Based on ths following interchange between Booman and I, I am posting this diary to ask for your views and suggestions on site rules.
I understand your point fully well Boo, however the problems to be seen are pretty visual to all of us.
Booman I have asked you this before many time and I will ask yet again, are you willing to make firm rules on this site (and not don’t be a prick cause that might include you at times) and institute a firm policy of temporarily blocking a member for infractions and then after that if a new offense comes up remove the privileges altogether.
It is my opinion that the repeat erruptions are always caused by those that caused the first, and while they remain on the site the possibility exists. There are so many things we can no longer bring up on this site, for fear it will be misunderstood, witness, Janet Damnit and her diaries.
I am really feeling and I wish you would open this up to discussion in a separate diary that members would like to see this and it could make a great difference to the future well being of this site.
This is a critical time for action, rather like the whole Iraq mess, are you going to take a firm hand on this and get us out of this mess or are you going to allow this to continue to deteriorate?Doorway to the ~~Village Blue~~ Come on over for a visit!
by diane101 (dianed101 @ yahoo.com) on Sat Feb 3rd, 2007 at 08:10:00 AM PST
[ Parent | Reply to This ]
* [new] Re: Open Thread (none / 0)
I am about to head off to take care of a few things and I will be offline for a while. I don’t want people to interpret my silence as indifference. I’m open to rules on suspension or other ideas.This particular problem should be solved. There will be no more verbal abuse from this member and that is where it stands.
I’m fully aware that some people think I should just ban and be done with it. But she has the chance, if she wants it, to either stay away voluntarily or to engage in a civil manner.
If someone wants to set up a diary about rules I will look at it. I find that strict rules cause more problems than they solve. But combined with a flexible enforcement mechanism we might be able to tighten them up.
So I am presenting to this to you for consideration. I propose that we act on this such as you would in Congress and prepare a resolution of
Site Rules of Conduct
It is hereby resolved that the site rules of conduct shall be that offensive verbal behaviour resulting in the injury either emotional or otherwise of any and all members shalll be dealt with in the following ways.The first offense shall result in a warning, followed by a temporary blocking of the member for a period of two weeks in order to have a cooling down period.
Second offense will result in a permanent blocking of ip address and membership.
Such rules shall be prominently posted on site so that all are aware.
A quorum of elders shall be nominated and elected (in a poll and subject to yearly renewal) by the membership to serve as arbritration body or to act and represent for the benefit of members as opposed to management, similar to the minority party in congress,and to act on the behalf of the site owner when he is not present.
So I am open to amendments and suggestions!
I call the meeting to order.
Ok the meeting is open in room 4, please come, coffee and donuts will be served.
Great start, Diane. Can I just grab a donut and come back later? Got things that need doing piling up over here…
I strongly agree that the community should try to talk through the horrors of the last two days, which occurred under a full moon. Out of morbid curiosity, I’ve spent several hours to read what I think is all of it, including the spillover to DKos, so I’m familiar with what happened.
Let me give quick impressions on your proposed rules, and I’ll have more later (I have to run in a minute to an appointment):
Site Rules of Conduct
It is hereby resolved that the site rules of conduct shall be that offensive verbal behaviour
[“offensive verbal behavior” is too vague and undefined]
resulting in the injury
[“resulting in injury” is also a bad idea, because it is impossible to measure; there is a huge difference between the very extreme sensitivities of some members, such as the one who provoked most of the recent crisis, and others like BooMan, who has a very thick skin, but not that thick]
either emotional or otherwise of any and all members shalll be dealt with in the following ways.
[I would change all of that to the following: “Vicious ad hominem attacks are forbidden. This does not mean that all personal criticism or joking is forbidden. It means that if you attack someone in a way that is vicious, as determined by community consensus, you will pay. You also may not engage in any other kind of prickish behavior, as determined by community consensus. Community consensus means the views of the site owner and those with administrative privileges, in consultation with the Community Board.”]
The first offense shall result in a warning, followed by a temporary blocking of the member for a period of two weeks in order to have a cooling down period.
[I think the above is too harsh, although it would fit some circumstances.]
Second offense will result in a permanent blocking of ip address and membership.
Such rules shall be prominently posted on site so that all are aware.
A quorum of elders shall be nominated and elected (in a poll and subject to yearly renewal) by the membership to serve as arbritration body or to act and represent for the benefit of members as opposed to management, similar to the minority party in congress,and to act on the behalf of the site owner when he is not present.
[Good idea. But it can’t be a “quorum of elders,” because that would lead to disputes about age, and a lot of bad Star Trek jokes. I propose: “Community Board.”]
I’m not sure how the mechanics could work, and for this kind of thing the devil is really in the details. But it would be nice if members could report vicious attacks at any time to the site owner, his designee, or the Community Board, with assurance that there would be immediate attention.
I only propose one mechanical detail: In view of the allegations of conflict of interest against BooMan in connection with the recent disaster, perhaps he could voluntarily agree to strive to limit bannings to circumstances where the majority of the Community Board is in agreement, while of course reserving the ultimate right to make exceptions when he sees fit, in which case he will promise to give a short explanation.
BooMan, of course, can just tell us all to go to hell. But I do think it would be good for the ongoing vitality of this fine site for changes like the above to be initiated.
Excellent Arminius, just what I was looking for, I am wondering if you could format the above into a new resolution in place of the one outlined above…since you are a lawyer I bow to you on this, my only suggestion would be to keep it as short and concise as possible.
I look forward to hearing more from you..
Booman has said he is open and I will take him at his word.
I am pondering the nature of blog sites and wondering if they are monarchies or democracies as they are definitely communities and if the are not democracies can we make or remake them at least on the model of England where the citizens (members) have input and representation, and can it go so far as to censor the monarch or titular head, which I think in the last few days may have been called for with all due respect to Booman.
Anyway go I wait to hear more from you and maybe we can get something worthwhile out of all of this.
I am also thinking if we can’t do this, then what hope does Iraq have!
As to the elder section of the above, could we stipulate that elders refers to those deemed wise in the ways of the world or in spirit, not in years. Because I certainly would nominate Maneegee and some other younger members.
I gave up on reading the threads in question so I’m not aware of bannings etc. It was pretty ugly and I didn’t want to get dragged into the negativity. I also happen to appreciate the members who were strongly at odds with on another, but couldn’t figure out any way to ameliorate the situation. Apparently things must have gotten much uglier.
Diane’s suggestion for rules kind of makes me sad, but it may be necessary. I think your refinements are good ones as are the one’s that Steven D makes below.
Anyway, thanks to all who are trying to constructively solve the issues at hand.
Great suggestions and changes.
Seems like you’ve given this some thought.
I’d make it first a warning, then 2) a site block for 24 hours, then 3) site block for 2 weeks, then 4) outright banning if needed, with chance to come back within 6 months upon submission of an email petition to the “council.”
I think it will only work if a dedicated group of members are willing to take the time to devote themselves to monitoring the site. I also think that a mechanism needs to be put in place for complaints to be registered with the council by those who feel they have been abused.
Thanks Steven for your offering…
If there is anything this site has going for it is the dedicated members, so that should be no problem. Members float in and out all day and night, so I can hardly imagine that someone would not be around to moniter.
I agree with you about the ability to petition the ‘council’ as that would be an essential part.
Another point I would like to make is that the distilled version of the rules should be posted to my mind under the frog, and any member upon seeing abuse can point to the rule block, and suggest that the member is treading the line or so forth, or to email booman or to take it to a council member for perhaps interjection.
Some members are very good at calming situations and would be more active if they had protection from more attacks, with the rules. But the rules cannot be hollow, again as we see in Congress, or government.
If anyone is just tuning into this diary, I want to add this addendum..
What I propose to do with this is prepare after due consideration a new resolution which then I will present to the membership for voting, and subject to passing thereafter present it to Booman for his signature or acceptance of it.
Nows your chance folks to have a say in what you want this site to be.
I would note and do believe that if such a system in some form had been in place as outlined above, the recurring nightmares would have been forestalled. It is so interesting as I can relate so much of this to the larger world, Iraq, congress and Bush and all the leak trials and so on….there are aspects of all of this and more in the ongoing debate…
I guess you could just say chaos does sometime reign here on an online community and I think it’s time to get a grip on it or I just can’t be a part of blogging in this way anymore.
Crafting this kind of thing isn’t my strong suit. But I like your start Diane and all the suggestions made so far.
I have become a complete sceptic in the ability of a truly consensus kind of social group to work. The only way I think that is possible is if its a very small group with LOTS of time to devote to conversation. Some kind of leadership to make the tough calls is necessary. That can be a dictatorship (albeit benevolent hopefully) or representative democracy. Obviously the later takes a lot more time and involvement from people than the former.
NLIN, skepticism abounds but I can’t help but feel that if we can’t organize something like this then heaven help the world. We all know how it should be or could be because we know democracy.
It is becoming ever more my opinion after some years now of observing that organizing the blogs from within by the members is absolutely required if anything is to be gained by them and they have any power other than to jib and jab. Otherwise they are a chat room, just fancier, maybe or more ‘elite’ as the Reps. would say.
This is all leading me to further thoughts as suggested by Aloha, and one that I asked from the very beginning, what is the purpose of blogs.
I have worked on this the past projects on this site that really never got anywhere I guess due to lack of interest. but I do believe that blogs could be more of a powerful force by far than they are if they organized and formed large block of interest, that had to be considered in the greater debate.
Just to talk about all the crap, dissect it to death, offer all of our opinions of how bad it is and how bad they all are and how we would surely do it better if we just had the chance, but we do have a chance.
Really didn’t expect all of that to come out at this moment, but whooshe, I gotta go take a break now and call Shirl and gab.
I was not clear in my comment. I totally support what you’re doing. I was thinking that an assumption that we are living in a consensus “free speech” community now is just not accurate nor would it be successful if we try.
Therefore, our options are “benevolent” dictatorship (which is what we have now) or representative democracy. The only problem with the later (as we’ve seen in this country) is that a democracy requires participation and a commitment of time.
In all my years of working form within groups to find the best way to function, only one single experience stands out as a real success. I took on the job of setting up and running an online sobriety support meeting project. Goal was to find and prepare enough steady moderators to hold meetings online every day, seven days a week to accomodate all time zones and then keep it going. This meant recruiting, preparing, and supporting a large group of moderators, most of whom had very different styles and ideas of how it should all be done, and keeping some common guidelines for all. I had the authority to set it up my own way, and I went at it by selecting a strong advisory council of five people I knew I could work with and trust. All decisions were made via the input and consensus of this council I made no arbitrary decisions unless the need was urgent and consensus could not be reached, which only happened twice times in a year and a half.
It didn’t take long for all the moderators and regular members of the chats to get used to the idea that it was “the council” who made all decisions, not me alone. All were free to contact any member of the council with issues, which we then dealt with together in once a week in an online live chat, and on the emial list we used 24/7 for troubleshooting in between (and for moderator support when they had a hassle to deal with: open online sobriety chats are no easy thing to handle!) We took turns monitoring that list, so we each had to cover it once a month or so.
It worked. It actually did work. In six months we were offering two moderated chats a day, seven days a week.
I had always believed in the power of a “council”; this was my first (and only) chance to really test it. And all it took was a group of six people truly committed to a shared mission, and a leader who was not only able but eager to share any and all “authority”, (and in fact insisted on it.) None of us were paid for this. No way could I have accomplished that alone, either.
Yes it was nearly a full time job for me, because it was a brand new project to build from the ground up.
Like we all know, this is Boos blog and he will decide whether he wants to work with any kind of council or not. All I know is that in my own case, it was one hell of a lot easier on me that it would have been if I’d tried to take it on all alone. And at least I’ve ended up with one sucessful group experience under my belt!
because I think a comment can trigger specific shit in a person, but not more than a couple of people, so those who don’t have that trigger can apply a grain of common sense perhaps.
A site block could be useful in that case because the council would then have the luxury of meeting in a weekly fashion rather than hustling to deal with problems.
I find the diary police a bit wearing over at the orange place. Thank goodness Boo doesn’t have as many eager brash people playing god.
could be used as a “time out” device just like we do with kids! (And sometimes mommy has to put herself in timeout!)
I agree that something needs to be done … and I’m interested to read everyone’s suggestions.
While I think the idea of having an elected group to oversee concerns has merit in theory, in practice I fear it. There have been a few comments these last few days suggesting or hinting at group divides that already exist, so I’m concerned that it would actually work to increase the divide.
What do you all think?
I’m not sure. If a group comes together to take responsibility for monitoring the site it might work.
On the other hand, I’m trying to picture how this might have all played out during the DTF episode if people from both sides were on such a board.
I think Diane is probably correct that it would have been possible to use suspensions to defuse it. But, maybe we’re are being optimistic?
Two thoughts:
First of all, maybe the group could be considered a “council” that you could consult with before making a decision. People to give you their thoughts, wisdom, advice.
Secondly, the number of people who got out of hand in the episode last summer was small. There were LOTS who were trying to mediate. I’ve heard you describe it as two sides and there is some accuracy in that. But I think if we looked a little deeper, it was much more nuanced than that. Just look at blueneck’s recent comments about the episode as an example.
exactly booman, a suspension and firm hand would have diffused it on both sides, people took sides as time went on and the fur flew. Then the anger built and many left, who would not left if it had been diffused.
Also a policy of requesting a interchange by emails with the parties would be a good way to go, resistance would require time out or cooling off…from my own personal experiences on this site, my problems with others were worked out and solved and even to then becoming friends by email exchanges much to the surprise of the members. There are many ways to work out these things, but in essence if at all possible it is best to turn the negative into a positive which is my child rearing method and my method of my interactions with others.
This is where those chosen to serve on any kind of council really must be clear on what the overall “shared mission” of the site is, and be fulling committed to placing that shared mission ahead of any personal opinion. It can be done, Boo, if all eyes are kept on that: the overall mission, first and foremost, over any and all personalities involved. Take some effort, yes, but it can be done.
Yes scribe, right on. I’ve been involved with too many organizations where the organizers or council don’t have a clear shared vision of what to do and where to go. And they go boom.
Representative democracy and consensus organizations take time. Time to build, time to jell and time to monitor in order to ensure they continue to work and meet the original shared goals or mission. Nothing beats it if pulled off correctly. They also have to be open to change and evolution and go out of their way to become welcoming and invite new people in.
Otherwise, they just fall apart.
.
This past year I’ve been asked to do similar task to moderate sportmanship among youth during field-hockey games. My experience as a referee for the past two decades gave me sufficient insight to organize a major effort to decrease yellow/red cards – a 50% drop (pdf) in a matter of weeks.
Key to this success was to pick a balanced, experienced and respected group of 10 persons, willing to be involved.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."I will defer to you on the number as I have no opinion at this time and you have experience. lead on….
(note to viera)
There is key difference in the two situations. In your case, you are dealing with kids and adults. There are a clearly defined relationships of authority. I am asserting that when all adults are voluntarily involved, it is up to all the adults to exert authority equally.
Well in a representative system you have to have someone represent you, but the larger question to me is, can we put into practice in this small place what we constantly carp about the lack of in our governement.
We can take the trouble to chat and discuss, why can’t we take the trouble to work something out that has the potential to benefit the majority if not the supermajority.
The elected group would be as simple as a poll whereby the nominated members would be voted on and the ones receiving the most votes to the amount set (maybe 5 or 6)as the ‘council’ or membership committee perhaps might be better.
Also consider the divide, where is the divide, this is about what expectations we have for participating on this site, this is about us as members taking this in hand and ask for a hearing and consideration of the monarch, call it our magna carta, or well I am getting dramatic now.
I will end with; just as in our larger world, nothing is gained without first trying.
This is a lighthearted, even joking on the level question, so please take it in that vein
Are there really “groups” and or “cliques” here, and if there are how come I’m not only never a member but have no awareness of them even existing? Is this still just like Jr High where I never belonged to any “clique” or “popular group” . . .I wonder what’s wrong with me?
I guess it could be that I am not a joiner and I usually steer as clear of any groups as it is fully possible to do. LOL!
But honestly, the perception, which apparently some hold, does seem to exist. I was aware at some time waaaaaay back when, It was said that Diane and I had our “clique.” Which of course was news to us. And if any ever listened in to our many, many discussions of site issues, political issues, personal issues, and if two people can be called a clique, I think any would wonder how we remain such good, supportive and loving friends. We often hold very different views and opinions about just about everything. AND we don’t mind expressing our disagreement at the drop of an eyelash.
Maybe I just don’t understand what cliques are so I don’t relate well to the concept.
Hugs everyone
Shirl
And that darn Diane is so clear thinking (usually), articulate in her expression, often brilliant in her insights, that even though I AM ALWAYS RIGHT it is not uncommon for her to win me over to a more moderated view of any topic.
Please don’t tell her I said that or there will be no living with her whatsoever!
Thanks
Shirl
All good suggestions. I like very much Steven D’s 4 step approach.
I’ve been thinking back on the early days of BMT and especially the GREAT INFLUX of 2005. Diane recruited a few of us to be the volunteer fire dept. When someone saw things getting out of hand in a discussion one or two or all of us would show up and do our best to cool things down and remind folks that personal attacks were not useful and everyone has a right to their views on any topic here as long as they were given in a respectful manner of discussion.
We were not anything at all like the Troll Troopers over at the Orange place. We didn’t troll rate, and an actual troll rating from anyone on this site was so rare as to be non-existent. We explained our philosophy of the site and our determination that we did not want to drive people away but to welcome them to the site as long as they could behave like mostly-sane adults and have meaningful discussion. It was very time consuming at times even exhausting sometimes. . .you know how it is when you keep trying to talk to a brick wall. . .but it seemed to work quite well most of the time.
I am not certain that we need to go back to that type of intervention, but something needs to be done. Many of the flames that were dowsed in those days were done through constant reminding and doing our best to find a way to talk calmly and clearly to people being offensive. Most of the offenders were quite new to BMT in those days. However, what started last year (July), was way beyond the pale. It involved respected and long time members. It was personal to the extreme and frankly it appeared to me that the perpetrator was emotionally unbalanced. It went on endlessly with the most vile attacks I have ever seen anywhere. It was then that I seriously cut back my participation on the site. I chose to step out of the drama.
I don’t often read through threads that are inflammatory any more. I took my own advice. If I can see or suspect that a known trouble maker is at it again I just bypass their words.
So letting repeat offenders just go on and on and continue to do their damage is very detrimental to the community. Nothing that isn’t already known by most of us. I stopped questioning WHY nothing was done about some people and others were left to reign their abuse wherever they wished. . .an ownership choice that makes no sense to me, but then I am not the owner. For some of us Fairness is a very important component of any set of rules. I know it is just about always number 1 with me. Not many things in life are fair, but if we can attempt some measure of fairness that is at least one less argument to be had about all of it.
Well, sorry for the ranting ramble. Write ’em up and I’ll cast my vote.
There have to be some very clear lines about some things.
Hi Diane,
I have tried to incorporate the comments received thus far, so we can finalize these rules. I also added my cahnges for consideration as well. This is something I do as a consultant every day so I guess I working now . . . LOL!!
——————————–
Site Rules of Conduct
It is hereby resolved that the site rules of conduct shall be that vicious ad hominem attacks are forbidden. Vicious is defined as . . . . [We need to clearly define this so there is no confusion what is meant by vicious] This does not mean that all personal criticism or joking is forbidden. It means that if you attack someone in a way that is vicious, as determined by community consensus, you will pay. You also may not engage in any other kind of prickish behavior [We to define prickish behavior as well], as determined by community consensus. Community consensus means the views of the site owner and those with administrative privileges, in consultation with the Community Board.
The first offense shall result in a warning from the Community Board
Second offense shall result in a temporary blocking of the member for a period of twenty-four hours in order to have a cooling down period.
Third offense shall result in a temporary blocking of the member for a period of two weeks in order to have a cooling down period. A Community Board email shall be send to the member documenting the third offense and understanding that the next offense report will result in a permanent blocking of their IP address and cancellation of their membership to the site.
Fourth offense will result in a permanent blocking of member’s IP address and membership. A Community Board email shall be send to the member documenting the fourth offense and understanding that their IP address has been permanently blocked, cancellation of their membership to the site with instructions that a request for re-instatement of site membership can occur six (6) months from the date of the fourth offense via an email petition that must be approved by the Community Board.
A Community Board shall be nominated and elected (in a poll and subject to yearly renewal) by the membership to serve as an arbitration body or to act and represent for the benefit of members as opposed to management, similar to the minority party in congress, and to act on the behalf of the site owner when he is not present.
Such rules shall be prominently posted on site so that all are aware.
—————————–
I saw all of the discussions and was not sure what had happened. I think once we have developed this, it should be a part of the membership sign-up process (similar to the “I Agree/I Decline” process when installing software) that a person must acknowledge they read and understood the site rules prior to establishing their account so it on the record and they can not come back later and state they “did not know about the rules!”
I hope this helps the process.
excellent viera, just excellent and very much furthering the discussion, I like your last point very much, I would write more, but I really do need to take a break,…whenever I write like this my body goes into overdrive, so carry on for a bit and I shall be back and look forward to seeing this develop.
I don’t think the site has that great a problem, and I worry about how a so-called council would effect the free exchange of ideas and feelings that we’re all equal.
Emotions run high in episodes like what happened the past few days, but it rarely involves a diverse group of people. It’s several people with an ongoing feud. If the criteria is bad language or hurting the feelings of another member, at least 6 people would be in time-out right now.
Ignoring deliberatly inflammatory diaries and comments would be the best solution, but, human nature being what it is, I’m not sure that would ever work.
I’m also wondering how doing away with the rating system would work since the past few days have seen Jr. High type ratings wars and good, well thought out comments weren’t rated at all. The rating system is being used to say “oh yeah? well I think you’re a poopy head!” or “Yeah! what she said!” It’s ridiculous.
What about some sort of time or comment-based criteria which would prevent those who only show up when there is a spat from pouring gasoline on the fire? Just a thought – probably not workable.
Change is good, diversity is good.
What about some sort of time or comment-based criteria which would prevent those who only show up when there is a spat from pouring gasoline on the fire?
I’m not going to assume who or what you are referring to here Second Nature, and you can call me terribly naive, but when I’ve seen people jump into controversy, its usually been because a past greivance of theirs was never addressed. Maybe if we were more proactive in this area, we could resolve these things and avoid having people out there with unfinished business that tends to flare up regularly.
Yeah, I agree with that. It’s just sad that as adults we need to moderate playground fights. I agree that clearly defined expectations and consequences would be a great help.
Such is the nature of civilization SN, it requires to organize and structure in order to work, Iraq is perfect example of that, it requires working toward a common good or purpose, it requires some level of control or chaos will reign. some of us are not willing to overlook the ever too frequent erruptions and just say oh well, don;t read, don’t step in and try to restore order, just let it flail away with the result of a lot of hurt feelings and leave takings.
Some of us feel the need to bring reason and calm to conflict, to open negotiations and rebuff hostility. Isn’t this the world in miniature. Isn’t this what is needed anywhere and everywhere.
I know you are one of the calmers, but without authority to calm as we all are without that authority.
And we all have to step up and speak truth to power whether that be Bush or that be Booman.
Hugs to you for being nature, nurture.
that’s one of the interesting things in all of this.
Without making things personal and naming names, there are certain members that are drawn to controversy like a flame. I think you can find them by looking at how many people posted their first comment in weeks in the ‘outing bloggers’ or ‘Marisacat’ diaries. Those same people will be shown to be at the center of all or most of the blowups we have had, going back to Parker, the cartoons, and the July spat.
Some people see it as unaddressed issues. Others see it as trollish and repeatedly disruptive behavior. Eye of the beholder I guess, and maybe some of each.
but I agree that we might be able to address this and settle up some outstanding issues and improve things.
Booman, I take your point and offer you this, there are many members such as I who read this site constantly but rarely comment, we read, we follow the direction, we are still a part of the site, our words on digital do not make us more so, we are participating by reading and clicking and so on.
When we in our travels through this site see things thing fly up we watch for a long while to see if it can be resolved, we most like wait too long and that may be part of the problem, but at some point when it seems to have gone too far and too out of line many of us feel compelled to speak up as our silence is too painful, we are seeing it from outside and our view is clearer in some ways and we can see that our words are needed.
Now you know in your heart that when we do put our words out there in this way, we are doing it in the spirit of trying to resolve the conflict, not to prolong it, it is simply unbearable to see words flung at those we love, however from afar, go unanswered by us your readers, i.e. your site.
dispute. I was part of the Ductape dispute and remember being very offended by him portraying all soldiers as murderers. If the rules outlines above had been observed in my case and my hurt and that of others had been observed things wouldn’t have eroded to the point that they have here. I agree with these rules. Part of my anger and discontent is that when something lumps all U.S. military into one pile and insults them it is looked upon as okay here and just an opinion no matter who is hurt because of the untruthfulness of it. These rules don’t just protect people from me, they protect me for a change as well and anybody who insists on beating my head against the wall and shows up all over the place in any diary to say that I have no right to be hurt and they can’t be held accountable will not be tolerated. It would be nice if I felt some safety and protection here too but some members have said that that stiffles them from saying what they want. Perhaps a little stiffling is in order not just for me but them as well. I think these rules are an excellent idea and it is high time they were practiced by all here. These rules have my vote.
I think you are quite right Tracy, thank you for this.
this, and I have friends here but I didn’t realize that I haven’t felt safe since the DTF episode. It didn’t register with me because my whole environment feels unsafe right now. If I had a place or someone who addressed harassment here and name calling whether it was a four letter word or war criminal and murderer when none of those is the truth I would feel safe again here. I may have one place where I feel safe and I may be one of the very very few members of a military family out there who has such a place. I was passionate here but I remember when I used to have some sort of a level head before the war criminal/murderer DTF wars and I was told that that was just the way it was going to be so just lump it.
do you feel that the role of a blog is to “make you feel safe”?
of just any blog. DKos is not there to make anyone feel safe. People here though want safety. Several people are saying they don’t feel safe.
I guess I don’t understand this desire for “safety” — I don’t feel safe, but so what? The internet isn’t “safe”, hell, life isn’t “safe” — I guess I just don’t get it.
I DO get why someone would not want to be told that they are a pig and to fuck off and die, but really, isn’t that to be expected on the “tubes”?
Booman Tribune though has a different goal in the mission statement. It has the goal of being an internet community and in building community people get upset during conflict because we become emotionally attached to each other. It’s almost as if this blog is the “great blog experiment” and it takes a level of personal respect for individuals to build community. Sometimes it doesn’t work so hot though.
is that somewhere in the “about” or the FAQ?
.
BostonJoe says it all – Meta: Prodigal.
One of my favorites: The Two Wolves Within
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Thank you Oui for the link to infidelpig’s inspiring diary. I had missed it before. Its now bookmarked for those times when the good wolf needs feeding.
in the past that you posted to me. It all came through that “I can call your husband anything I want to filter” and it was a very poor filter.
To clarify, I never called your husband anything, nor would I, nor suggested it was ok. That would be the antithesis of my whole being and living.
I accept your sorry, but do want to let the above be known.
I thought there were times that you said that people had the right to their own opinion and that opinion included labeling my husband as such a thing. Yet if someone on here said something ridiculous like homosexuals spread aids or something like that it would not be tolerated here.
No I did not say that MT or any such thing, you might ask Shirl as she has read nearly every comment I ever wrote and she knows how I approach things, people do have a right to their own opinions but that is not to include hurtful behaviour towards others, no matter from whence it comes.
But please can we have this discussion by email if you wish as I do not want to get into that whole thing in this diary.
Please honor Dianne’s request to discuss these persona matters by email.
Teach, to me this is quite allright for Tracy to post this here to me, but maybe she needs to write a diary and say some of these things in another format.
In some ways I think in view of all that has gone on her words hold some importance as she supports this venture and is having some insights herself as to these matters, I do think in that sense they belong here.
I am thinking it’s good that you have your diary up and I hope people will express their views on both and perhaps then we can vote on either your plan or mine.
Could you look at all of this as a modification of site rules of etiquette.
Another point I would like to weigh in on is rating, since the beginning most of us preferred to use them only when absolutely necessary, and rather to engage in an attempt at diffusion. I can understand why that matters so much to us, but it does, we feel affirmed or denied by it and we should not be subject to that I think. I have always been against rating although DK has it better with just the rec. and I have on my site only favorable rates. On that site I try to stress the positive and avoid the negative.
Anyway, thanks for your interest in all of this.
That I rated your comment to let you know that I fully agree with what you requested. I have come to know you well enough to know now from hearing you here that you meant no harm to me. I know that I can trust that, it has never been your way to hurt anyone intentionally.
Yes, in most cases I think a simple hearing-out by an impartial moderator would quell much of the anger and resentment.
It’s not so easy to find an impartial moderator, though.
well one thing I think we can definitely do is install a hard and fast rule against personal attacks that have a graded level of punishments.
And if we need some kind of arbitration about what constitutes a personal attack, well…I don’t know if that can done easily. I still prefer a kind of ‘you know it when you see it’ approach. But I’m listening.
Well, if there was some consistent, fair process for deescalating potential fame wars in the first place, then it probably wouldn’t reach the point of exploding and flinging shrapnel all over everyone in the first place.
Very true.
Boo and all, one thing is sure as heck apparent as shown by the response to this diary.
There are a LOT of good people around here who care deeply about this place, and are willing to step up beside you to offer their help, Boo.
I sure hope you see that as the validation of ALL your hard work in building this place and working SO hard to keep it going, because that’s what it is. Mistakes or not..hell we all have more to learn than we already know.
When people choose to come together around good common cause, like salvaging a worthwhile community, and building an even stronger one together, well, no telling what can happen.
(You watching this. lil BushBoy? THIS is what “hard work” really is.)
I think Arminius’ and vieravisionary’s suggestions are excellent.
I think the board should have to have an odd number of members (not odd members, just an odd number of members ;)) and I favor nine, and that any subset of six or more that can reach decision by vote be allowed to take immediate binding action up to and including a two week time-out for a repeat offender. Longer timeouts or outright banning should be subject to executive veto and there should be at least a ten day cooling off period for the entire board and the executive, which could run concurrently with a two week suspension for the repeat offender.
Any three board members acting in concert should be able to temporarily suspend a member from posting for twenty four hours. Enforcement of the rules for twenty four hour suspensions should be ruthless and uncaring. ANY use of profanity in an attack against another member, ANY suggestion that a person needs to seek psychological counseling unless they are asking for personal opinions and interventions from the community, and ANY SUSPECTED outing attempts should be ruthlessly wiped out for twenty four hours and put in the emergency queue for consideration by the board.
There should be regular meeting times once a week where board members are electronically present and accounted for.
six out of nine votes of the board required to recommend banning someone.
executive can’t be a board member.
I’ll think of more, but there’s a few of my ideas about how to flesh out the workings of the board.
Great input, Blueneck! I iwlla dd your comments in and post an updated version in a few minutes.
I have some reservations about a board, in the abstract, but I wouldn’t object to the reality of a board of say, scribe, diane, shirl, arminius, blksista, manee, ejmw, you (the unknown reader of this comment), and me, for example.
There are other great combinations of folks who would step up and do a fine job of it, I think, and I would be happy with any number of choices I didn’t mention above – those just happened to pop into my head. Not all of those I have mentioned would necessarily have the time or the inclination to do the job…
I wouldn’t even mind if there were some folks on it that I didn’t agree with all the time. đŸ™‚
If we want a community, it can work.
LOL. As I read this, I thought, “Why isn’t Blueneck on the list?” Then I saw who had written it.
I’d like to suggest one other change that might make things better, or not!
The ratings aren’t really used- people get and give 4s, or nothing, generally.
But if there were a change as proposed below, maybe there’d be less need for disputes. Here’s what I’d suggest:
5 – Strongly Agree
4 – Agree, with some reservations
3 – Disagree
2 – That was awfully nasty!
1 – This comment should go away
0 – This poster should go away
I think simply by allowing an “I disagree” option, people who feel they have been wronged might see that many others agree, or disagree, with the offense, and that might allow them to calm down. When I first got into discussion groups online – I remember panicking when attacked, feeling if I didn’t strongly defend myself, I’d have lost all credibility and other nonsense. I learned over time that I had a lot of support, and others saw right through the nastiness.
Having instant feedback might have helped.
I worry about the forming of a banning council. I almost wish we could form a “counseling” council – one that would gently talk to users who are out of line and try to help them see how their behavior is disruptive. Then I’d follow the steps outlined by Steven D. above. I guess I’m proposing one step before the warning – a friendly conversation.
Thanks, Lisa. I’m not sure I could serve if asked… I’m in watchful waiting mode to see what happens.
We’ve pretty much been through the ratings thing and for better or worse I don’t think it’s gonna change.
I share your concerns about a “banning” council, but I didn’t really see it in such stark terms. If you had the right folks on it, I think it would probably be a ‘counseling first’ council.
I agree with Lisa’s suggestion (seriously) & hereby award her a ‘vitual’ 5 (not so seriously).
But I would ask all of you who are considering “site rules” & “enforcement” that a little power can lead to big trouble – enforcement of “the rules” is what has turned DKos into “Little Orange Footballs”.
howdy sidewinder. I think that the difference here would be that the council members would be known, the decisions would be known, and that nothing would be done beyond twenty four hours without a decision by a larger subset of the council or in teh case of banning, the whole council plus BooMan. At DK you can get banned out of the blue and never know why and never have a way to appeal the banning or find out why you were banned. Comparing this scheme to dkos is like comparing frogs to footballs…
Wonderful turn of phrase!! Which earns you my second virtual 5 of the day. đŸ˜€
Remember Frogs are the best at playing football (I mean real football)!
A frog
Changes to ratings system may be needed. But they will not matter unless they are used by the TU’s.
.
Need a QRT (Quick Response Team) to make decision for a temporary banning. First offence needs a one week ban, a second offence perhaps one month. BooMan himself is capable to decide on a permanent ban from the site. Appeal on the temporary ban can always be made to the BooMan himself. BooMan should offer his plea to the QRT for a new decision. A simple majority on the first decision, a two-thirds majority on the appeal decision.
The BooMan troll rating is a first indication a member is on the watch list after receiving ample warnings through a rating with an additional comment. A member who has gone over the edge – see example – should be banned from the site asap so further damage is prevented.
A damning diary about our community elsewhere is a banable offence and should be permanent. These diaries cannot be undone and is a scar on this community forever.
There are wise members who can be part of the council; age or length of membership should not be limited. Would eight members on the council be sufficient, and every 3 months two new members picked. Maximum length on the council will be 12 months. Each and every member can notify BooMan via admin and the members on the council can send an email message as soon as a severe troll rating warrants a decision.
Thanks (((diane101))) for your never ending care for this blog community.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Thank you Oui for being the friend I made out of adversary which does serve as a perfect example of how these things can work out to the benefit of all. Had we not worked our differences out in the first days of this site, I suspect we would still carry it on now.
So the site should be ever so grateful that we were grownup enough to settle something by email, which we did.lol
I think odd number council as someone mentioned!
I am sure Viera would incorporate your suggestions into his excellent second draft.
Hey Oui, thanks for being you!
That should be a cardinal rule in this place. You have a problem with someone, please resolve the issue somewhere else.
Respect for each other and our views should be a law here and not merely a rule. Like Bill Clinton said:” Our differences make us stronger”
Add to that, sorry I was wrong……
I guess you are referring to my new sig. Thank you so much for correcting my Spanish. That was the word I was looking for: Sorry instead of excuse me.
Hi Oui,
I was working on the second version and did not see your comments. Since I did in Word, I will add your comments into the 3rd draft LOL!
Thanks for your input!
Another good reason to have a board is that the mere existence of it would serve as a deterrent to trolling and personal attacks. I doubt that the board would ever have much to do, but that’s the entire point of having the framework in place….
I’m not against having a warning issued to a first or second offense(offense being defined as a single comment), but then the hammer has to drop and the ratcheting up of timeouts has to begin.
Here is the updated version of the proposed rules and process based on the comments received. Please review and provide your comments.
————————————–
Site Rules of Conduct
It is hereby resolved that the site rules of conduct shall be that vicious ad hominem attacks are forbidden. Vicious is defined as ANY use of profanity in an attack against another member, ANY suggestion that a person needs to seek psychological counseling unless they are asking for personal opinions and interventions from the community, and ANY SUSPECTED outing attempts. This does not mean that all personal criticism or joking is forbidden. It means that if you attack someone in a way that is vicious, as determined by community consensus, you will pay. You also may not engage in any other kind of prickish behavior. Prickish behavior is defined as . . . . [Still need to define this term], as determined by community consensus. Community consensus means the views of the site owner [Executive] and those with administrative privileges, in consultation with the Community Board.
The first offense shall result in a warning from the Community Board
Second offense shall result in a temporary blocking of the member for a period of twenty-four hours in order to have a cooling down period.
Third offense shall result in a temporary blocking of the member for a period of two weeks in order to have a cooling down period. A Community Board email shall be send to the member documenting the third offense and understanding that the next offense report will result in a permanent blocking of their IP address and cancellation of their membership to the site.
Fourth offense will result in a permanent blocking of member’s IP address and membership. A Community Board email shall be send to the member documenting the fourth offense and understanding that their IP address has been permanently blocked, cancellation of their membership to the site with instructions that a request for re-instatement of site membership can occur six (6) months from the date of the fourth offense via an email petition that must be approved by the Community Board.
A Community Board shall be nominated and elected (in a poll and subject to yearly renewal) by the membership to serve as an arbitration body or to act and represent for the benefit of members as opposed to management, similar to the minority party in congress, and to act on the behalf of the Site Owner [Executive] when he is not present.
The Community Board will consist of nine elected site members. The Site Owner [Executive] is not eligible to be elected as a Community Board member. The Community Board shall meet weekly and their attendance shall be electronically recorded. The Community Board weekly meeting minutes will be posted on the website and accessible to registered members only
Six or more Community Board members can reach decisions by vote and be allowed to take immediate binding action up to and including a two week time-out for a repeat offender. Six out of nine Community Board members’ votes are required to recommend permanent banning of a site member and shall be subject to executive veto. There will be a minimum of ten days cooling off period for the entire board and the executive, which may run concurrently with a two week suspension for the repeat offender.
Any three Community Board members acting in concert shall be able to recommend temporarily suspend a member from posting for twenty four hours. This action must be recorded and provided to the Site Owner and designated Site System Administrator via email within one (1) hour after the decision has been determined to facilitate the suspension process.
Enforcement of the rules for twenty four hour suspensions shall be strictly enforced. ANY use of profanity in an attack against another member, ANY suggestion that a person needs to seek psychological counseling unless they are asking for personal opinions and interventions from the community, and ANY SUSPECTED outing attempts shall result in an immediate temporary blocking of the member for a period of twenty-four hours and forward to the Site Owner [Executive] and Community Board for an emergency meeting to determine the recommended course of action.
These rules shall be prominently posted on site so that all members are aware.
—————————–
I have saved this in a Word document so I can easily update it and provide it to Booman once we have the final draft and everyone has seen and agrees with it.
Thanks for your input and thanks to Diane for her leadership in getting a serious issue address to make the Pond a great place to be!
I’m Ok with this for the most part. Maybe a few word changes here and there… I’ll suggest some minor edits when we get closer to final form.
I’m a little confused about the minority party in congress reference. It’s too vague and needs specific defintion or just strike it altogether. Specific references to ‘subject to veto’ would probably suffice, unless I’m confused about the intent of the language…
Of course, you have to have a method for changing the rules. How about seven of nine or six of nine to change the rules? Subject to veto, of course.
As for defining prickish, I’ll be glad to let somebody else define it, but I think this is where the “I know it when I see it” guideline is about as good as you’ll get. And I guess general prickish behavior is just a misdemeanor that gets a nonofficial warning and a slap on the wrist, but three slaps and you get an offense? I dunno, that’s where it gets hard to say how to handle it, if at all… any ideas? Maybe it’s just a ‘take a vote’ thing and needs a majority of the board to recognize it after the third non-official type warning??? [May I suggest that we will all need psychological counseling if we get too far into explicitly defining prickish? ;O ]
And we have to have a provision for member(s) petitioning the board for relief/action.
also, what Oui said about some specific infractions could be good to include.
already covers it.
You can’t make rules that prevent nutcases from behaving like nutcases. You can only make rules of behavior for folks who already want to abide by them.
Booman can’t issue thicker skins to the easily offended, either. Each of us is responsible for bringing and wearing our own armor to the slings and arrows of the blogosphere.
Please adjourn the meeting and let’s get on with blogging.
Please feel free to blog away and don’t mind us, because we shall carry on.
“The Laws are always made for the lawless.”
Children and many if not most adults need to know what the clear boundaries are. Apparently, “Don’t be a Prick” is open to much interpretation. What seems “prickish” to me seems perfectly fine to others, and visa versa. So there you have it. Leave it all out there with no boundaries or make some small but clear boundaries. Without boundaries many will leave. . .and I know, who cares? I care that we continue to lose some of our strongest most respected voices here because even the Don’t be a Prick rule seems to be totally ignored or applied inequitably.
Yep, we can all find other places to go and express ourselves, but I already miss too many wonderful writers and beautiful people that once were an important part of this site. If the larger community wishes to try some other ways of moderating this recurring problem, then I am all for it. If not. . .
s’okay. . .and I will take my leave as well.
Appreciate your views
Hugs
Shirl
Call me simpleminded (and I am!) but for me “don’t be a prick” means behave toward bloggers as if you were going to meet them someday. Lesson learned in kindergarten, if not prior to that at my mother’s knee.
I don’t want to behave so that bloggers are inclined to spit in my face in a face-to-face meeting!
I figure the standard of behavior on a blog is the same as in a crowded elevator, only talkier.
Honest-to-god, you mean to tell me bloggers don’t know a prick when they see/hear/smell/read one? And I can’t believe that we all don’t individually know when we ourselves are behaving like pricks.
The secret to well-regulated blogging may be as simple as telling the prick, “Don’t be a prick!” I’ve done it on this board (“Instead of kissing your ass, I’ll kick it.”) at least once. Lo! Booman stepped in and did his duty as the Master of the Pond. The prick is no more among us by whatever agent — self-imposed exile or banishment.
I blog on, as always, prepared to confront pricks when necessary, loins girded.
I have always inclined to this view, but I do see value in banning personal abuse kind of specifically and laying out a process for dealing with it that involves something more than just warn/ban.
If I’ve learned anything from this, the lack of a process that can be imposed impartially gave rise to a lot of debate about motives and preferential treatment etc. I think we can do something to avoid that.
Blogs as communities exist to a certain extent at the mercy of the users. No users, no blog community. A monologue in the wind.
If we users can’t stand up to the pricks among us, that’s saying we aren’t worthy of the community. It isn’t saying more rules or processes are needed to police the comunity. Just courage to put an end to bullying.
Be a member of the Booman Tribune community who is worthy, by obeying one simple rule and helping to enforce it when necessary.
Just one question here:
Isn’t this site a for profit enterprise?? I assume it is because of the advertising that litters the place…do you all have profut-sharing of some kind?
Do these “board members” get any kind of benefits? Is the final version of this codfied rule book going to be posted when someone signed up so that they can click I agree or I don’t agree?
Having just gotten here, this is all fascinating, but, honestly, quite offputting.
Ok, so that was more than one question, sue me.
Dear Bogo, I think you arrived in the middle of a storm that has come before and with this site members are trying to resolve issues that resulted in the never ending storms.
We are trying to work this out in a democratic way and petition the site owner to make these changes.
BTW weren’t you off put by the recent fighting and so on. We are trying to take an active role in prevention of these things. Too many good members have left due to these fights.
when I said “offputting” I was refering to all of it, not just this discussion. Here’s what I saw:
One person flinging horrible nastiness around. Not banned. A bunch of personal shit brought into discussions for no apparent reason. Another person get banned because she challenged the site owner and the site owner was “sick of her”, two apparently very valued members publically announce their leaving and now a bunch of other people getting together to try to make clear rules.
What I don’t get is why? What good is all of this going to do? I mean, BooMan has said he is listening, but then over in the open thread he responds to someone saying “I want to drop this” and “I have made my decision and it isn’t going to change”? What is it that you all hope to accomplish? Just curious.
.
can make you a valued member of the BooMan blog community … or perhaps could get you banned? I’m not so sure right now, that’s why I believe this initiative is quite interesting.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Hi Oui — at this point I could not care less either way, banned or valued. What I am trying to figure out for myself is if that should change!
.
I was banned twice from Big Orange and don’t have a clue why. In some ways it still hurts, although I’m sure none care. Not being able to simply recommend excellent writing has caused me to refrain from reading there at all and concentrate on BooMan’s Tribune. This site still has class, thanks to the BooMan, a little help to stay on course might be useful. It’s always tough and lonely at the top.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."I’ll take your word (for the moment) about the site and it’s owner having “class” — certainly, even in my short time here there seem to be some posters (yourself included) who I might describe as “classy”, but the site owner, BooMan? Only the latter portion of the word springs to mind….
That was a waspish comment. Only the “latter portion of the word” springs to mind. In other words, you think BooMan is “assy”? I’d say that is a mighty prickish comment.
In AA, they often tell newcomers that there are just a few basic rules: 1. Don’t drink. 2. Go to meetings. and 3. Shut up! until you know what’s going on.
Thanks! Everything becoming clearer by the moment — I was personally responded to by the site owner when I arrived and was confused about seeing comments, I then spent a great deal of time reading things the last day or so, and no, I guess I don’t “know what’s going on” in terms of the last summer and etc., but 2 days in and I am being told to shut up — helps me to make the decision that this place is not wortyh investing in! again, thanks!
Hi Bogo. Just give it some time. You came here in the middle of a freaking storm. Things will come down sometime soon. And I think you will fit right in.
what the hell is that supposed to mean?
It means resembling a wasp.
You haven’t said how long you’ve been on the Internets. For what it’s worth, I (and many others) think this particular place here is generally quite exceptional for civility, intelligence, and strong liberal values. And there is a strong tradition of warmly welcoming newcomers.
I’m glad to see a new face. But I think you also need to not be disingenuous about understanding that some might take offense to a brand-new newcomer going out of his way to personally insult the site’s creator.
.
A newcomer used to be welcomed!
The last two days have been a rough ride and you must agree are not the best PR for anyone old or new to read this stuff. I’m not happy in the way these fights have been handled and the man at the top must share responsibility. So please give some slack and get to know bogo bear. You must refrain from downrating this comment from a newcomer in a discussion with me. That’s help I can do without.
Thanks!
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."hey, Oui, thanks, but no worries, I do think the site owner has been “assy” in what I have seen the last two days, but I am totally irrelevant to this whle mess and will be sure to keep it that way!
take care!
.
when you’ve found the escape route, do let me know … I may follow! Green pasture?
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."What a beautiful picture that is — I adore rainbows! How did you know?
And, yeah, I’ll be sure to let you know…though you know what they say about greener grasses and such!
đŸ˜‰
Please forgive me, Oui. I gave a “warning” rating, because I was genuinely surprised to see someone only one or two days on the site call BooMan “assy.” That is a personal attack. It is exactly what we’re talking about.
Also, it’s not rational for anybody to make that judgment without having seen BooMan in action for awhile. I often disagree with him. I’ve seen him arrogantly dismiss a comment of mine as false–only to grudgingly be forced to admit he was wrong. But on balance, I think he tries very hard to be fair, and, as they say, God isn’t finished with him yet.
Part of my feeling is tribal and instinctive–I feel like I’ve been around here long enough to sort of be part of the family, like the crazy uncle who drinks too much. Family members can fight. But woe unto the stranger who steps in. — I do understand we should strive to be more civilized than that.
.
A description of class is up for debate, I agree. Reading his political diaries you must recognize much wisdom. To moderate a blog is most difficult and not truly BooMan’s cup of tea. In his wisdom he is open for a discussion and a proposal from diane101 with members to agree on some form of support.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."If you are interested, I can solve the problem for you. Although I was banned, I have another Id that I never use. You are welcome to have it (at your own risk)
I have no idea what your chronological age is bogo bear, but since you’re new to BT, what came to my mind from your comment (simultaneously to a smile on my face) was:
Out of the mouth of babes
Thank you.
well, you’re welcome, I guess?! but really, anyone who had just wandered in here would have seen the same things — babe or not, don’t you think?!
Bogo, hang out a while and don’t judge yet. When I first came here all this sort of shit wasn’t happening (I must have somehow missed the DTF episodes-had wondered where he had gone though).
That’s what I like about this site. Very diverse opinons and people who for the most part appeared to have thick skins and very little to no troll and diary police ps like some other sites.
The range of admitted discourse and people here was much much larger than that of the other mainstream political or progressive blogs.
So hang a bit, read some stuff by Huber and Johnson, Oui, Blksista, Man Egee, emjw, scribe, XianxoPower, AG and even the infamous Madman and see what you think.
can I assume that since you have to “petition the site owner” that the answer to the for profit question is a “yes” and the answer to the do members share in sqaid profits a “no”?
Yes, this is Booman/s full time job. He makes money if we click on his ads, just a few cents per click. Although it is well known that he makes very little for his on going work. So no, there would be no compensation for “council members.” It would be a volunteer “labor of love.”
Welcome to the Pond, by the way. And sorry that your introduction here was such that it was, in the middle of long standing unresolved issues. Usually this is a much more welcoming and caring community. Your observations seem quite astute to me.
Hugs,
Shirl
Thanks for the hug — I’m not sure that “caring” is actually what I’m looking for, but it’s good to know, I suppose!
There do seem to be a few decent discussions going on….
.
Lavish yourself at the frog pond and enjoy the flower shower. Many aeons ago, there was always a Welcome Wagon for all newcomers.
Some of the old-timers do get a bit rusty and cranky, that’s where the young ones take over the platform and butt the ‘oldies’ for a dive into the muddy bottom. Just don’t take away the pleasure and do have fun!
≈ My earlier comment … ≈
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Hi Everyone,
Here the updated draft (3rd version)
———————————–
Site Rules of Conduct
It is hereby resolved that the site rules of conduct shall be that vicious ad hominem attacks are forbidden. Vicious is defined as ANY use of profanity in an attack against another member, ANY suggestion that a person needs to seek psychological counseling unless they are asking for personal opinions and interventions from the community, and ANY SUSPECTED outing attempts. This does not mean that all personal criticism or joking is forbidden. It means that if you attack someone in a way that is vicious, as determined by community consensus, you will pay. You also may not engage in any other kind of prickish behavior. Prickish behavior is defined as . . . . [Still need to define this term], as determined by community consensus. Community consensus means the views of the site owner [Executive] and those with administrative privileges, in consultation with the Community Board.
The first offense shall result in a warning from the Community Board
Second offense shall result in a temporary blocking of the member for a period of twenty-four hours in order to have a cooling down period.
Third offense shall result in a temporary blocking of the member for a period of two weeks in order to have a cooling down period. A Community Board email shall be send to the member documenting the third offense and understanding that the next offense report will result in a permanent blocking of their IP address and cancellation of their membership to the site.
Fourth offense will result in a permanent blocking of member’s IP address and membership. A Community Board email shall be send to the member documenting the fourth offense and understanding that their IP address has been permanently blocked, cancellation of their membership to the site with instructions that a request for re-instatement of site membership can occur six (6) months from the date of the fourth offense via an email petition that must be approved by two-thirds majority of the Community Board. The Site Owner [Executive] will review the Board’s findings and make the final determination on the re-instatement request.
A Community Board shall be nominated and elected (in a poll and subject to yearly renewal) by the membership to serve as an arbitration body or to act and represent for the benefit of members as opposed to management, similar to the minority party in congress, and to act on the behalf of the Site Owner [Executive] when he is not present.
The Community Board will consist of nine elected site members. Age or length of membership shall not be limiting factors to election on the Community Board. Maximum length on the Community Board will be 12 months. The Site Owner [Executive] is not eligible to be elected as a Community Board member. The Community Board shall meet weekly and their attendance shall be electronically recorded. The Community Board weekly meeting minutes will be posted on the website and accessible to registered members only.
Six or more Community Board members can reach decisions by single majority vote and be allowed to take immediate binding action up to and including a two week time-out for a repeat offender. Six out of nine Community Board members’ votes (two-thirds majority) are required to recommend permanent banning of a site member and shall be to the Site Owner [Executive] for review or veto. There will be a minimum of ten days cooling off period for the entire Community Board and Site Owner [Executive], which may run concurrently with a two week suspension for the repeat offender.
A Quick Response Team (QRT) comprised of three Community Board members shall be able to recommend temporarily suspend a member from posting for twenty four hours. This action must be recorded and provided to the Site Owner and designated Site System Administrator via email within one (1) hour after the decision has been determined to facilitate the suspension process.
Enforcement of the rules for suspensions shall be strictly enforced. ANY use of profanity in an attack against another member, ANY suggestion that a person needs to seek psychological counseling unless they are asking for personal opinions and interventions from the community, and ANY SUSPECTED outing attempts shall result in an immediate temporary blocking of the member for a period of twenty-four hours and forward to the Site Owner [Executive] and Community Board for an emergency meeting to determine the recommended course of action.
Such rules shall be prominently posted on site so that all are aware.
—————————–
Pretend this is a comment to me.
Teach313, you are a moron. You don’t know what you’re talking about. You must be a republican troll. Go crawl into a hole and die and leave the rest of us alone.
OK:
Should this type of comment draw warnings from trusted users. Sure should. That comment should get a warning and if followed with another like it, should be troll rated.
Hi Teach313,
I want to make it clear that I was compiling the comments to ensure everyone could review them, not specific state that I agree or disagree with the comments. Thanks for your feedback and example so everyone can get a better understanding of the pros and cons to establishing rules.
VV, I attached my example here as furtherance of the discussion with definitions of innapropriate language. I was directing the comment to all, not to you personally. You have taken on the difficult job of pulling the suggestions together into a working document and deserve credit for that.
Sorry for the late response but I was tied up with other things! Thanks for the response as well. I greatly your candor and honesty.
FWIW, I will post my own .02. Seeing as how some people are allowed to be over the top pricks consistently, while others are banned, I agree that a clear and concise rule should be implemented. I like the four steps idea. I think that when tempers flare, forcing people to take a break is a good idea. I hate banning long time users, even users that can be controversial. I’m not too sure about the “board” idea, but if y’all can make it work, then have at it.
I truly love this place and I would really like to see an end to this bs and get back to sharing the love like we normally do.
Since the post in question are apparently no longer available (?) there is no way for the rest of us to judge the need for these proposals by any real information. Given that, my first reaction is that if this community is incapable of dealing with offense when possible and living with it when necessary, it probably has no reason to exist. We’re supposedly all adults who shouldn’t need Authorities to make the bad mean people go away.
I mean, c’mon — it’s a blog, not your family, not, for the most part anybody you’ve ever met in person. Maybe if I knew what was said I’d be shocked and appalled and ready to set up the PC police, but I very much doubt it. Skin so thin that it can’t withstand verbal assault from idiots (and I assume at least one was involved) is a disability that should not be encouraged. To do so is to enable childishness and weakness that people on a lib/left political site cannot afford.
Either get this out in the open or just let it burn itself out without trying to impose a PC enforcement bureaucracy.
Right on! I can’t see 1/2 of what is/has gone on either — I’m guessing some things just got troll-rated out of existence? (I thought it was just me because I was new)
Anyway — great comment!
Davew Very well put. Why should rules be put in place for any who have never violated the “Don`t be a prick” one in the first place.
Like they say at the local bar, “Take it outside”
As for bogo bear, welcome here
I am strongly against any rules or committees to monitor the interactions on this blog. They are the wrong solutions to a real problem. The answer already exists and is not being used.
What is “The Booman Tribune?” It is a voluntary community with an owner. BooMan owns it and he is going to have make decisions, such as who is a member or not. When we all take on the financial burden of operating this site,then we can have a say in banning. If Booman mishandles the banning or not banning of a member, the consequential damage to site is his problem. But this mess could have been and should have been stopped before reaching the banning stage.
We are a voluntary community of like-minded people with overlapping, but not identical interests. Sometimes members have interests and beliefs that come in conflict. Sometimes members simply do not like the ways other members express there opinions, that is to say, their style of expression. In either case, the problem is not a legal one. The structure of the proposed changes is a legal one. It is a type of constitution. We are not a legal community and have no need for legal agreements. We are a social gathering and should use the rules of social gatherings.
When differences of opinion reach the point of ad hominem attacks, it is the responsibility of the Trusted Users to step up and say, “Enough. Go cool down.” That statement should be accompanied with a 2 rating. If the nastiness continues, the next comment from the Trusted Users should clearly and firmly warn that troll ratings would follow. If the participants in the inappropriate exchange continue to hi-jack diaries and go after each other, then the Trusted users must Troll Rate those comments, even if they are from our friends.
Offensive diaries are easy to deal with. Ignore them or post a recipe to register your opinion, and it’ll float off the page.
I know that emails were flying last night. That is another course to follow. It is like pulling someone aside to calm them down. Several people (including me) tried to post diaries to calm the situation, but upon reflection, these well-intentioned efforts seemed to have back-fired. Any efforts at addressing an issue while people are out of control is counter-productive.
The way is clear and available. Use the ratings. Model clear and appropriate language for expressing disagreement. Send an email, if you are close to a person, to try to calm them down.Troll rate them if they will not stop spitting poison.
The Trusted Users have a responsibility to step up and intercede when other members threaten the good will needed to continue a effective voluntary community. Rules and committees abrogate the individual responsibility of each member. I strongly oppose any rules about the nature of discourse. I strongly oppose any committees. We, the Trusted Users, must take our responsibility seriously, and take action before things spin out of control.
If this community establishes a list of rules and an enforcing committee, it is only a matter of time before this blog is full of exposes on the back-door actions of the committee, voter fraud issues, charges of favoritism by the committee, and long, stem-winding posts about interpreting the rules and decisions in individual cases.
It is not difficult to become a Trusted User here. With trust comes responsibility. Do not turn that responsibility over to anyone.
Use the ratings system.
the “your husband is a war criminal” crowd. And I believe that most trusted users feel very reluctant to step in the middle of such things too since the DTF episode and so many people left so harmed it wasn’t even funny.
You comments about particular instances of problems are not appropriate in this discussion. I am rating your comment a 2. If you persist, I will troll rate you comments.
Things were as you say though then, and I don’t feel that it was able to handle that situation. Perhaps because the blog as a whole did not focus on attempting to contain or place a check on personal abuse.
I wrote a longer version of this comment and then thought I lost it somehow. I was very upset that it was gone, and rewrote this weaker comment. It seems that I accidentally posted the original comment as a diary. I am providing a link to my diary because it is part of this debate. The diary, Rules won’t fix this problem, explains my argument more completely.
I also think that that any comments there belong here. Sorry about the confusion.
Teach,
How did you manage to write my comment like you did. One thing, the trusted user faqs are not very concise, or maybe, ambiguous at best. They might use their control of a situation before it morphed into a hypnotists spiral, to snap people back to reality, if that use was better explained. If it does get out of hand, maybe a post hypnotic suggestion could be used.
I have a similar concern with Trusted User status. It takes some experimenting to get the hang of rating, even following instructions in the recommended FAQ lists. Likewise, the Googlebomb project was my best help in embedding links, which is not terribly straight-forward. This recent episode is completely new to me, and with not knowing about the previous uproars, I would never have considered that rating posts offered a way to bring things under control.
I endorse the suggestion for a wider range of rating options. I’ve been pleased with the reaction when giving a 4 but embarrassed when confronted after rating something low. Heck, guess I’m too thin-skinned!
Not difficult to become a trusted user? that statement refutes your point does it not,it’s easy to be a TU and that doesn’t follow to make a trustfull user.
With all due repect I present to you the following in response:
from the very beginning of the site, members have been a part of forming the direction of the site, we were invited and actively engaged in discussions to that end, just as we were today by booman.
One of the things that evolved out of that discussing and building the community was the Cafe and the Welcome wagon.
Your way has been the way that has gone before and it has not worked to many of our satisfactions.
What’s wrong with trying something, especially if a consensus agrees, what can it hurt, I doubt it would hurt you, you are not offensive to my knowlege.
This so reminds me of our Iraq policy and I can’t help but mention again, can you see the correlations, stay the course or try a new one.
Staying the course doesn’t seem to work here or in Iraq and I can say that to you from experience on this site.
Is this to be just a chat room with no organization or involvement by membership and do not even chat room have some sort of monitering, I know many blogs I have visited have site moderators.
I woudl add that TU’s have tried each and every time to calm the storms and it rarely worked.
I’m starting to have more sympathy for congress.
In any case I thank you for your input and taking the time to respond…that’s what it’s all about.
I do not see that ratings are being used. A 2 or 0 accompanied by invective is not a responsible way to quell a budding flame war. Taking sides doesn’t help. Watch my actions re Untrustful users.
More rules will lead to more arguments, not less.
If a person is not a “trustful user,” they should be sanctioned by other users, not by a higher authority.
Erm — what is an “untrustful user”?
For that matter, what are the hoop to be jumped ot made a “trust[ed][ful] user”?
of “trustful user.” See her comment to me were she explains it.
Check the FAQ’s on becoming a Trusted User. It is a way to deter people from signing up just to cause havoc. It is a balance between openness and malicious intent.
you mean these?
I didn’t see anything in there about trusted users, there are a lot of links though — which one is best?
I do want to discourage your participation on this site, but this is not a good time for me to explain the site to you. I agree that the FAQ’s could be improved. I cannot help you with you with this now. I am very concerned with the issue being debated in this thread. You could go to the Lounge and ask for help there.
Here bogo bear
http://www.boomantribune.com/special/trusted
sorry dumbfoundedly out of my brain here and can’t remember how to make html links
I forgot the linkie thing is automatic
for your help, LL.
You make excellent and valid points here Teach.
then we should have a quorum. I have no idea how many people are active members of BT. Perhaps a count of TU’s would tell us that. So far, by my count, 25 people have commented on this thread, including Diane, the author. Two additional people commented only on my misplaced diary. I do not think 27 people is near a quorum. I hope not.
Many people are voting with their fingertips. They are staying away from this discussion and are posting on other diaries or not at all. Is 27 people enough to draft rules that claim to be representative?
imo
Well Teach, my intention is to put it to a vote, why are you so concerned about this, if you don’t like it fine, but try not to impede, in the end the decision will be up to Booman and if nothing else some things are getting refined and what’s your beef anyway.
We are not making rules here, we are writing a resolution , which we will give to Booman and then he becomes the decider.
I am attempting to bring something here to the site that may work, and I frankly do not see your problem with it.
The question is stay the course or new way forward.
You want to stay the course, I do not. I am presenting this for discussion, please respect that.
BTW from my experience 27 people participating in a non flaming diary is pretty large for this site esp. on a Sat.
Keep in mind that there are stages involved here and you do have your opposition diary which is duly noted.
BTW a similar process was involved 2 years ago is setting the current policy and in the end Booman decided,just as he will now, but we all were very much a part of it and I think Manee wrote it.
I do not see my actions here as impeding. I am participating in the discussion. I have asked people to take a stand on important matters here, and that is what I am doing. If I do not make my objections here, then the resolution that you propose, with the input of others, goes forward to the “decider” as what? A statement of the membership? Or a statement of the named people who agree with the final draft?
As for my diary, I have explained that I posted it in error. I am leaving it up because it is better written than my original comment here. I have directed readers of it to comment here. I have also posted comments in the Lounge and Open Thread to invite more participation in this crucial discussion about the future of the blog.
The number of people participating in this debate is important. I counted everyone had who participated in this thread. I did not only count the people in favor a resolution. In the past hour approximately 260 people have visited the site (if I have interpreted sitemeter correctly.) 27 is a small percentage of that. 27 is a even smaller percentage of the TU’s.
A resolution is a political act. As such, the drafting of a resolution should abide by accepted political terms. A quorum is part of those terms.
Ok I better understand your position….
let me further explain, I intend for this to be a process, whereby on Monday perhaps whatever draft we end up with as this goes forward is then presented to the group with another diary , with the opportunity to vote on whether they agree or not and to make further suggestions, and in fact may take several diaries.
In any case I am wondering how we can get a full quorum as you define, in the case of the froggy bottom cafe when all of that was voted on and discussed we may have had under 50 votes. The highest number of votes i have seen in any poll on the site and I did a lot of them myself, was under 100, maybe one that went to 150.
This non binding resolution will go forward in any case and then to the decider. You and others are free to offer any in opposition to maintain stay the course or vote against it.
Just for a fact I want to know how large is a quorum as pertains to the house and senate, I just can’t recollect.
Where is the place for objection in your process? You seem to be proposing an up or down vote. I am proposing a role for dissenting voices in the discussion leading up to the vote.
I hope this isn’t petty on my part, but please stop referring to my arguments as “staying the course.” I do not think you intend to offend, but I do like being linked to Republican rhetoric from Reagan and W. For that matter, I doubt Boo enjoys being called the “decider,” but he can speak for himself.
I am not saying we should do nothing. I am saying each of us needs to do more, not pass the responsibility off to others.
and as I have rethought what I was attempting to say above…..I think if those who were trusted users and felt okay exercising a response to harmful abusive behavior, then perhaps this could work. Some people do not wish to “get in the middle of things”. They don’t want things to take place to begin with and they don’t want someone thinking they can game the system by befriending certain trusted users and then having leverage to harm someone. They don’t want to worry about this sort of thing at all. I fall in the middle. I could go either way.
faith in Booman making final decisions in banning. I have never known him to ban except when someone will not listen to any warning or reason. I feel he is a very fair decent decider.
Ok I’m sorry, but so far I have gotten the impression that your position was that no changes were needed other than TU’s attention. If I got that wrong please forgive me.
But I am a little confused as to whether or not your ideas are a modification of the resolution or a different resolution which is the feeling I had.
Could you explain that for me and please do not take offense at the stay the course, was not meant to imply other than that’s the position I thought you were holding and was the best analogy I could come up with at the time.
I look forward to your reply….and hugs btw thrown in for good measure.
Diane, to be honest, I also don’t think more rules and a council of elders is the answer. This is Martin’s site and I think he knows he has to get control of it. Why don’t we see what he decides to do?
SN if you will note my diary, Booman is the one who suggested this diary and I decided to do it in this format.
I also note in comments he has made above that he is not rebuffing this discussion.
PS, I don’t think he does know how, that’s why we are here, to help.
I will ask you why you are worried about this, Booman can do as he wishes but surely you would not deny me the right to present this.
Please note my comments elsewhere where I mentioned that this is almost the exact process we went through to come up with the current rules and that was also by Booman’s invitation.
If Booman does not like this he can tell me so himself, since he has not I will proceed.
Addition to above, I should have said I don’t think he knows how to get control and that is why I have done this diary to bring forth suggestions in this format for his perusal.
presented suggestion for everyone’s perusal.
This thread is NOT making rules. This is an attempt to offer suggestions for some guidelines as we (everyone)were invited to by Booman. It is now and always has been Booman’s decision how this site is run. When he has asked for input, we have offered it. HE then chooses what he wishes.
My view of history, not that it matters or anyone cares particularly:
When this site first went up Boo asked us for input, what kind of a site/community did we want, what sort of rules or guidelines, ratings, etc. Beyond the “Don’t be a Prick” rule, we had a couple of other thoughts
1) We assumed that adult, thinking, reasoning people would come here to participate. Being adults with such abilities we also assumed that they would exercise them with some wisdom and forethought. Usually it only took a reminder to ease any situation.
2) We also discussed that we would like a friendly, non-intimidating community that would welcome people to participate here regardless of their views,age, gender, education et al, with the exception of Repub talking points (something Boo wouldn’t tolerate). We’ve had lots of chats and discussions with republicans who can actually think and discuss their positions. We made the silly assumption that if you liked coming here, if you connected to people participating here, got to know each other a little bit, people would be less likely to flame and verbally annihilate each other. Which is why the Welcome Wagon, which is also why the Cafe.
Making assumptions are as fruitless as they have always been or so it seems. We were wrong about both 1 and 2. Those who are grown up adults and know how to act like it, do. Those who are not, don’t.
Boo asked for our input here, so we have been offering it. Your input is just as valuable as anyone else’s. No one has more “weight” or is more privileged than any other.
Part of the time frame of the beginning of this site is correlated to the absolutely out of control orange place ratings wars and vicious attacking of anyone disagreeing with anyone about anything over there. This was late 2004 and early 2005. Most of us knew Booman from DK. So when he started this site, some of us came along to help if we could and to participate in a place that felt less offensive to us. SO. . .we have not been big supporters of troll ratings. And actually the consensus opinion at that time was that we would rather not rate at all if we didn’t support someone’s view. The abuses were too fresh in our minds. That is the evolution of the troll rating or not troll rating here. After more than a year of not using anything other than a 4 it became pretty hard for most of us to jump in to suddenly using big fat zeros. We preferred to discus it with the offender. We did lots and lots and lots of discussing.
That’s all I have to offer on the topic.
Diane asked me to put forth the idea that we call these suggestions: Site Etiquette rather than rules. In the fairyland world I live in, grown ups already know about such things as etiquette and don’t need to constantly be reminded. However, it is not so apparent here in Boo-Land. JMHO
Your views are welcome here.
I also wish we didn’t need to define treating others with respect and not being a prick.
To be honest, part of the mail BooMan has received is mine, in the majority of the 3 to 1 opinion. The site is quiet and civil today. The fact that I didn’t “speak up” yesterday is because apparently I am a wimp and didn’t want to get jumped on by some of the people who have now abandoned the site or been banned.
And to be fair, I love Tracy like a sister – but she was over the top yesterday and she knows it. But I can see her point about being afraid to speak her mind because I am afraid to speak mine as well.
Now I will go back to the Cafe where it is safe. đŸ™‚
You should feel safe right here. Every one should. “Saftey First”
In my next life I will be your sister and I won’t marry a soldier okay ;). I’m marrying a damned baker. I refuse to even marry a police officer after this. I’m so sorry to everyone about how hurt I have been. I live in such a horrible place right now you can’t even imagine. It’s like I married a fireman and W set New York on fire. Its going to burn and burn and burn and you don’t have enough firemen to put it out but if you pull them all out the whole place will burn to the ground. And what will come after this? I do not know. And my husband cares sooooo, he cared from day one and he continues to care today with all the measure of his heart and soul for our country and for Iraq. He has never been able to live in any country that did become his own in his heart. Our whole house is covered in furniture from Korea. It is not an easy thing to make a colonial home and furniture from Korea kiss and be friends but it is our home.
Hey, I’m the wimp, not you. đŸ™‚
Knowing people offline is a double-edged sword sometimes, isn’t it?
I’m sorry your life is so hard right now. I can’t pretend to know what it’s like.
Or maybe I can…
Ever hang out at survivinginfidelity.com? Fun, fun place. đŸ˜‰
Well, you know what it’s like. I think I would be in about the same place if I were there with you. I am so sad about what has become of us all lately with all this war crap. I hate W. And I should be able to be here for my friends while we handle life stuff instead of all this damned crap he did and stirred and made!
You should consider following your own advice and leaving the site for a while. At least, please keep your comments in this thread on the subject. This diary is not about any one person or event. Whatever sparked the need for this diary is irrelevant at this point. Please stop interjecting personal asides in this diary. From this point forward I will Troll rate any such interjections from you.
I am guilty of that too, Teach. I guess we should take it to the FBL.
I don’t know if you remember me from Dkos but I was the one who wrote the Beautiful Dead Girls diary. I have a background in military history and a particular interest in women in the military. So I guess you could call me a supporter of the troops!
I haven’t seen the preceding arguments, but judging from your recent comments that I’ve read, my sense is that you’re very stressed-out and might be better off taking some time away from blogging. It looks like you have a lot of friends here – can you talk with them in email instead?
Lurker weighing in here… I am skeptical that more rules are the answer to the ill will that’s run amok over this site in the last couple of days — but if rules there must be, I hope something can be incorporated about not feeding trolls. If people would shun the obnoxious trolls instead of answering in like fashion, a lot of the misery would not happen. Instead people get into these back and forth horrible flame wars and others start taking sides as to who started it. Well it doesn’t matter who started it! People who fan the flames of conflict are just as responsible as those whose language is over the top in the first place. We’ve witnessed ever-spiralling cycles of over-reaction and it’s ugly. I think the rules about warnings and bannings should apply equally no matter who is perceived to have “started” it.
Since this is a membership meeting, and I am a member, I am joining in the meeting. I do not know what happened, but I have seen this type of thing happen on occassion here and it bothers me dearly to have ppl out there that just want to cause harm to anyone for the fun of disrupting ppl.
I will not take sides. I do not know the whole story. I come here for the love of the site. The ppl here are my friends…each and every one of you are my friends. I have not met but just a few of you in person and I can tell you, that when I read y our quality of work, I admire each of you for what you say even when I do not agree with you about the topic.
I have learned if there is something that bothers me about someone and what they are saying for the most part I stay away from arguments. Debate is another thing…but I do not argue with ignorance. I can become mouthy at times myself. I want it known to each and every one of you, If I have hurt anyones feelings here, I so sincerely apologize to you. I welcome honest debate but hurtful and krewl things is not welcome in my life what so ever, here or in my real life.
What the rules are I will abide with them. That is what is needed for life anywhere. Everyone has rules and when broken, then displine is needed. I dispel myself a lot when I broke one of my very own rules. I think we all do at some time or the other.
I do not have the free time to post like I used to do, but I still read here a lot. God forbid if we make this place a place like the WH. I could not function within an enviroment such as that that is occuring nowadays. SSSSSSSSSOOOOOOOOO, let me say I love you all and I apologize if I have hurt any of you for any reason. I know my feelings have been hurt here, but I just go on and forget it for I am adult and if I can not come to a conclusion that I am bigger than to act like a child or go on hurting for the rest of my life cause I got my feelings hurt, then it is me that has the problem. I do nto like someone who is a mouthy and no good person who would intentionally hurt someone else. If that person happened to be me hurting someone, please forgive me.
Now please my friends cause I do not know what is going on here, I still have a voice here. This must stop asap…I love you all….great big hugs to all….
I Brenda, how are you, I think you might look on this as a positive step and I agree with you that rules and systems are necessary everywhere with any group and I know you will agree that members of a group have a right to petition the group head for modifications….
What happened in this instance is of little matter in the overall picture, I feel that what is of importance is to at least try to put in place a mechanism that can prevent the worst of the worst going on at the very least.
Hi Di. Been very well thank you for asking. I am very busy with work, but as you know, I can not stay away long from booman…;o)
Yes rules are every place for us to abide by. It is anecessary thing that keeps us all in tact as the world turns around us..If we have to modify the rules set here that is up to the boss man. I do believe he is an honest broker for us all. I do believe this is a thing that happens almost every place I have been in my entire life, since childhood up to and including today.
Rules are what is there to either be obeyed or broken.
IMHO, this all is totally gotten out of hand and is not a healthy thing for this community. We are and should be on the same side. However, I do realize that we all ahve our own personalities and that they can sometime be incoherent at times, what has gone on in our lives…the real life we live. I do nto know the whole story of this whole bru ha ha, but it seems to me to be fitting that there needs to be an honest broker of somesorts to patch hurt feelings and deal with this for the future of our site.
I love this site as if it were my very own home. I would nto be at all happy if something happened for it to be disbanded or become less informitive for which I chose to be here for int he frist place.
I think the word RESPECT is the glue that needs to be used here. We earn respect— it is not freely given. So if someone is disrespectful to another then it is time, like some one said earlier for a TIME OUT! This will allow anger to be less hostile. I do know that, however, we must get it all out int he open before it is allowed to heal. Just like taking the surgical knive to a pustlent bpo; that needs lancing. then let it drain so it can heal well. There is however that scar that is forever baring down on us that is a constant reminder of said happening. Like the pie fight over on kos. I will never get over that one! That is why I lever and never looked back.
Like I said and I will say it again, I love each of you here and this is getting a bit obnoxious for an adult site to be acing like this. I want the stench of not having adult behavior instead of childlike behavior. It is just me and many here tonight have had some very great ideas.
I just want to say my time is very precious to be wasting on fighting the wrong enemy…..I want to fight bush and cheney and the likes of them instead. They will cost us our very own lives if we are not careful. I for o ne am not willing to go down without the honest fight. So respectfully to each of you I must say good night. I am very frazeled and am getting older as the day gets longer….:o) My very best regards to each of you and I respect each of you….I just want to earn your respect in return. HUGS
I’m a facilitator by profession, and spend my time brokering agreement, outcomes between government at all levels and various stakeholders, and the bottom line is the only thing that keeps communication and discussion respectful is just that – respect.
Trusted User intervention has pitfalls, and Daily Kos has demonstrated that – ie it can result in gang ups, and at worst results in a TU flamewar & total abuse of ratings. Effectively in times of division, the TU system means that people end up rating to a greater extent on whom they like / support, not on comment appropriateness. It also, going from Kos, has a tendency to lead to covert and not-so-covert wars where people work to remove a TU from a user and vice versa.
I think BMT has a vastly more respectful community than Kos, which would help protect against these problems for a long time, but I think there are two things that need acknowledging here
1. the comparative smallness of BMT is one of the things that has prevented / stopped the rot – as it were – the bigger the site gets, the more the TU system seems to become problematic
2. the fact that from the beginning, BMT users have shown a distinct unwillingness overall to use the lower ratings – I think this reflects people perhaps instintively reacting to experience at Kos, and wanting to avoid a repeat – I put this up as a theory that I think needs testing if we are really to consider going down the “use the TU system to moderate” avenue.
The other option on the table at the moment is one of having a committee which considers a transgression and imposes incremental levels of time outs until the ultimate ‘time out’ is reached.
This system has advantages in that it avoids gang-ups by reducing the decision-makers to a smaller number, who are also more visible and accountable to the community. It’s disadvantage is that inevitably, someone(s) will feel/suggest that the committee has become a cabal drunk on power – and once that is suggested, it becomes a perception (or ‘truth’) that is very hard to remove.
However, I think there is a solution. Rotate the members of the committee, say every 6 months. Community members nominate and elect peers. Boo runs the system, with a veto if it’s felt to absolutely necessary on committee members. Any committee would have to have a 2/3 agreement or similar rule to banning someone – ie no-one gets to necessarily act alone (and here is where the TU can be utilised for quick action).
That way the emphasis is on service, respect and responsibility, not power, and everyone learns. You can even set up a system of mentoring, say 2 ‘old timers’ with respected ability who stay on the committee for a year to help train up new committee members, who rotate more frequently.
This might sound complicated, but it’s not. I think it works better than TU, because Kos has demonstrated that TU can be severely abused and leads to a definite sense of power & status which subverts entirely the point of TU.
So I find myself more worried by your suggestion to fall back on TU than by a committee, Teach, I must admit, but I thank you and Diane for putting options on the table, and leading the way on a constructive discussion on how to maintain this site.
cheers, myriad
PS – as a facilitator, no matter what the circumstances, I always open and hold a space by asking for agreement up front to some pretty basic ‘rules’
These are simple, adaptable. My point being also that any and every discussion space has ‘rules’ -the TU system is a ‘rule’. Rules aren’t bad by definition, that is determined by their content.
(In an effort to facilitate ease of following the debate, I havce posted my answer to myriad.)
Thanks for the thoughtful analysis, myriad.
I whole-heartedly agree with your conclusion that my proposal can lead to abuse. I am operating from a position that if such ratings abuse occurs, and is not checked by individual members standing up and speaking out, then the community is doomed and not worth saving. No system will save it. (I tend to be a bit pessimistic about these things.)
I have a deeply held suspicion of using rules and structures to solve the problems of a voluntary community like this one. This community will live or die on respect and assumptions of goodwill. When members violate those bonds, personal action is called for.
Would you mind posting your comment on Dianne’s thread, if you have not done already done so?
NB: Dianne also requested that myriad post her comment in this thread.
How would you respond to these two opposing views above, some saying to stay out of it and ignore the diaries and yours and mine as well, basically that we should try to calm things instead of ignoring, at least I think that is your view.
I think I would add that our problem has been that when we haven’t been able to solve it in that way it gets worse and requires an action from Booman which has never been determined to have any regulated consequences so chaos results. I think booman has stated he could have handled things better and I am suggesting tools to help with that.
I didn’t really intend to do this today and I have spent the whole day on it, so I am going to take a rest and may check back later but other than that I am off till tomorrow where we can continue.
I want to add that I do thank you very much for your contributions and this is the most typing and writing I have done in ever so long.
I’m tired and need to stop. I am proposing new action, but by individuals, not by committees writing and interpreting rules. I see the flame war that just occurred (I hope the past tense is the proper one) as a failure of the community to step in and intervene when a small number of members were spinning out of control. Other members of the community should have stepped up and called all the participants, even Booman, to stop. If people had confidence that others would not allow personal assaults, maybe people would wait and see if the assualt was challenged, before they fired back. At least that’s the hope.
Good night.
I believe posters who write provocative comments should be warned. Provocative comments include those that refer negatively to the person to whom they are respoding. This includes comments about the person’s status in the blogosphere, their past transgressions, their politics, their allegiances to other blogs and their support or lack of support for other candidates. While we can debate politics and candidates, I believe such arguments should be based on citations and differences on policy and not on perceived differences based on past diaries and comments. Those who continually provoke certain parties should be warned, even if their provocations are subtle. Patterns, I believe, are easily detected. I also recommend drama at other sites should not be dragged into the threads of this site. While this may be difficult to control, I do beleive conflicts at one site should remain at that site. Conflicts that may arise here should also remain here.
Now the rules of conduct:
Site Rules of Conduct
It is hereby resolved [that the site rules of conduct shall be] [strike text in brackets] that offensive [verbal] [strike verbal] behaviour resulting in the injury [either] [strike either] [, – insert comma]]emotional or otherwise[, – insert comma] of any and all members shalll [eliminate on “l”] be dealt with in the following ways.[eliminate period and add a colon]
The first offense shall result in a warning, followed by a temporary blocking of the member for a period of two weeks in order to have a cooling down period.[eliminate period and add semicolon]
Second offense will result in a permanent blocking of ip address and membership. [Those who return in order to establish accounts under a different ip address will have their accounts deleted.]
Such rules shall be prominently posted on site so that all are aware.
A quorum [committee, not elders] ] of elders[strike of elders] shall be nominated and elected (in a poll and[eliminate and] subject to yearly renewal) by the membership to serve as arbritration body or to act and represent for the benefit of members as opposed to management, similar to the minority party in congress,and to act on the behalf of the site owner when he is not present.
I hope this helps.
If it is decided that the complexity of being respectful of those who are active duty military is more than the community can manage, I am fine going. I don’t know how you could or would vote on it, but if you came up with a way and a majority did not want to deal with that and it was acknowledged to me I am alright with going my own way.
I am Troll-rating this comment.
See, I think your decision here deserves some explanation.
I think Tracy just went to the heart of her issue and actually raised an important point.
Would I would actually do here is try to get Tracy to define what she really means by respect for active duty military and then see if there is any possible parameters of that definition that could actually be agreed to.
And if there isn’t, then she’s agreed to walk away. But we can’t even begin to figure that out until we understand what she means by it.
Sometimes I have been confused by how she defines it and have had to wonder what exactly she was referring to.
Obviously, active duty military are not above criticism. But respect is a little harder to define. And I think it is probably the wrong thing to ask for. Respect for the posters on this site is what I think we want. And so, I wouldn’t have troll-rated this comment but rather opened it up for debate.
I troll rated her because she has continually moved the discussion raised in this diary off point onto her own issues. If she wishes to raise those issues, she can write a diary. I did not explain, because I did not want to further hi-jack this important debate. I have explained my warnings each time.
well I haven’t followed everything here. But since she is kind of the focus and genesis for a lot of this debate it seems appropriate, at least some place, to define what it is that she thinks is acceptable and respectful discourse about the military.
Cuz that is what created the problem in July and what seems to be the recurring grievance from her end of it.
But if this is the wrong thread, I apologize for bringing it up.
I agree with Arminius. This thread is not about Tracy or any one person. I did not open this diary, but I have spent nearly 10 hours engaged with this topic because I am very concerned about the health of the community. To place Tracy at the center of this debate does a serious disservice to the community and to Tracy.
I really must go for the night. I will check in tomorrow morning.
I agree with Teach on this, and I think Tracy’s comment here, and BooMan’s response, are surreal. Both are bizarrely off-topic. I really hate to see the entire site basically held hostage to Tracy’s projections, which may inspire sympathy, but have nothing to do with the reality of the people here.
To suppose that this long and thoughtful thread is related to the topic of the military strikes me as pathologically strange.
I have so far ducked every single flame war on this site about the military, because I think it is obvious there are truths on both sides: of course it is noble to serve one’s country; and at the same time a military person can properly be questioned for participating in an illegal war. And special contempt is due for those in the air force who routinely destroy hundreds of civilians from thousands of feet up and acquiesce in the lies from the Pentagon, in which every dead civilian is a terrorist and insurgent. . . . The debate here is about civility, not about the substance of one’s thoughts. But I’ll say this . . . if BooMan decides that the priority is to make things safe for Tracy, which means that all criticism of the military is off-limits, then I’m out of here yesterday.
I just say a troll-rating in the recent comments. I’m not following the context, I was watching re-runs of Curb Your Enthuisiasm.
But the context is important. As far as I can tell, you’re talking about civility between members and she keeps diverting it off to civility about an abstract concept, the active military.
So there is a disconnect. But that is the disconnect that has existed from the beginning. One side felt offended because a concept was attacked and the other side got upset because they themselves were attacked. But for Tracy and SallyCat there was no difference. Or at least that is how it appeared to me. An overly broad attack on the troops was experienced as every bit the personal insult as foul language and diatribes.
And one side couldn’t figure out how the other side had gotten so incredibly, seemingly, irrationally angry.
But that being what it is, we can’t really enforce respect for abstractions like the military, can we? I’m not sure it would be any more appropriate than insisting on respect for the St. Louis Cardinals, just because a member has a husband on the team.
At most we might kind of ask nicely for the Cubs fan to stop saying the Cards suck because it is upsetting and kind of unnecesary. But the military is quite a bit more important than a baseball team and we can’t really expect people to tailor how they talk about it to protect the sensibilities of a few members. Can we?
Anyway, tell me where the right thread is and I’ll post it where it is appropriate.
I hesitate to respond to your comment because I can feel the thread being taken over by Tracy’s issues, which is why I troll rated her, after several warnings. To be dangerously blunt here, Tracy’s interjections are about her, not an abstract issue. This thread is about trying to prevent and defuse flame wars. (At least that is my opinion, I wish Diane was still here to state her intentions for herself.)
There is no diary at this moment that addresses how we should talk about and respond to the military. If someone wants to open one, they can. I plan to avoid that diary. Personally, I’ve seen enough to reach the conclusion that there are viewpoints here on that issue that are irreconcilable. Those parties involved need to decide whether they can co-exist in this blog. If they cannot, each must decide whether to drop the topic or the blog. But it is clearly inappropriate to keep interjecting the issue into diaries on unrelated topics. It is also inappropriate to dog each others steps across the internet and keep the name-calling going.
Now, I’m going to curb my enthusiasm and go to bed. Really. Third times a charm.
Maybe we all need a break.
Hi teach and I am off to bed too and we will take this up tomorrow, I think I stated how I felt about MT’s comments upthread and I can’t write it again, but I said along the lines of she is having some calm understandings here and I don’t want to stand in the way of that which is always my intent and purpose for someone to have a greater understanding of something, that her insight and her perspective about this is pretty much at the heart of the debate so in that respect it is certainly relevant.
Let’s not picky, pick and then start something else.
Calm down everyone, the situation is in hand.
Anyway, that being said, Tracy, you know you need to write a diary and you have things you need to say so go ahead and do all of this there, please.
See you all tomorrow.
Diane. I think that your idea is wonderful. I had not even considered it before because I was afraid the whole diary would turn into something not good for anyone. Because everyone is focusing more though on finding some common ground I think that it will be fine. I do want to say again, that if it is best for the community to not have an active duty family member right now then perhaps that is the best course to take. I don’t think that Iraq is going to start looking any better any time soon and sometimes people need to vent. The site is very peace oriented and it always has been. That was why it was so supportive of me going to Crawford when DK could really give a flying leap, but now it may also be a reason why Booman T and MT aren’t a very good fit right now. I continue to remember Mary Julia’s words in her diary that during the major demonstrations during Vietnam that everyone was having a horrible time of it.
this is being discussed in my meta diary.
You can throw your two cents in there if you want to.
I’ve been thinking about the military issue.
There is no way that I can think of that the military can get some kind of protected status.
They are not above criticism, even as an institution or group of institutions. People are going to criticize them, sometimes rightly so, sometimes unfairly.
This is also true for religious institutions, college fraternities, and so on. We can’t protect them from criticism.
And, obviously, no one is entitled to take offense at the criticism of an institution and turn that into a personal attack and then launch a personal attack in response. I mean, I certainly understand the urge to do that, but it can’t be allowed under any set of rules.
So, for you, the question is this: can you participate in a community that allows the miitary to be criticized? And can you, furthermore, respond to criticisms that you think are overly broad and/or unfair without making it personal and launching into profanity-laced attacks?
For you, that is the question. If you think you can do that then you should stick around. You’ve angered a lot of people but you also have many friends that want you here. But if you can’t deal with criticisms of the military (fair or unfair) with level-headed civility then you’ll only wind up forcing me to ban you. And there is no point in forcing me to do that if you know that you can’t abide by the rules and will eventually break them.
Regardless of what decision you make, I’ll be around to offer an ear any time you feel like talking to someone. You’ll always be a friend and important to me regardless of whether you fit into this blogging community.
This, in my opinion, places the responsibility where it actually belongs. And it addresses the real issue, which is an unacceptable “behavior”, NOT an unacceptable “person”.
When I came back to check on how this thread was going, and see that, yet one MORE TIME, it’s been tuned into what Tracy means, what Tracy needs, and then I see Boo weighing in suggesting ought to listen to her some MORE, I couldn’t freaking believe my eyes. I was more than willing to try to help find some solutions here, but I’ve had a belly full of these sick, manipulative dynamics and the flat out denial of their existance on the part of the one person who has any authority to do anything about it.
I believe Teach did the right thing as he warned her before. A debate on the merits of her comment should, imo, be in a diary of hers, not on this one, especially given the potential for that said debate to go south real fast.
Sorry Teach, I gave Tracy a four on that comment, because I think it’s important for the community to realize how self-centered and ridiculous Tracy is. I didn’t want the comment to be disappeared. And the ensuing thread has some real gems in it, too….and I’m not talking about my own comment….
and I’m not sure what the whole situation was about…but I just wanted to respond to this comment.
I personally have no beef with active-duty military. In the world we live in, the military is sort of a necessary evil; like fire insurance, you have it in the hope you’ll never have to use it. My beef is with two groups:
The situation with the National Guard really burns me — these folks (and their families and employers) didn’t sign on for endless tours of duty overseas. It’s like Bush thinks that he got over on the system during Vietnam, but today’s Guardsfolk are not going to get off that easy.
And you’ll have sick fucks in any organization — heck, there are probably a few hanging out around here — but let’s not judge the entire community for the actions of a few assholes.
Just my $0.02…I have no real input about “rules” and such (though I lean more toward suspensions than actual banning, at least for early offenses), but I’m sorry to lose so many strong voices. I almost feel like this is why the Republicans always win — all of us here have similar ends, but we’re arguing about the means to those ends… sigh
Salman Rushdie, in case anyone doesn’t remember, wrote a book that was considered heretical to some radical muslim fundamentalists in the 1980’s, I think, and he lives even to this day under a death fatwa. I’m sure he doesn’t feel safe, but he considers the freedom of expression, including the outright ridicule of his own ideas to be necessary for true freedom of expression to thrive. I hold with him on this. [I am not arguing for complete freedom of speech here. You can’t just spew Republican talking points, for example, unless you are willing to debate them with facts and links]
This is, I think, a forum for progressive ideas and for discussions of them, aimed toward the ultimate goal of electing representatives who hold truly progressive ideals and who will actively work on behalf of what we believe in. I, for one, welcome attacks on my progressive ideas, because it is the only way I can grow, either through solidifying my own argument and position or through discarding old ideas for better ones. The very moment that you express ill will toward someone who is arguing on behalf of an idea, you have lost your argument, utterly and completely, imo. If anyone here doesn’t feel safe because of a strident attack on their ideas, I say that they should leave of their own free will. That’s my 2 cents.
When does Jim Jones arrive, and who is in charge of making the Kool-Aid?
Oh … I’m sorry … is this a Green Party sub-sub-sub-committee meeting?
I’m sorry, is this a meeting of the Judean Peoples’ Front
or the Peoples’ Front of Judea ???
Oh, I thought we were the Popular Front.
Is that the Popular Front of Left Blogtopia, or the Leftopian Popular Front?
Maybe it was the Leftopian Popular People’s Front.
I think all negative remarks should be colored “orange” and the posters name should be in “orange” until such negativity has been resolved.
I`m sorta thinking mauve is nice, but I`m colorblind.