Subject:
|
Re: It's brawl night in the kiddie pool
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 28 Nov 2001 23:08:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
933 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Fredrik Glöckner writes:
> "Tim Courtney" <tim@zacktron.com> writes:
>
> > Can you successfully fight fire with a well-timed, controlled fire
> > you start yourself?
>
> Sorry, I don't think I understand what you mean by this. Do you mean
> that you can make Scott go away by shouting at him? Please have me
> excused if that was not what you meant, as I'm unsure about your
> allegory.
Sorry, I didn't mean shouting, per se, but that it is possible to fight
noise by reasoning with the person making the noise.
> Thankfully, the overall number of cases of banishment calls have been
> very small. But have you not taken an active part in a fair amount of
> these cases?
I have participated actively in calls for banishment regarding multiple
people on LUGNET. But, the cases I have participated in I did so because I
believed the person had overstayed their welcome (after legitimate attempts
to resolve the situation).
I'm trying to understand your point - what's the big deal if I'm an active
participant in a thread supporting someone's banishment? Provided its an
arguable case, like Dave! pointed out - not just going off the cuff at
someone who holds a different opinion.
> To take the Scott Arthur case, you've lately jumped into discussions
> where he has been active, to tell him to go away. Do you think that
> shouting to him actually has a positive effect? If you do not like his
> posts in the first place, why do you read them?
I suppose in Scott's case, shouting has no effect. But, then again, Scott's
proven that reason has no effect on him either. I can't answer why I read
them either....in this case though, I believe I started reading it after
people started calling for the end to the S&L show. I wasn't reading all of
the newsletter/you invaded my privacy thread before this.
(offhand, I think that whole thread is rather silly - I was laughing through
most of it)
> I don't think that a bad climate on a discussion group is generated by
> single, bad individuals. I think the bad climate is generated by people
> who, for some reason, are offended by the content of some articles and
> post hasty, negative replies. I've done this myself a few times. It's
> difficult to control myself some times, and out pops an article with a
> negative tone. From time to time I've had the time to cancel an article
> I've regretted posting before receiving any replies.
You could be right. Heck, I realize the negative (or possibly negative)
effect my 'nononono' post had. And I belive you've been around about as
long as I have - you certainly remember me when I was a young know-it-all
kid, right? Oh, 4 years ago?
> Take the "Mad Hatter" individual. He was obviously only interested in
> causing a havoc here, and he did manage it. But what caused the havoc?
> Was it his posts alone, or the heaps of people replying to them? If
> noone had posted the replies, no problems would have been caused in the
> first place.
...unfortunately you can't expect the masses of people to not reply to
things like that. Even if a group of core members who have been through
several provocations of that type by an outsider group together and agree
not to reply, the newer members or members not familiar with those kinds of
attacks will reply. And it will escalate. I think its an inevitable situation.
> In your article, which I have snipped heavily from to keep this short,
> you claim your credibility from being an important figure in the LEGO
> scene. If you are indeed an important figure, don't you see that what
> you do here has a signal effect? You're signalling that posting quick
> flames to Scott Arthur's posts is perfectly ok. If everybody were doing
> what you do, we would have the "Mad Hatter" situation all over again.
Good point.
What's not seen here though, is how much I read debate. Even though I don't
post frequently or regularly, I read a lot of what goes on, so I understand
how people behave. I haven't commented on Scott's behavior as much along
the way because others were doing it and I didn't want to get involved. But
when it came to the point where I deemed it was a serious problem, I jumped
in. Jumped in a little hastily, I could admit, but jumped in nonetheless.
As I said in another post, I read debate a lot to learn. Unfortunately
here, any debate reader will pick up the S&L show when it flares up.
> > Well lets see - that would mean being quiet or not commenting when
> > its no longer appropriate. Have I dropped the S&L show debate?
> > Hmm...when's the last time I posted on that, Monday night?
>
>
> I would relate the dawn of the "S&L show" to the administrator's message
> on admin.general, and the absence of Larry.
Aah, well, I would relate it to Lawrence's and Chris' posts which generated
the replies it did. That's about when I jumped in, if I can recall correctly.
BTW - I don't think the admin's decision was healthy for LUGNET. I'm glad
I'm getting a little bit of support in admin.general, but I've decided not
to directly address it with Suz in public. My opinion, but I think its
silly to remove oneself from an active participation in the community and
not deal with it. The climate is being damaged here - and none of us - the
users - have the real power to do anything about it. I want LUGNET to be a
better place, really.
Anyways, I should get going - I could ramble about community nurturing and
my opinion about the role of admins for quite some time, but I'm in a
library to meet a friend and work on a project.
-Tim
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: It's brawl night in the kiddie pool
|
| (...) "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," the quote goes. We probably agree that you are frequently sharing your opinions on the (mis-)behavior of other people here. If you want some credibility with regards to your opinions on other (...) (23 years ago, 29-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: It's brawl night in the kiddie pool
|
| (...) Sorry, I don't think I understand what you mean by this. Do you mean that you can make Scott go away by shouting at him? Please have me excused if that was not what you meant, as I'm unsure about your allegory. (...) Thankfully, the overall (...) (23 years ago, 28-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
65 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
