board77

truehobbit wrote:

Giving that power to one person or even to a group of five people means the rest of us are reduced to the status of children, with no concern in the world but to enjoy, and coming to believe it's our right to enjoy without being bothered by pesky responsibilities.
When we first started setting up this board, there was a basic consensus that we wanted to be responsible, <snip>

Yes, I think that's one of the basic conflicts here. Some want the responsibility, others don't (not because they are not responsible people but because they prefer to exercise their responsibility in real life venues, not on a messageboard).



Well I see that I didn't understand halplm after all and thus my previous post was worse than useless.

halplm wrote:

See my response to this question before. But really, why should we need to look past that incident? That seems to be a good example.

The only reason I suggested looking past that incident is that you had in several places protested that you weren't just talking about that incident but about a pattern of behavior.

I think that incident was rather unique, so that it would be useful to make clear whether we are or are not mainly talking about that.

hal, would you mind saying exactly how you would have preferred to see that incident develop? That is, what do you think those people who seriously objected to a joke thread in Bike Racks (on the understanding that that is not what the forum was intended for, and that what it was intended for is something we regard as important to the posters in this community) should have done?

Quote:

Well now we're getting somewhere. Whose VALUES are the procedures and guidelines supposed to represent.

The values of the community that wrote and ratified them.

Quote:

I was under the (apparently false) assumption that the charter was supposed to be valueless. That is, accepting of any values, while protecting us from rampant attacks, meaningless spam, and arbitrary dictatorships.

I believe Prim posted the Member Rights and Responsibilities a few pages back. Could you review that and say if you think it represents any values?

Quote:

If someone doesn't agree with those values they're not welcome and should just move along? Is that what we're actually saying?

Yes, I believe so.

Quote:

I think that the enforcement of those rules needs to be able to recognize the difference between someone breaking that rule, and someone joking about that rule.

I know that Lidless and tp were having what they believed was a harmless joke. The problem was, I saw harm in it, not intended harm, but potential harm to the usefulness of the forum for members of the community. There are times when people will disagree, hal. They thought it was a harmless, joking use of the forum, and I thought it was a harmful (not intendedly so) joking use of the forum, and that is why I brought the 'rules' to bear -- the rules being the stated guidlines for use of the forum.

Quote:

I think the posters responsible for "modding" (which is everyone, although some think it more their duty than others), need to be able to recognize that the board is NOT served best by Absolutely strict enforcement of every rule guidline and VALUE that the charter represents.

I am aware of this. In this case, this was not a capricious adherence to the letter of the law. I felt the members of this community were not being well served by this use of the forum, which far outbalanced the right of two posters to amuse themselves and others by misusing it.

Cerin wrote:

halplm wrote:

I think what we may have here is a clash of values underneath it all. There are those who respect the Charter as representing the values they want for the board and therefore desire to operate according to it, and there are those who do not respect the Charter as representing anything of value, and who want to be free to make this board into a different place than the place now reflected in the Charter.

This is so very untrue I don't even know how to respond.

I'm happy to hear it, and I'll gladly put that idea out of mind. (But I wonder if you can see how I came to that conclusion based on the statements you've made about not caring about the Charter and not even knowing what's in it). So you are saying you do respect the Charter as reflecting the kind of board you want b77 to be?

Quote:

I'm sorry, Cerin, but this sounds blatantly like "If you don't buy into the B77 vision, then we don't need you." Maybe that's what you think the case should be, maybe that's what everyone but me thinks the case should be. I don't know, but the absurdity of it is quite funny.

I'm just trying to understand you. You had said you thought people would be leaving, and I'm trying to understand what is behind your statement. I'm not stating my own ideas here, but trying to understand what you have been saying. You said that my previous statement was an incorrect understanding of your view, so I'm happy to accept that this is incorrect also.

Quote:

Oh, now people want to UNDERMINE the charter? Why don't you bring a list of the times people have tried to undermine the charter, Cerin? Does this happen often? Do you see it every day? Are you trying to protect the charter from this nasty group of MEMBERS?

I'm just trying to understand you based on what you've been saying lately. If the above is incorrect, I'm happy to leave that idea behind and continue trying to understand you. I'm just repeating back to you what it is I think you've been trying to say. Obviously I'm not getting it.

Quote:

Yeah, I guess teh board does fulfill everythign YOU want for a board... the funny thing is, I kind of want it fulfill what EVERYONE wants for a board.

Yes. But I had thought you were describing a case when what one group wanted was not compatible with what another group wanted.

Quote:

There are so many assumptions being made about me and what I think, that all usefullness in discussion is gone.

I am not making assumptions. I am saying back to you what I think you mean. When you tell me I'm wrong, I accept that, and go back to trying to understand what you mean. They aren't assumptions, they are mistaken interpretations.

Quote:

No, we TRIED to pick 2. It appears some people still want 1 and will drive the other "side" out, because they think rules are the best thing ever, and shouldn't ever EVER be bent, let alone broken... even for fun or as a joke.

I trust you're speaking about me here, but that isn't the case. The misuse of the Bike Racks wasn't a minor bending of a rule in my view, regardless that it was meant as a joke. The harm wasn't contingent on the intent, the harm was contingent on what I saw as a potential result.

Quote:

And I don't want 1, Prim, I want the group A that can't stand the other group B to accept them and leave them alone, just as group B accepts and leaves the group A alone.

People aren't going to accept something that they see as hurtful or potentially harmful to members of this community (which is the way some saw the Bike Racks thread).

Quote:

I want the group A that can't stand the other group B to accept them and leave them alone, just as group B accepts and leaves the group A alone.

What I see is constant picking and harping from you about what you see as the rules faction interfering in your fun. What you seem to see is constant picking and harping from what you see as the rules faction intefering in your fun. The problem is, no one else seems to see it your way. If you know of people who agree with you, perhaps you could solicit some of them to come and explain, since you're having a hard time making yourself understood and giving concrete examples.


On the other hand, maybe you really are only going on about me and the Bike Racks incident. In that case, you aren't advancing understanding of your viewpoint by claiming that you are referring to a pervasive problem.

Quote:

I should be more precise. It's not that the one group can't stand the other, it's that they can't stand their "values" or behavior. And they don't really want the other group to leave, they want them to conform.

Yes, I want everyone to conform to the rules outlined in the Charter, and I don't mind saying so. I want this because the Charter was carefully written to support the kind of community we wanted to build for the people who post here. There are very few restrictive rules in it.

Cerin wrote:

truehobbit wrote:

Giving that power to one person or even to a group of five people means the rest of us are reduced to the status of children, with no concern in the world but to enjoy, and coming to believe it's our right to enjoy without being bothered by pesky responsibilities.
When we first started setting up this board, there was a basic consensus that we wanted to be responsible, <snip>

Yes, I think that's one of the basic conflicts here. Some want the responsibility, others don't (not because they are not responsible people but because they prefer to exercise their responsibility in real life venues, not on a messageboard).

Yes, like I said, it's perfectly ok to choose not to assume the responsibilities - it's just that the board depends on not too many people opting out of this. And I just meant to show tp the reasons why I, among others, am so set against any kind of empowering one decision-maker above the rest of the group - that it's not because I like arguments or meddling in other people's problems - actually, I was just hoping to get her to like the idea of our self-governance system.
I don't really think that that's a basic conflict here, though - anyone who wants to keep out of things can do so. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding you?
I wasn't referring to the ongoing discussion with halplm here at all.

truehobbit wrote:

I don't really think that that's a basic conflict here, though - anyone who wants to keep out of things can do so. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding you?

My mind was definitely wandering there.

I was thinking that some of those who don't want the responsibility have also expressed a chafing against the rules (probably because they aren't as familiar with them because they didn't care to be involved in creating them, and some have said they find them ridiculous and unnecessary). It definitely wouldn't be a problem if those who didn't want the responsibility trusted those who do, but that doesn't seem to be the case at the moment.

...

I don't know what to say any more. I'm not trying to be difficult or insulting, but I seem incapable of saying what I mean to you guys. I don't believe you're deliberatly misunderstanding me, or not getting it, so that must mean I'm saying things badly. I'm not surprised, as this happens frequently when people are coming from completely different points of view.

Here's the bottom line: I've been trying to explain why I think Cerin's complaint about the bikeracks thread should not have been made in the first place. Furthermore, I've been trying to come up with a way, or convince people, that such a complaint should not be made in similar circumstances in the future.

Obviously, i have failed at this. It would be my hope, that people are more hesitant to make a fuss about something like a joke thread in the bikeracks in the future, but it is clear that Cerin, at least, feels it is our duty to do just that or the board will go all to hell.

The result is that board77 will not accept jokes of that nature in the future. I believe I tried to make the point, although I was completely misunderstood, that board77 was created mostly if not entirely, so that such jokes, poking fun at the board itself, and at the "authority" figures of the board, would be possible, without people getting all upset.

I believe at one point board77 was like that (ie. events that led to the now common joke of starting a poll for everything). As of now, board77 is not like that, and cannot be like that in the future, because to "make fun" of the charter or the "authority" figures is viewed as "making trouble" or "a threat to the future of the board."

So, regardless of how things turn out, at least one of our goals starting out is gone. Maybe most people don't care, but at least for one of those that got banned from TORC for "breaking the rules" it's sad. I am not "comfortable" here any more, and I know I am not alone in that. I still have friends here and all that, but I know I will hesitate before posting things, and joke less, and "tone down" posts in the future to avoid dealing with people who are easily offended or think joking is inappropriate. I guess for those of us who enjoy it, we'll have to take it to another board.

Boy, I honestly never thought I'd say that about this place.

Hal, you need to spend more time in Turf.

We do, too, make fun of ourselves.

The only reason we don't make fun of authority is because there isn't any. We sure as heck make fun of the charter. "Don't make me form a committee" has become a dire threat. We still joke about polls, more than ever.

Maybe you need to read a few more threads. I doubt you would conclude that there is any shortage of laughter or silliness around this board, or that we take ourselves too seriously.

yes, I'm sure it's all in my head.

Hal, I didn't say that. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I just suggested that you go and do a little research. You might find things are not as grim as you think.

Hal, I really wish that you could see what I see. When I look at board77, for every pound of disagreements that I see, I see a ton of caring. For every inch of conflict, I see a mile of love.

This morning when I found that my precious kitty Jumoke had passed away, one of the first things that I did was reach out to my family here at board77. And the support that I have felt from my friends here has been one of the main things that have helped my deal with the initial shock of the loss.

Yes we have disagreements here. We are much of strong-willed, very passionate people, each with our own individual ideas about what is right and what is wrong, what is appropriate and what is not. And you know what? I wouldn't have it any other way. Because without that passion, the love wouldn't exist either. No matter how much we fight and scream and bitch and complain, we are here for each other.

And please believe that no matter how much we disagree on some of these things, I will still be here for you.

hal, thank you for continuing to try and explain yourself. I think you've been clearer this time.

Quote:

I've been trying to explain why I think Cerin's complaint about the bikeracks thread should not have been made in the first place.

I think you have explained this pretty well. You don't think there was any harm in it, so you don't see a problem with using the forum that way.

Quote:

Furthermore, I've been trying to come up with a way, or convince people, that such a complaint should not be made in similar circumstances in the future.

Do you mean, try to convince people like me that substantively, a joke thread in the Bike Racks doesn't do any harm and so there is no reason to object to it? Or do you mean, try to convince people like me that we shouldn't complain even if we do feel that a joke thread in Bike Racks is not in the best interests of the community?

If the first, that is a matter of opinion and you are free to try to convince people their opinion is wrong (though I think that rarely meets with success). If the second, I wouldn't try to convince you not to voice your opinion about something you felt was not in the best interests of the community, and I wonder on what grounds you would try to convince someone they shouldn't speak up about what they feel is wrong.

In other words, I haven't told you you should stop speaking up when you see a problem, so I wonder why you would feel you should tell me to stop speaking up when I see a problem.

Quote:

It would be my hope, that people are more hesitant to make a fuss about something like a joke thread in the bikeracks in the future, but it is clear that Cerin, at least, feels it is our duty to do just that or the board will go all to hell.

It would be my hope that people are more hesitant to attempt a mock thread in Bike Racks in the future because they are now aware that quite a few members object to that misuse of the forum.

Quote:

The result is that board77 will not accept jokes of that nature in the future. I believe I tried to make the point, although I was completely misunderstood, that board77 was created mostly if not entirely, so that such jokes, poking fun at the board itself, and at the "authority" figures of the board, would be possible, without people getting all upset.

It isn't the joke that caused me to complain, it was the placement of the joke in the Bike Racks. There is nothing to prevent anyone making fun of whomever they wish to make fun of (although Bike Racks has nothing to do with authority figures). IIRC I've never complained about people poking fun at the board or at anyone else.

I complained because a forum that has been explicitly set aside for people who need a place to work out a personal difficulty was used to stage a fake attempt at such. I don't see why a fake attempt a dispute resolution couldn't be staged elsewhere with a little creative labeling of the thread. That way you could make fun of whatever you wish to make fun of without doing any harm to the usefulness of the Bike Racks for people who will actually need to use it in the future and who might be put off when they are feeling upset and vulnerable if they see that the forum is also used for mock resolutions.

Quote:

I believe at one point board77 was like that (ie. events that led to the now common joke of starting a poll for everything). As of now, board77 is not like that, and cannot be like that in the future, because to "make fun" of the charter or the "authority" figures is viewed as "making trouble" or "a threat to the future of the board."

When has someone complained about anyone making fun of the charter or of authority figures? I did not do that when I complained about the placement of a joke thread in Bike Racks. My complaint is that I don't think the joke should take place there, not that the joke should not take place at all.

Quote:

I know I will hesitate before posting things, and joke less, and "tone down" posts in the future to avoid dealing with people who are easily offended or think joking is inappropriate. I guess for those of us who enjoy it, we'll have to take it to another board.

Why would you joke less, and tone down posts because some members feel the Bike Racks shouldn't be used for mock dispute resolutions? Do you understand that the objection wasn't to the content of the thread, but to the placement of it? I did not ask anyone to tone down anything, I have not habitually shown myself to be easily offended by jokes nor do I think joking is inappropriate. I do think that staging a mock dispute resolution in Bike Racks is inappropriate, but why should that inhibit you in any other way in your use of the board?


What you seem to be saying is that since you can't put a mock dispute resolution thread in Bike Racks, your board experience is ruined and you have to adjust your behavior all over the board. Do I have that right finally?

Voronwe, I missed the news about your cat. I'm so sorry.

You've touched on something really important in your post - the importance of being able to receive love and caring, the ability to know when people are reaching out to you.

There is a tendency, especially in the middle of conflict I think, for feelings of isolation to become overwhelming. It's important to be able to say to ourselves, "it isn't as bad as I think it is," and to hear and accept the overtures that others are making.

Jn

Voronwe, I'm so sorry about your cat! I must have missed where you announced that.

Vinnie, my heartfelt condolences on the death of your cat. I didn't see the thread - no time for browsing today.

Voronwe -- I missed that news, too. I'm a fellow cat owner myself, and I am so very sorry for your loss.

hal -- I wish I could take your frustration away from you!



(Another to balance the unhappy smilies--because I am not feeling unhappiness right now, but sorrow for my friends who are suffering, and sorrow is an unhappiness that is tinged with love. )

Tinsel.

Thanks, Jn, and Cerin, and Impy, and Tinsel. You guys prove my point for me.

Voronwe, I'm very sorry to hear about your kitty cat.

I'm so sorry about your kitty, Voronwe. Losing a critter is always terribly sad.


(I have been following this thread and shall respond further once I remember what it is that I wanted to say.)

...

hal--

That last helped clarify things.

Simply put, here's my standard, which is mine alone:

Whoopie cushion: funny
Whoopie cushion in church: maybe funny, maybe not
Whoopie cushion at church during funeral: not funny

Which is to say, while I could see a joke thread in the Bike Racks being funny in theory, putting one in there while there are ongoing mediations strikes me as being less than useful. And in any case, such a thread shouldn't stay there for any length of time, because as a rule NO thread should stay there for long.

There are parts of the Charter I roll my eyes at, you know. And did even when we discussing them. But a majority of the committee thought everything there was important enough to pass, and a majority of the board thought it was good enough to approve. Does that mean it's immune to parody? No, goodness no. But mockery...I can get sensitive when I feel the hard work involved, and the will of the members of the board, is being mocked. And the line between parody and mockery? See my standard above. It's a matter of timing, as much as anything else. But comedy is like that.