Serious topic: Tone, moderation, etc.
zipman68
the speed force!
A few thoughts about recent threads discussing the tone of the discussion board and (at least for some posters) calling for moderation:
1. MODERATION: Shadowcat spoke against moderation and cited the 1st amendment. Chill Palmer disagreed, stating that the 1st amendment was irrelevant. Although CP is of course correct (a. This is not exclusively an American board [not stated] and b.the first amendment doesn't give people the right to use any platform for their speech [e.g., a privately owned discussion board]). Nonetheless, I would contend that Shadow was correct from a philosophical standpoint. This board focuses on a type of expression that many cities try to shut down. We should take a philosophical position stating that people have a right to express themselves in an unfettered manner. So my vote is with Shadow...NO MODERATION.
2. TONE: Some have decried the tone as too combative and insulting. Well...it is combative and insulting. But is it TOO combative and insulting. Perhaps some of the loudest voices in this camp should take a look at their own posts. I don't want this thread to degenerate into name calling but I would like to cite a exemplar. Specifically, I'll highlight Chill Palmer. After seeing the comments regarding moderation I scanned old posts wondering if he had been consistently civil in tone. I would say that many of CP's post have indeed been civil. Too be perfectly frank, I would characterize them as rather uninteresting, uninspired, and not very insightful or memorable (i did have to click on the link because I couldn't remember!). But that is my opinion. CP has every right (in the model I advocate) to post whatever he wants. I have the right to ignore him.
However, I noticed some CP posts directed at me. I had forgotten that CP was associated, at least to some degree, with the "23camby-crew". I was referred to as a Juice sycophant and CP stated that I didn't have the intelligence to express my own personality. Arguably more biting insults than simply calling somebody a "fag". Now I honestly don't care what CP's opinion of me is. As I said I hadn't even remembered him. But I am pointing out his behavior because he appears to be implicitly saying "I want a more civil tone...except when *I want* to insult somebody".
So I would recommend that the "tone police" start by policing their own tone. And perhaps simply ignore those they dislike or find irritating. There is an ignore list feature after all.
3. INTELLIGENCE: Let's face facts. TUSCL isn't the Algonquin round table. I happen to find some of the stupidity humorous. If we take Juice as an example I know his posts are often stupid. But I'm also certain he knows he is being stupid. It is all a JOKE my friends. Some of us are entertained and others aren't. It seems to me that there is a solution if you aren't entertained. And it isn't saying "people should only post that which I find funny" (substitute some other term such as insightful, informative, useful, etc. if you wish).
Now, if we assume our new friend Pootie is Juice then Juice has hit upon a not very inspiring joke. Personally I'd like Juice to get back to some of the stuff I found funny. But that is his choice. If he wants to do th "Pootie speak" thing he can. If Pootie is a new guy that just happened to show up...well, I don't find him as funny as classic Juice. How to deal? Don't respond if you don't like it. Everybody wants responses if they post. Don't give that to those you genuinely dislike.
A few thoughts about recent threads discussing the tone of the discussion board and (at least for some posters) calling for moderation:
1. MODERATION: Shadowcat spoke against moderation and cited the 1st amendment. Chill Palmer disagreed, stating that the 1st amendment was irrelevant. Although CP is of course correct (a. This is not exclusively an American board [not stated] and b.the first amendment doesn't give people the right to use any platform for their speech [e.g., a privately owned discussion board]). Nonetheless, I would contend that Shadow was correct from a philosophical standpoint. This board focuses on a type of expression that many cities try to shut down. We should take a philosophical position stating that people have a right to express themselves in an unfettered manner. So my vote is with Shadow...NO MODERATION.
2. TONE: Some have decried the tone as too combative and insulting. Well...it is combative and insulting. But is it TOO combative and insulting. Perhaps some of the loudest voices in this camp should take a look at their own posts. I don't want this thread to degenerate into name calling but I would like to cite a exemplar. Specifically, I'll highlight Chill Palmer. After seeing the comments regarding moderation I scanned old posts wondering if he had been consistently civil in tone. I would say that many of CP's post have indeed been civil. Too be perfectly frank, I would characterize them as rather uninteresting, uninspired, and not very insightful or memorable (i did have to click on the link because I couldn't remember!). But that is my opinion. CP has every right (in the model I advocate) to post whatever he wants. I have the right to ignore him.
However, I noticed some CP posts directed at me. I had forgotten that CP was associated, at least to some degree, with the "23camby-crew". I was referred to as a Juice sycophant and CP stated that I didn't have the intelligence to express my own personality. Arguably more biting insults than simply calling somebody a "fag". Now I honestly don't care what CP's opinion of me is. As I said I hadn't even remembered him. But I am pointing out his behavior because he appears to be implicitly saying "I want a more civil tone...except when *I want* to insult somebody".
So I would recommend that the "tone police" start by policing their own tone. And perhaps simply ignore those they dislike or find irritating. There is an ignore list feature after all.
3. INTELLIGENCE: Let's face facts. TUSCL isn't the Algonquin round table. I happen to find some of the stupidity humorous. If we take Juice as an example I know his posts are often stupid. But I'm also certain he knows he is being stupid. It is all a JOKE my friends. Some of us are entertained and others aren't. It seems to me that there is a solution if you aren't entertained. And it isn't saying "people should only post that which I find funny" (substitute some other term such as insightful, informative, useful, etc. if you wish).
Now, if we assume our new friend Pootie is Juice then Juice has hit upon a not very funny joke (in my opinion). If Pottie is genuinely new (I know...unlikely) I would also say the posts are tiresome. But that is my opinion. I can ignore that which I dislike. You should too. When people post they want a response. If you give it you're you're providing exactly what the poster wants. If you don't like the post, why are you doing that!
And -- with respect to tone -- I would add that the Algonquin round table was hardly know for its civil tone. So intelligence =/= civility.
1. MODERATION: Shadowcat spoke against moderation and cited the 1st amendment. Chill Palmer disagreed, stating that the 1st amendment was irrelevant. Although CP is of course correct (a. This is not exclusively an American board [not stated] and b.the first amendment doesn't give people the right to use any platform for their speech [e.g., a privately owned discussion board]). Nonetheless, I would contend that Shadow was correct from a philosophical standpoint. This board focuses on a type of expression that many cities try to shut down. We should take a philosophical position stating that people have a right to express themselves in an unfettered manner. So my vote is with Shadow...NO MODERATION.
2. TONE: Some have decried the tone as too combative and insulting. Well...it is combative and insulting. But is it TOO combative and insulting. Perhaps some of the loudest voices in this camp should take a look at their own posts. I don't want this thread to degenerate into name calling but I would like to cite a exemplar. Specifically, I'll highlight Chill Palmer. After seeing the comments regarding moderation I scanned old posts wondering if he had been consistently civil in tone. I would say that many of CP's post have indeed been civil. Too be perfectly frank, I would characterize them as rather uninteresting, uninspired, and not very insightful or memorable (i did have to click on the link because I couldn't remember!). But that is my opinion. CP has every right (in the model I advocate) to post whatever he wants. I have the right to ignore him.
However, I noticed some CP posts directed at me. I had forgotten that CP was associated, at least to some degree, with the "23camby-crew". I was referred to as a Juice sycophant and CP stated that I didn't have the intelligence to express my own personality. Arguably more biting insults than simply calling somebody a "fag". Now I honestly don't care what CP's opinion of me is. As I said I hadn't even remembered him. But I am pointing out his behavior because he appears to be implicitly saying "I want a more civil tone...except when *I want* to insult somebody".
So I would recommend that the "tone police" start by policing their own tone. And perhaps simply ignore those they dislike or find irritating. There is an ignore list feature after all.
3. INTELLIGENCE: Let's face facts. TUSCL isn't the Algonquin round table. I happen to find some of the stupidity humorous. If we take Juice as an example I know his posts are often stupid. But I'm also certain he knows he is being stupid. It is all a JOKE my friends. Some of us are entertained and others aren't. It seems to me that there is a solution if you aren't entertained. And it isn't saying "people should only post that which I find funny" (substitute some other term such as insightful, informative, useful, etc. if you wish).
Now, if we assume our new friend Pootie is Juice then Juice has hit upon a not very inspiring joke. Personally I'd like Juice to get back to some of the stuff I found funny. But that is his choice. If he wants to do th "Pootie speak" thing he can. If Pootie is a new guy that just happened to show up...well, I don't find him as funny as classic Juice. How to deal? Don't respond if you don't like it. Everybody wants responses if they post. Don't give that to those you genuinely dislike.
A few thoughts about recent threads discussing the tone of the discussion board and (at least for some posters) calling for moderation:
1. MODERATION: Shadowcat spoke against moderation and cited the 1st amendment. Chill Palmer disagreed, stating that the 1st amendment was irrelevant. Although CP is of course correct (a. This is not exclusively an American board [not stated] and b.the first amendment doesn't give people the right to use any platform for their speech [e.g., a privately owned discussion board]). Nonetheless, I would contend that Shadow was correct from a philosophical standpoint. This board focuses on a type of expression that many cities try to shut down. We should take a philosophical position stating that people have a right to express themselves in an unfettered manner. So my vote is with Shadow...NO MODERATION.
2. TONE: Some have decried the tone as too combative and insulting. Well...it is combative and insulting. But is it TOO combative and insulting. Perhaps some of the loudest voices in this camp should take a look at their own posts. I don't want this thread to degenerate into name calling but I would like to cite a exemplar. Specifically, I'll highlight Chill Palmer. After seeing the comments regarding moderation I scanned old posts wondering if he had been consistently civil in tone. I would say that many of CP's post have indeed been civil. Too be perfectly frank, I would characterize them as rather uninteresting, uninspired, and not very insightful or memorable (i did have to click on the link because I couldn't remember!). But that is my opinion. CP has every right (in the model I advocate) to post whatever he wants. I have the right to ignore him.
However, I noticed some CP posts directed at me. I had forgotten that CP was associated, at least to some degree, with the "23camby-crew". I was referred to as a Juice sycophant and CP stated that I didn't have the intelligence to express my own personality. Arguably more biting insults than simply calling somebody a "fag". Now I honestly don't care what CP's opinion of me is. As I said I hadn't even remembered him. But I am pointing out his behavior because he appears to be implicitly saying "I want a more civil tone...except when *I want* to insult somebody".
So I would recommend that the "tone police" start by policing their own tone. And perhaps simply ignore those they dislike or find irritating. There is an ignore list feature after all.
3. INTELLIGENCE: Let's face facts. TUSCL isn't the Algonquin round table. I happen to find some of the stupidity humorous. If we take Juice as an example I know his posts are often stupid. But I'm also certain he knows he is being stupid. It is all a JOKE my friends. Some of us are entertained and others aren't. It seems to me that there is a solution if you aren't entertained. And it isn't saying "people should only post that which I find funny" (substitute some other term such as insightful, informative, useful, etc. if you wish).
Now, if we assume our new friend Pootie is Juice then Juice has hit upon a not very funny joke (in my opinion). If Pottie is genuinely new (I know...unlikely) I would also say the posts are tiresome. But that is my opinion. I can ignore that which I dislike. You should too. When people post they want a response. If you give it you're you're providing exactly what the poster wants. If you don't like the post, why are you doing that!
And -- with respect to tone -- I would add that the Algonquin round table was hardly know for its civil tone. So intelligence =/= civility.
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
15 comments
But I have one more comment -- if you choose to insult another's intelligence, spelling, grammar,etc. you might want to avoid making typos, spelling errors, and grammatical errors IN THE POST where you are insulting another person.
Something 'bout glass houses...
Of course I just noticed that I double pasted...sorry about that bros.
But I would add that I don't want the quest for "intelligence" (scare quotes intentional) to preclude folks from cut/paste errors, typos, etc. I want to frickin' joke around with folks that like strippers. Sometimes serious stuff is cool. But don't we all get enough of that elsewhere.
With that said I would stick with my statement 'bout glass houses. One thing to fuck up...another to fuck up while telling others NOT to fuck up.
I find most of his stuff kind of funny. Not Seinfeld funny, but Three Stooges funny. I don't think juice is the buffoon he pretends to be. I wanna see him back
But I agree. Poonie is not funny. Juice or not
My main issue is that it just gets worse. More people get drawn into it, the instigators actively do everything they can to stir shit, good topics get derailed and occasionally we lose good people.
"Just ignore it" is a great policy. But I also see many of the people who espouse that, still getting drawn into it and/or contributing. So clearly that ones doesn't work well.
There probably is no good solution.
Perhaps it would be helpful if we tried to enforce a "social contract" where jokes -- at least wildly OT jokes -- are frowned upon and ignored in serious threads. For example, I Pootie interjects something on a more serious thread let's NOT feed the troll (unless he posts something comprehensible). If he wants to post on joke threads or start his own...fair game. Engage him if you enjoy the humor, ignore him if you don't.
The reality is that all of us find different things funny. A lot of the people who complain about the tone and content are dangerously close to saying "everybody who posts stuff I don't like *shouldn't* post". That's out of line. It is one thing to be clear about what you don't like, another to call those say things you don't like *shouldn't* be allowed to post. I don't think that is the spirit of this board.
There is a good solution. Make me moderator and I'll ban all the faggots like the jestie-girl in about two seconds flat.
I've said multiple times that I find Juice entertaining under some circumstances. Others have also acknowledged enjoying some of Juice's comments (cf. Motorhead above). As Motorhead stated Juice Isn't the buffon he pretends to be. you don't like him and thats your prerogative. But many of us don't share your perspective. You either cannot understand these clear statements or you refuse to understand them.
I'm not sure why you've promoted me to "Juice's second in command" in your imagination. Perhaps you simply need sombody to bitch about. In the past I've written using multiple styles. When joking around with Juice a somewhat more colorful style is appropriate. For other threads I have adopted a more serious style.
However, I still adopt a colorful style when it is appropriate. For example, I replied to Pootie using his lingo as a joke. With that said, I'm less amused by Pootie than I was by Juice (so Juicebro...if you're Pootie you should shift back to some old school Juice).
I find it interesting that you clearly NEED to convince me that you are intelligent. Perhaps you should ask yourself why.
^^^^^
just a guess but maybe because he is a “peace†of work