone but me?
Any other site I’ve been to, if you think someone’s a troll, you go ahead and post it! Here, I guess its more socially acceptable to just hint at it, and tolerate their trollish behavior, but secretly, you know who they are *nods head*. Don’t rock the boat, and keep an eye on the stranger.
If someone is a troll, they’re a threat to the site. Why on earth you’d want to keep that a secret is beyond me, unless you don’t have proof, just a hunch — primarily being you don’t like them.
Frankly, I’d prefer mature dialogue to childish games.
I’ll come and introduce myself again.
As for the rules, I can’t speak for BooMan, and it’s his weblog, but here’s the rule I have when I’m the host:
I think that’s a pretty simple rule. Most of us learned good manners when we were kids, and the anonymity of the Web is no excuse for shedding them like a sorry pair of shoes. (In my opinion, anyway; having been online for over half of my life, my experience is that there are people who don’t agree. Well, I wouldn’t associate with them in real life, and I don’t see any reason to do so online.)
Thanks Omir for the comment, I like that blurb you blockquoted, I think it’s great and perhaps Booman will consider something of that nature and Booman I really do think you need to post something on the side bars, directly under the frog pic.
That’s not a bad rule, but its got some holes, too.
First, not sure how that applies to the latest banning. Yesterday she was challenged to find a way to support the Dems. Today she comes back with 6 diaries with concrete actions a person could take in real life, off the blogs, to support the Dems/grassroots. Ruckus ensues, banning occurs, the usual questions are raised.
Your rules work great for your blog. Which is a lot like your house. But would you run a business with those rules? Maybe, but then the folks obeying them would be called employees and be paid.
So maybe its more of a volunteer organization. Except you ask your volunteers to go out of their way to click on ads or buy merchandise to pay the organizations costs. And you set all the rules, and there is no avenue for overturning any disagreement with you — no elections, nothing but the door.
I think if you tried to run a volunteer organization where you got to make the final call on all decisions for all time, you may run into some difficulties. Just saying.
So it all comes down to what do you expect in return for running a blog? People to hear your ideas? Fine, your rules work. People to participate in ways you want them to, well, there it gets a bit tricky.
They can’t spit on the rug, but can they call your ideas stupid? If not, are you always right?
I mean, your rules are great. George uses them in the oval office. Loyalty uber alles. Doesn’t make for the most effective organization, but its darn happy, in its own insulated way.
Now, I’m not saying that respect is the same thing as loyalty. But the rules for anything short of absolute loyalty need to have a little give and take built into them, especially lacking the ultimate accountablity measure — the vote.
I’m just posting what the rules are when you’re chez moi. I explicitly stated that I’m not speaking for BooMan. This is his place, and whatever his rules are, they’re his. And I make no attempt to tie my rules to the latest banning. I am purposefully refraining from specific comment on that.
I happen to think my rules work well in any event. I don’t have a problem with people disagreeing with me. Lots of people disagree with me. This would be a pretty boring world if everyone agreed on everything. (For one thing, what if the things we agreed on were the things Republicans believe? It doesn’t bear thinking about.) I just want them to disagree without being disagreeable. It’s certainly possible, and in fact kind of fun. Wouldn’t you agree?
I do agree with what you’re saying, mostly. I just think that what happens here in this blog is made more painful than it needs to be.
_ just want them to disagree without being disagreeable_
I think most everyone would agree with that. I know I hated the anger over at the orange place, and that’s why I left it. I’m glad this place is generally much better.
But sometimes the emotions of the person disagreeing get mixed up with their message. And sometimes folks interpret this as a personal attack. Its seldom (heck, never?) that one side calls out another by name. Its always done in vague terms “people who think this” or “Candidate X is the worst candidate ever. He’s a lying sack of”. And what invariably happens is someone identifies themself with the idea or politician being attacked. And they rush to defend themselves, which is interpreted as defending the idea or politician. And suddenly we’re not disagreeing agreeable, we’re defending ourselves from being attacked, almost always by counter-attacking I’ve noticed.
The blog format with its fire and forget, multiple simultaneous threads, and 1-10minute blackout windows (where you can’t read the continuing conversation while replying to it) make it inevitable that it will get out of hand quickly, because insults can be delivered far faster than misunderstanding can be cleared up.
Add in “rally around my friend” and “you said this in the past” behavior, and its a royal mess.
So, when one side has the ability to instantaneously and completely shut down an incredibly awkward dialogue, and do so permanently…
well, maybe a dispute mechanism more detailed than “disagree without being disagreeable” would be good to put in writing.
If so, someone other than me will have to do it. I used to write game rules for a living, and one of the many lessons I learned from writing game rules for a living is that there is an entire class of gamer whose raison d’etre is to find a way around the rules. (At times I was one of them. “It doesn’t say you can’t!” was our rallying cry.)
Perhaps this is one of those places where we can agree to disagree agreeably. I happen to think that most people are endowed with a modicum of common sense, and when asked to behave, will do so instead of returning with a challenge to define the word “behave” so they can go to the limits of what is acceptable, but not get into trouble.
At any rate, I’m moving on from this thread. For one thing, I have a diary that wants to be written but the idea is just sort of rattling around in that empty space I call my noggin trying to get my attention.
I see where you’re coming from. But I don’t think the analogy “BooTribune is like a RPG, and Booman is the GM” really holds here. Or if it is, then that should be rule #0 posted in the rules.
Anyhow, I wonder if you realize how insulting it is to imply that questioning authority is the equivalent of not having a “modicum of common sense”. I know the powergamers you speak of (call em trolls in blogland). But there is a big difference between someone who questions the rules, and a powergamer. Obviously if all gamers acted like ass-kissers the game would work better, for the GM. If he’s into that sort of thing.
Myself, I prefer a GM who can explain why “it just is” when asked.
I’m an old lady, and probably not the brightest bulb in the lamp. Didn’t know what a blog was until I fell into one accidentally 2 or more years ago. First thing I learned about blogs was: It’s blog owner’s house. The blog owner has rules (subject to change if he/she feels like it and without prior notice). Discuss the issues not the individual. Disagree if you want (some blogs don’t allow that, though)but do it without making it personal to the writer of the diary, etc. In other words, be respectful even if you disagree. And lastly, no matter how much you disagree with how and when he/she applies the rules or defines the rules, there is usually no recourse, the owner’s rule is law. They can and do ban anyone they want to for whatever reasons they feel justify such action.
Now, I don’t have time to visit lots of blogs, but these rules seem pretty much fairly consistant on the 5 or 6 or so blogs I do visit.
I think your suggestions are interesting, but instead of continually seeming to expect other blog owners such as Booman, to adopt your version of the rules, I think you should put up your own blog and put these rules into effect and show us all how well they work. If they appeal to the many, then the many will come flocking to your Blog.
In my many years of being on this planet, I have found that there are certain folks that enjoy being the “ones with the big stick” to stir things up. Many times it is very good to have things stirred up cuz a lot of crap can settle to the bottom over time. I am not saying you are one of those persons, or that Brin is. I don’t know either of you that well to make such an assessment.
What does interest me is that it has been for several months now that there is one big blow out after another here about every two weeks. They often seem to boil down to I don’t like your rules, the rules are unfair, or, rules? what rules? I’ve never seen no stinkin rules!
Some of us have great idealism that grown up people have the ability to self-monitor and understand behavior that is well out of bounds neither promotes our personal views of things or is beneficial to the group as a whole.
Just like the crying Far right-wingers who write to my local newspaper about how such and such a TV show should be taken off the air. . .because it isn’t Christian, or Mormon, or Catholic, or Baptist, or moral, or the right political view, or whatever, enough. . .I sit by amazed that people who can actually write full sentences can’t seem to find the on off button or the channel changer on their TV.
Some folks hold the wonderful idealistic view that things should be fair. . .like the rules of a blog and other even more important stuff. I like fairness. I’m in favor of fairness. . .but I will tell you I have found damn little of it anywhere in anything in this life over all of my years. So to expect “fairness as I view it,” from others is not something I hold a lot of store in. All that I have found to do with that is treat others as fairly as I possibly can. Sometimes I do well with it, sometimes I am not so good at it. Sort of like the rest of the humans I know.
So, unfair as it seems, I just don’t quite get why those who are so consistently outraged and upset at this bolg or some other, don’t just find another place they like better, or start their own. I don’t spend as much time here as I once did because of the name-calling, personal attack and mean-spirited two week cycles of verbal brawls here. (And I don’t think it’s any great loss to the frog pond that I don’t) I read many of these battle epochs. Once in a while I comment, but for the most part I just go to places that feel better to me. Some of the New people that have the misfortune to drop in here when one of the all out fights are in progress, no doubt turn around and leave by the door they entered. In my idealism, I find that unfortunate, even a bit disappointing since one of the major goals here was to be a welcoming place. Some days it is, some days it is not so much so.
Discussions are informative, and have the potential to be very powerful learning tools. Calling others out by name, attacking persons in a very personal way, screaming, shouting and forever dredging up old wounds and hurts, is not usually very productive and is usually even more hurtful for all involved.
Just my thoughts, my opinions and not worth any more than that.
Vat?? No svearing??? 🙂
I swear like a sailor’s wife, but only when I see that other’s are tossing the f-word around, too. 🙂
But good idea. I think I shall use that when the next “guest” at the place I mod (which means lurker coward who uses anonymity to bash… )
I’m not a prude, and I have been known to allow the occasional scatalogical comment to pass my lips; and I have been posting recently that Republicans want us all to think that freedom is slavery, up is down, black is white and s**t is Shinola, as if there was any doubt about what went into the two stars. It’s just my upbringing. What can I say?
And I accept the occasional curse from others. As I have tried without success to explain in some of Maryscott’s threads on the subject, it’s like spice in a meal. If used sparingly and properly, it can enhance the dish in question; use too much of it and everything tastes like s**t. And yes, there are some times when it is completely appropriate.
And if I really disapproved of swearing I wouldn’t think things like Adam Sandler’s “Ode To My Car” were funny, or Carla Ulbrich’s “If I Had The Copyright:
But expletives mindlessly strung together with no more care than you would give to swooping an errant lock of hair out of your face? I don’t think that’s necessary.
I’ll think about it. 🙂
It’s really hard to not cuss when posting about Bush or Napoli… or when viewing a pictures of yet again another dead Iraqi baby… and I type how I talk.
I try not to cuss when around you or others, out of respect and then I try to type how I feel out of respect for myself. 🙂
Well, I appreciate that you’re taking my feelings into account. On the other hand, if you were to let a few o’ them cowboy words go flying, I would totally understand. I may not type them out on the blog, but I’ll admit to occasionally thinking them from time to time. And then feeling a mixture of annoyance at myself for resorting to profanity, and happiness that I was able to accurately assess the situation.
I just want to blog.
I know!
Maybe if we pretend this never happened, it’ll never happen again!
*squints really hard*
I think there needs to be a clear posting of the rules. Period. We agree on that. I’ve also been fighting against the broad statements of “people” and “those people”.
Regarding stark, she was warned today and provoked the situation further until she was banned. You can read the exchange here if you missed it.
I’m tired because I just went through this with Susan two weeks ago, and if you’ll notice, she isn’t around anymore.
I noticed, but thought maybe it was a vacation. After skimming that, I’m surprised. The pressure Susan said she felt, just happened to be the pressure I thought she was exerting on others before I left.
There are lots of frames of reference. When we set ours up as the “right” one, we’re in for a world of hurt.
Anyhow, in addition to supporting you wholeheartedly on clear posting of the rules. I think this site needs a non-threatening way for people to clarify hurt feelings — other than posting in an open thread, for everyone and their sister to jump into. Something shy of email. Maybe a built-in PM (private messaging) system. Maybe a built in chat facility (again, specific to this site). Or just an anonymous email forwarder (fill out form on site, goes to the given userid’s private email account. Responses could auto-reroute, or require using the same form).
Log everything so the site owner can review it if needed. Let folks pull each other aside and ask “hey you, did you mean this about me?” without the problems of other folks stepping in and speaking for other people.
Because it seems most all conflicts here have personality conflicts/misunderstandings at their heart. Communication won’t solve em all, but neither will pretending they don’t exist.
Just a thought.
I’m reading this thread and thinking, “I missed another flame war!”
Following the link, I am just sad. In what universe is what Stark did other than a deliberate provocation? I certainly don’t know her well enough to guess why she did it. Mood swing? I guess I hope that, for in the past her thoughts have been a real contribution.
“If the shoe fits, wear it.”
Too many people here are eager to wear troll boots! If you think it might be you–clean up your act! 😉
My apologies for the snarky post I nearly wrote.
is about stark at all (at least it isn’t for me). She got banned and deserved it, in my opinion. It’s unfortunate because she provides great information, but after she was asked to delete the diaries, she provoked a fight rather than follow the rules.
Now, regarding “rules”, that’s a whole separate issue that I hope will be resolved by a clear posting of them. The “prick rule” is actually a much-larger post from 3/22/05, which I will put below, in case some people haven’t seen it.
ManE — again, I must ask, I guess I’m a glutton for smackdowns, but is there anything in that quoted material above that you (or anyone else) sees as the genisis for many of the “incidents” here in this cyberspace?
Just asking, because I will happily bow out of the whole damn thing if everyone thinks that is crystal and that they will never “break” it.
It doesn’t work for me, but this ain’t my space, cyber or otherwise, so if it works for everyone else, maybe susan was right.
I will continue posting until banned for whatever transgression, I know damned well that I can be a prick from certina perspectives — prick/popsicle/big badass stick — blind leading the blind and all….
great with a smaller group, I don’t know that it is as effective for a larger base of interaction, but that is not my decision. Either way, something needs to be posted prominently.
I’m not interested in smacking anyone down, brinn, because I think alot of the frustration comes when civility breaks down. We’re bound to get heated, since we’re already working from a point of stress given the country’s tenor, but this back-and-forth isn’t productive. I learned that lesson a couple of weeks ago.
BooMan is out right now, and he deserves to take breaks, I would just ask for patience as he adjusts to running the blog with less help.
It doesn’t work for me, but this ain’t my space, cyber or otherwise, so if it works for everyone else, maybe susan was right.
I don’t know what you mean by that so I’m not sure how to respond.
So, if I’m reading this correctly, you intend to continue only commenting when you have an opportunity to cry foul over your latest interpretation of the rules and act like a prick, unless you’re banned?
And at the same time, you insist that you “care about this community”? If you cared about this community, your comments over the last several months would reflect that. Instead, they serve to remind us all that you have become a bitter and angry woman.
I’m sorry that you feel that way, but it’s getting old and predictable.
Hi, Diane! I’m looking forward to that welcome wagon diary. (Noticed how I skillfully avoided the other issues here.)
Have I told you lately how I much love you? 😉 Yes looking for those welcome wagons as well.
My turn
I had hoped to be able to stay out of this altogether. But there is something happening here that needs to be addressed.
I will address it directly to the people I see causing a problem. And yes I will call them by name.
One, Brinnainne, who I care deeply for, and one, Yaright, who I care nothing for. And another that I care deeply for, Diane.
First Diane.
Ambiguous descriptions of ‘those people’ who only come around when there is a fight, only cause further hurt feelings and confusion,speculation, and general disrespect. I understand the intention behind the way you approached it but it’s best to be direct, even when it’s uncomfortable. It’s pretty clear who you meant Diane. But I think you would agree that doing it that way will solve nothing. Unless we just want one big happy clique. I sure don’t. I know you don’t.
Yaright.
Can you explain to me why it is that when there is a tangle around here, you can usually be found right in the middle of it? Personally, I respect your knowledge and intellect, but personally again, it looks like you thrive on this shit. That’s my observation. Your condescending and highly sarcastic post above just seems to have come straight out of your ass dude. Sorry, that’s how I see it. One thing we agree on is the need for clear rules. Personally…again, I’ll be happy for those rules if just for the relief they will give me from reading your incessant nitpicking about the rules, or lack of them.
Brinnainne.
Here’s what made me happy today. I saw a long and thoughtful comment from you in Leftvet’s diary about warriors. Honestly my first thought was, ahh, nice to see Brinn commenting here again because I’ve always treasured your heartfelt and searching way of expressing yourself. I’ve missed you. But here I have to say that that comment is a rarity and I recognize what Diane was taliking about, even when I don’t fully agree with some of what she said or didn’t quite say, to be more clear. I know you’re not a shit stirrer. You want answers to questions that should be answered, and if someone suggested you need your head examined then that’s just insulting at minimum. I also agree there should be clear rules. Obviously. That might go a long way toward clearing up these conflicts. But I recognize that you do have a pattern, if not the intent, to be here when things are fucked up. Your style is direct at least, and sometimes caustic. Listen, I like that about you but I can see where it might not be the best way to get the answers you want.
That’s what I see.
Let me have it.
Well, thanks for playing it straight. At least you have the courage to say what the others here are thinking, but will deny when you ask them straight out.
For the record, I respect your writing, always have.
As for the “curiousness” of me “popping up” when this stuff goes down, well, there’s no big conspiracy there.
This place has a meltdown like clockwork every month or two.
When I’m around and see the meltdown, I try to dig to the bottom of it — past the point of comfort of many of the go-along-to-get-along posters here.
I wasn’t here for the big Susan meltdown I just learned about today. If I was, I would have posted. I was here for the stark-alohaleezy-booman-ductape-brinnaine-etc one today. So I posted.
The predictable witchhunt began (with this diary), accusing the disruption of perfectblog on those nasty outsider shit-stirrers. Surely none of the “good” people could be involved.
Only difference between now and many months ago when this place went through this with Parker is we all cut to the chase within a day this time, instead of dragging it out to 4.
Anyhow, if ya’ll would just name the names of the disrupters, like supersoling did, and Booman would just ban them and get it over with…
… this same thing would happen again in another month.
Anyone here know what its like living with alcoholics? Doesn’t this whole pattern seem familiar to you?
Well, lets all shush now, or we’ll upset xyz, and they’ll explode. If we just pretend this is normal, maybe it’ll never happen again…
Sheesh.
There are personality conflicts on this site. “don’t be a prick” works as a rule if the final arbiter has the wisdom and judgment of solomon, and everyone agrees to accept the final judgment as final. Another way to do it would be to have a conflict resolution procedure in place, including warnings, timeout temporary bannings, and utimately permanent bannings. That’d go nicely alongside clear rules (if exceeding 2 diaries or some other rule is bannable, maybe it ought to be be posted in a location it can be referenced). And maybe when someone is banned, some clear communication to the community explaining how the decision was made might be useful (so others could learn from the mistakes of the banned).
If we’d all just talk straight like you did, supersoling, maybe we’d be too busy being productive to hide polite innuendos of blame, or respond with sarcasm.
As for me, color me exasperated.
Exceeding the two diary rule isn’t bannable as I see it. Refusing to follow the rules once they’ve been pointed out is bannable. You should be careful about languge when you make statements like that. That is inflammatory too.
As for the big blowup about the military months ago, you might have noticed that the one you claim every one came to the defense of is the one who isn’t here anymore. Not the two who attacked the Military. Specifically, Ductape Fatwa and Stu Piddy. Both are still here posting away and actually two are gone now. Ghostdancer of his own accord and the other guy I can’t remember but I think he was British, was banned. So your logic is a little flawed in that the result of that fight has been the opposite of what you claim.
Like I said, I agree that we need clearer rules since the current ones aren’t working. But in the end it’s Booman’s call and anyone who finds it impossible to comfortably function under those rules has lilitless choices out there to find a new place to comment. This going along to get along dynamic you point out is more an effort to maintain peace and harmony. Some of us still value that.
causing? I am asking sincerely, as I am trying to LEARN here, as I said to Izzy in another thread.
You say:
But I recognize that you do have a pattern, if not the intent, to be here when things are fucked up.
Yup. Since December, that is certainly true. I am “here” a lot more often than I comment though, so maybe everyone should take some solice in that? (i.e., that I DON’T post more?) dunno. What I DO know is that it takes someone as powerful with words as leftvet to move me to share anything on this blog anymore. As I wrote to kidspeak, my trust in this “safe space” has been shattered and that’s why my posts are reduced to “rarities” these days.
As regards my “style” being direct at least, and sometimes caustic, yup again. I try direct at least twice, though I realize there have been times that I leap directly to caustic, but what I expect is for people to understand that underneath there is a sincere desire for CLEAR COMMUNICATION — it’s really not that complex. And yes, I can get HUGELY frustrated when my motives are questioned or assumptions made that I see as unfair.
What I have learned in the past four months is that however much value is attached to posts like the one I put in leftvet’s diary, or other contributions that I may have made, that value is decimated as soon as I speak my mind on issues that make people uncomfortable. And for me, I can’t play that. Either I am a valued member of the community, or I am not. It can’t come with the condition “but only if you stay away from certain subjects (double-standards and other site running business), feelings (my “anger”, others being made uncomfortable), or conflict. I have said it before, I’ll say it again: conflict avoidance at all costs is as destructive as unchecked anger. Conflict management is certainly required, but denying it alltogether is just fantasy.
Anyway, looking forward to hearing your thoughts on the “problem” that I am causing — thanks for posting!
Thanks for replying
You’ll see that I addressed Diane directly for what I saw as the wrong way to go about what ever it was she was trying to do with this diary. I will give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she meant well and only intended to try and patch things up once again. It really is getting pretty fucking old. I don’t agree with her method. I don’t agree with the ambiguous way she seemed to point you out. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see who she is talking about. I don’t agree with her using the word agenda. She says it was not intended the way it was taken. I myself have much trouble finding the right words to express what I mean, so again, I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt.
I’ve given you the benefit of the doubt numerous times over the last few months. The truth is I’m torn over this issue with you. I’m with you about 75% on everything you’ve tryed to express. I don’t think you need your head examined. But if you did, I’d be the first in line behind you for my own exam. Either way, that was a rotten thing to have told to you. What I can’t ignore anymore is the pattern I see of you commenting here only when there is a tangle and it seems like you take that opportunity to rehash your problems with Booman and with the ambiguous rules.
Can you tell me what it is specifically that you want to hear from Booman or see done that would satisfy you? Or can this be brought to any satisfying conclusion as you see it?
Peace
My simple take:
There is no community here. I was disabused of that illusion a few months ago. It was a nice illusion while it lasted, though.
The frogpond consists of an amalgam of screen names attached to some text and maybe the occasional picture. Those screen names are best thought of as occupants – some of whom are more welcome than others, depending on the perceptions of the individual who owns the site.
I’m one of the less welcome occupants, as the site’s proprietor has, in so many words, invited me to leave.
So why stick around? Why bother?
The only answer to that is that what I have to offer in terms of knowledge and perspective falls within what we social psychologists call the “latitude of acceptance” (and others might call a sphere of influence) of a large subset of the the population of occupants.
Every once in a while I’ll post a diary. Maybe some will read. Maybe not. As for cameraderie or community, at this point, I’d say “don’t know, don’t care.” All I care about as an occupant is some interesting content. On that measure the many occupants have rarely failed.
Personally, I do not want you to stay away. It takes us all to make this site. When things are taken personally, Of which I have been victum of too, I just let the person who is attacking me cool off and then go onward to doing what I came here for. I learn from all. There are some diaries I read but do not comment on. I still enjoy reading them. Maybe I should make some sort of effort to say something. The problem is my time is very limited for the most part. Some days I just do not feel like commenting on anything. When I am at work and I read something, I can not get involved in writing for I am watching my patients. All I can do is read. Anyhow, Mr. Benjamin, I do not want you or anyone else to leave. All this fighting is just childlike. I personally thought we are all adults. Some use language I do not like and say things I do not like..it is like watching TV, I do not have to watch that program. So I just go on and watch something else. BUT, some do really have a way to get under the saddle and rub one raw.
Now,Whatever the rules are, I have the need to know so I do not break them. I understand that ppl have many views and opinions; however, this should not make living here miserable for anyone. Like I have always said, If I have abused your rights about something, I sincerely apologize! I think I deserve the same too! This is nonsense to even think that ppl should be banned for doing/saying something. Usually I am not argumentive, but let me tell you, I do have an Irish temper…I can get my tail feathers ruffeled…when that time comes,I have learned to…. it is time for ME to step back and regroup. You all are adult, act like one. Mr. Benjamin, I have not seen anything here that y ou have said that would offend me. Hugs to you alllllllllllllll.
We’re cool. We’ve always been cool. You have nothing to worry about with me.
I’m not planning on going anywhere. I’m merely laying out as matter-of-factly as I can things the way I see them.
I merely post a few diaries and post a few comments, folks read them or not, and life pretty much goes on. No worries.
I disagree with you James. This IS a community. Community members care about what individual members think and feel. That’s what you are seeing here.
Ok, Diane, and Brin, I’m going to do something dangerous, that is, talk about you personally: my perspective. Likely inaccurate. But I’m trying to show how both of you are part of a community, this community.
Diane and Brinnainne are both very strong women. They are very different women, with (I think – but this is a perception, not certainty) very different perspectives. If they didn’t care what each other is saying, they would not be conversing so intensely. And it is intense.
My apologies for such a long – and likely foolish – post.
Brin is ungodly bright (as are so many here), and she is drawn to strong emotion. I have seen her be easily angered – which is why she is such a strong advocate and fighter! That anger also falls away pretty quickly, as I’ve observed it. Brin has that honing-in-on-the details tenacity that is extremely valuable in getting us to think through situations carefully. And at times this can drive me straight up the wall – though I’ve never tangled with her in opposition to a particular argument. I have also observed that Brin’s anger is not If Brin’s been away for a while, I hope it is because of a certain document she’s been producing.)
Diane draws people in, is very aware of talents of individuals – a great gift, extremely talented in social group and person perception. She is warm and accepting, and concerned with drawing people together and helping bring out individual talents. I deeply appreciate her work in running the cafes, a thing I first thought was odd, but which I’ve come to see as a very good thing that ties together an important set of people within this community. Diane has also encouraged a lot of very talented people to write here, put uup diaries, when that was not their inclination, and that’s been of great benefit. She is also quite tenacious, but in a different style. Diane spent some time away from here for a while, as I recall – I’m very glad she is back. And she has her own blog that emphasizes her particular perspectives on life.
If we had no anger here, we would have no connections. Anger is not just for trolls and Repubs and other troglodytes- it is for survival. It really IS so hard to keep a community going with just words, and a tiny bit of face to face contact, but this place has worked at it harder than most, I think. The anger here is hard, painful at times, but it helps knock off some of the rough patches. I can vouch that every single time someone has infuriated me, it has made me think more clearly, and reconsider – though not necessarily make me change my mind!
Brin and Diane make strong but very different contributions to this community. I want them to continue here, and think we benefit from them both.
Thank you kidspeak for that extremely well written and thoughtful comment.
My first and foremost reason for posting this diary was to see if we can come to some kind of resolution. I know we have been trying for some time and it hasn’t worked.
I do not think anger is necessary for this blog to function, but if others do that is their perogative, it is not attractive to me and makes me uncomfortable. Personally I think a lot more could be accomplished if there was more sharing and less shredding.
One of the first diaries I wrote on this site was on the what is the purpose of political blogs, perhaps I should bring up the subject again. Why do we blog, well for me it is not to fight but rather to share and learn and most of all to enjoy it, and have fun.
Was the first quote sharing, or shredding? They’re both your words.
And who was it that said the above sure didn’t sound like you meant this today.
I call the First comment you quoted of mine to be an observation, such as you have written all over this diary. I have as much right to post my observations as you do and you certainly have been free with them in this diary and some far less kindly than mine above.
Are there any more of my words you wish to comment on, lets see, I think you might have missed some.
Let me ask you, do you think you might be a pot stirrer, just asking. I think by your own admission above in this diary you have aluded to the fact that you like to delve into things when there is a conflict. If you are a pot stirrer and are happy with that then so be it, to each his own, but don’t expect me to be happy with it as you apparently are not happy with any of my words. Hey I am not going to go and get any more quotes from you, it seems a futile venture to continue to discuss this with you. Guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on this, but I gather even that is out of the question.
Finally I would like to point out that you and Brin both have attributed remarks to me that were made by other people, I never said anything about noticing you or not on the site and Shirlstars made the comment about old women.
Allright now, my participation in this diary has ended and I am going to bed…pick on someone else for awhile.
Maybe it would be more accurate for me to observe that it’s been made abundantly clear to me that I am not part of whatever community one may perceive exists here.
I’m merely an occupant. That’s all. As such, I am expendable. It’s neither a good nor bad thing, just the way it is.
As an occupant, I try as well as I can to follow the proprietor’s rules, and periodically try to write something that may or may not be interesting to others. If something looks interesting, I read it. If I feel so motivated – and that all depends on how much I’m multitasking – I’ll try to comment or at least recommend a diary or two and drop a few 4’s for good mojo karma.
Your writing is consistently interesting, and I will likely keep on reading, for whatever it’s worth.
what would be most accurate is that you wrote this at your blog, where you suggested, among other things, that I banned Parker to protect my ad revenues. Free speech is free speech. You can think and say whatever you want at your blog. And I can think you are an asshole and not particularly give a shit if you feel welcome here when you make comments about so-called double standards when I ban someone for defying the rules.
I bend over backwards to tolerate criticism. But I don’t need to put up with your bullshit. It’s not that you are expendable. You have no respect for me, and I am only returning the favor.
..but booman, 2 wrongs do not make it right. There are a few in here I simply so disagree with that I have to bite my keyboard tongue to keep from saying what I really feel to keep peace in here. That is always frustrating too. So rather punish someone for saying something you dont like, you should say to that someone who is doing this to you outside of this pond what you feel like. It is your pond. We are all here to make it the best pond as possible. But you do know that some ppl are feeling like they are abused. This should never occur…NEVER! Might I suggest, that ifyou have a problem with anyone, email them and dialog with them there and not here. This is not what I come here for. Please folks, lets act like adults here. If this can not be resolved, I too may have to find another spot. I do not trive under stuff like this.
Brenda, I don’t enjoy doing this. But I am not wrong. We are a community here. And I hope that the people in this community understand that I made about $12,000 dollars last year. That’s right. That is about all I made. I could make a lot more money in a lot of other disciplines. Doing this blog is a financial sacrifice for me.
So, to have members accuse me of making decisions primarily based on financial considerations is galling to me.
If people think that I make my stands because of greed then they are both stupid and totally disrespectful of me and the sacrifices I make to do this.
And if they think that about me, and publish that about me at their own blogs and then come here and splash around like they are a happy member of the community…
and then take every opportunity to make a big deal about how I administer the site?
Does anyone want to defend what Stark did and how she acted? If so, good, go ahead.
But, I doubt anyone can defend it.
And if James Benjamin wants to tell me that he is sorry, but he is skeptical about my motives for banning her because of past things that he doesn’t want to bring up again because it isn’t worth his time?
I am going to defend myself. I think he is an asshole. And I said to him that I think he is an asshole.
I don’t enjoy doing it. But I have limited patience for being dragged through the mud by people that have no respect for me and yet expect me to show infinite tolerance and respect for them.
I apologize for my tone. But I am not a doormat.
This is your site and these are your rules, whatever those might happen to be at the time. One of those has to do with being a prick. Calling me an “asshole” is pricklike and I will trollrate such comments. I try if I can to do likewise to others who do that…you’re no exception to me.
Just how it is.
fair enough, James. I’m not complaining.
I can live with that.
The lack of decorum was getting me so mad I could spit (I think that’s some sort of a Texan idiom btw – and yes, I was raised mostly in Texas). As time permits, as long as I still have trusted user status, I’m going to scour through the pond and if needed drop some 0s (and 1’s and 2’s) to help get the point across that the name-calling between pond occupants is not cool – with obscenities getting the lower ratings. And yeah, when I go into strict father mode, I really go into strict father mode.
As for my blog entry that offended you, out of respect to you I am willing to modify that entry – striking the text regarding the financial biz and writing an addendum noting that part was factually in error but that I stand by my opinion otherwise. I hope that can go some way to establishing some semblance of peace between us.
What say you?
I appreciate the olive branch and I will take it.
I hope you understand my aversion to having my character smeared by members here and then being expected to play nice about it.
Truce.
Works for me. Turns out I have the same aversion, whether it’s me who’s the target or others (especially those who may be less popular) – there’s a sense of justice that’s part of a deeply held set of religious values that’s involved for me.
Truce.
Would you clarify this for me?
I have also observed that Brin’s anger is not If Brin’s been away for a while,
I’m not understanding what you have observed. If you carefully look back over my posts — when I am actually angry/frustrated, etc. I come out and say so pretty explicitly. The “go call a hotline” incident might be an exception because I didn’t take a whole lot of time to articulate my anger before I let it rip. Other times that people have called me “angry”, it is because they interpret my style that way, but don’t bother to ask.
I don’t feel a part of this “community” in the way that you described. In my experience with online (and offline, for that matter) community-building, there has to be a great deal of trust, trust that investments in the community are valued, trust that voices and contributions are valued equally, etc. I don’t have that trust any longer. I am still here because there are people and writings that I find personally valuable, I have tried to lend my expertise vis a vis the conflicts, but it was for the most part unsolicited and thus, I am not really comfortable sharing them any more without someone specifically asking.
From my perspective, there isn’t a will to end to the cycle of conflict, except in the “bury it under the rug and never bring it up again” fashion. I’m not built that way, so I don’t contribute as much as I used to. (Along with having all of my diaries removed.)
Anyway, it’s not about me. I was all about the building of this place up until about 4 months ago, now, it’s just about the people and the sometimes connections.
Oh, Bri, I’m looking at that post, and seeing that sentence you are asking about – it is incomplete and frankly makes little sense. I had trouble with my computer & mouse last night, and the keyboard locked and I could not edit. (There was cat hair stuck to the bottom of my mouse. Some pieces got eaten, including part of that sentence, and I did not realize it, I apologize.
The sentence should have said “I have also observed that Brin’s anger is not long-lasting, by that I mean that I do not see her as ruminating in anger against particular people (outside of political wrong-doers). She is positive, funny, and intense. And as I have seen her, she is . If Brin’s been away for a while. . . “
That’s not likely a word-for-word what I tried to write, but it is the jist of it. I am sorry that I did not see and fix this sooner. I hope this makes more sense now.
I think I understand what you are saying about this community. I do miss having you be more interactive here. And I did hope that might have been related to your dissertation work.
You are so out of line, brinnainne. I won’t bother using your full name here, although it is tempting at the moment…
If how you addressed me here doesn’t tell everyone what avindictive witch you are, they are in active denial.
owner calling another poster an asshole twice today, gives you permission, huh? The inviolate “don’t be a prick rule” — riiight. I doubt you’ll get called on it by anyone though.
And now you powers of analysis extend to everyone who doesn’t agree with you? They are all in denial?
Please. If I was out of line, a big IF, it was in response to your post to ME — what you said was “in line” somehow? How is that exactly?
Using my real first name (which I have NEVER publicly disclosed) warranted my response.
If you get banned, it will be no loss to me after this.
loss to you before?
I apologize for the using of your name — I was pretty sure I had seen others use it on this site. You say they haven’t, so I apologize for using it. Booman can delete the comment completely or you can get a couple of people to troll rate it and it’ll go away.
I erased it.
Please be more careful in the future. We all should respect each other’s privacy even if we share emails privately.
Thank you.
and you know it.
Which is why I APOLOGIZED.
But of course YOU WON’T — it is perfectly acceptable to call me a “vindictive bitch” — told you you wouldn’t get called on it.
The term was vindictive Witch, with a w.
The curse words seem to be more your territory.
revealing a name without permission is not cool.
Why did you do that?
I have done it before without her blowing a gasket, my real name was used by many a poster here in the past — I apologize CABINGIRL, but this was yet another rule that I was unaware of, or that using your name harmed you. I have seen it used before.
Why did I do it? I didn’t really even think about, I used her name becuase I knew it.
okay, do you mind if I erase any posts that reveal her identity? This is just a courtesy to CabinGirl.
NO ONE has ever used that name to address me here before.
You have alluded to it twice in this thread. You are lying.
I don’t think you’re being truthful. You used my real name as well, but only in a snotty way. You’ve never used it to say, for example, “hey Laura, I think that’s a really good point…”
The way you’ve been throwing around real names on this thread seems threatening.
Sorry you feel threatened — unlike CabinGirl (who I will nto accuse of lying), YOUR real name HAS been used all over the place on this site. Are you now saying that you prefer I not use it? That’s fine with me. All you had to do was say:
I would prefer that you not use my name. Other people can but not you.
As far as your perception of my ALWAYS using your name in a “snotty” way, you may want to travel back into your wayback machine…you know, when I wasn’t bitter and angry and threating and all.
goodbye brinnainne. I’ve had it with your antics.
Any fair person knows that I have apologized for any past unfairness to you and that I have gone to tremendous lengths to try to make amends and to overlook your hostility toward other members.
I just feel like you are behaving as a troll now. Revealing people’s names and just being a generally rude and disruptive presence.
My patience is expended.
I do use my name often, which is why I didn’t complain when you used it. But you can’t convince me that you used it in this thread in a non-threatening way.