shutting down forum threads: how?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| gus3 Sep 15, 2009 8:59 PM EDT |
I've been registered for over two years, and I've seen some threads go down in flames. I'll say that, with only one exception, I think they all deserved it. The exception was the discussion of the apology to the memory of Alan Turing. I was following it, and finding myself agreeing with everyone's points (but I know that my opinion isn't the basis of editorial decisions). The closing of that thread spawned another thread to discuss said closing. http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/29659/ In this second thread, our Editor-In-Chief, Scott_Ruecker, stated that he closed the thread to pre-empt what he saw as a ToS-violation waiting to happen. In light of prior thread closures, he stated: Quoting:if I am to err, it will be on the side of caution more often.I, and others, were sorry to lose the thread. We expressed the shared sentiment that one bad, or borderline, comment shouldn't make the other ToS-compliant comments inaccessible. Indeed, that could even be used as a philosophical DoS-attack, in which one party commits a ToS violation in order to silence other commentators. I proposed the following enhancement to LXer's forum capabilities: Quoting:Close [a] thread to new comments, but optionally leave the posted comments up for display.This was seconded by caitlyn (who later qualified her support for the idea), and thirded by Bob_Robertson. softwarejanitor pointed out that forum moderators may already have the ability to "clean up" ToS-violating comments. If so, this means the inappropriate material could be removed (and explanations inserted by moderators), the prior discussion could remain published, and the thread could be closed. Comments? Enhancements? Response from the admins? |
| TxtEdMacs Sep 15, 2009 9:30 PM EDT |
gus, I would say I am 100% for your suggestions, except in cases where i disagree requiring my reversal of my statement of agreement. Understood? Good, let me proceed: However, since no one in their right mind listens to me, I think I should unequivocally come strongly against your position to enhance the possibility you will be successful. That is, if I am against it, it must be sensible. So I am opposed. Even when I am serious, I am mocked so my alliance would be a net negative. I will not undermine your noble cause. So let me state - I think it's a terrible idea that should be prima facie rejected upon its lack of merit. Ok, Scott it's in your court now, we await your decision. YBT |
| jdixon Sep 15, 2009 9:56 PM EDT |
> Close [a] thread to new comments, but optionally leave the posted comments up for display. I have to agree that this idea has its merits. Proper implementation and usage might be difficult, but probably no more difficult that the current process is already. It might be worth a testing, at least. |
| Scott_Ruecker Sep 15, 2009 10:52 PM EDT |
A closed thread should still be able to be found in your subscribed threads accessed through your member page. It will no longer show up in the 'Latest Discussions' box to the right once it is closed. |
| dinotrac Sep 15, 2009 10:52 PM EDT |
The problem with the last thread closed is that it demonstrates precisely the problem with the rash of TOS shutdowns. The post I complained about was not fundamentally like many others. Technically, the "offensive" material wasn't in the thread because it was linked to, but that's a meaningless technicality when you get down to it. What I'm talking about is akin to the concept of a chilling effect in discussions of Constitutional Law and free speech. Some actions may not directly interfere with speech, but, by their nature, discourage some from exercising their freedom. In the context at hand, fear of seeing a flamefest or three might also keep some useful and interesting stuff from being said and considered. Of course, I'm very biased on this matter. I despise thought police and wannabe church ladies. I'm probably alone in that. |
| gus3 Sep 15, 2009 11:27 PM EDT |
@Scott: I've found more than one closed thread in the "Latest Discussions" list, complete with the "New" prefix. It was by clicking the links that I found out they were closed. @dino: Constitutional law does not apply here. The applicable Terms of Service here neither prohibit nor discourage you from speaking your mind on other topics elsewhere. There is no "chilling effect" when an LXer thread gets closed. |
| tracyanne Sep 16, 2009 1:14 AM EDT |
Quoting:Of course, I'm very biased on this matter. I despise thought police and wannabe church ladies. I'm probably alone in that. If you say so. |
| flufferbeer Sep 16, 2009 1:23 AM EDT |
@Scott:
Same as gus3 for me.
A recent Story: Windows 7 vs. Linux, Microsoft Trashes Open Source OS had a thread called "Can't. Resist."
Even when I set the thread to Watch-thread status, I still get a big bold warning
"This thread is closed to further posts." I wonder how this thread failed the TOS ?? (although I do have a bit of a suspicion why....) |
| hkwint Sep 16, 2009 3:36 AM EDT |
Quoting:Comments? Enhancements? Response from the admins? Yes: Please be patient. This issue will be looked at. |
| bigg Sep 16, 2009 9:10 AM EDT |
My preference is to only delete or close threads if there is no relevant material at all. I don't recall ever seeing such a thread at LXer (though I wasn't looking). I have a strong preference for TOS-violating posts to be deleted, either by the poster or the admin. Some sites have buttons on individual posts, where you click the button if you think the post is inappropriate. It would be nice if there were an easier way to complain about TOS violations without cluttering the thread. |
| gus3 Sep 16, 2009 10:00 AM EDT |
Addendum to bigg's idea: A "Report this comment" link should be visible only to logged-in members, or be guarded by CAPTCHA pages. And if it's going to go that far, perhaps it's time to tighten the registration process. (Editors: I have some ideas on bot-proofing that, if you're interested.) |
| dinotrac Sep 16, 2009 10:35 AM EDT |
gus3 - Sigh. I never said that it did. I was describing a phenomenon that is well-known in Constitutional Law. Perhaps I should refer simply to the law of unintended consequences if that makes you happier. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 16, 2009 2:11 PM EDT |
I didn't actually start the thread under "Turing" to discuss the closing of the prior thread. I had hoped to discuss Alan Turing. But enough of that, because this thread is for discussing the closing of threads. Like others, I've recently seen "This Thread Closed To New Entries" (paraphrased from memory) but it's actually an erasure because the prior entries in the thread are gone. I'm not sure which I prefer, "This Thread Closed" or simple deletion. What bothers me about not being able to see the closed/deleted threads is that the question of what is/isn't too far is lost. As Gus suggests, he didn't see where a violation of sufficient magnitude had occurred, so he's confused about it. Being able to read the prior postings would help greatly in clearing up confusion. Having specific posts erased, rather than the thread, would also help in a "woops" way without penalizing everyone else. I'm more likely than some to go OT in some people's view, because I believe that some subjects considered OT have a large effect on F/OSS issues. This doesn't mean I don't agree that there are and will be posts that very much deserve to be erased. I would just like to be able to learn from them. A deleted thread provides very limited possibilities for learning. |
| bigg Sep 16, 2009 2:48 PM EDT |
> I'm more likely than some to go OT in some people's view, because I believe that some subjects considered OT have a large effect on F/OSS issues. Which I agree with completely. That's why I don't like the current practice of having to be a whiner in the thread itself just because IMO a post is out of bounds. |
| hkwint Sep 16, 2009 3:23 PM EDT |
Quoting:I had hoped to discuss Alan Turing. But enough of that, because this thread is for discussing the closing of threads. Well, given that the thread at the article of Alan Turing is about "the closing of threads"... I wish I could Ctrl-X / V (swap) them. Again, please have some patience. Your voices are heard, this issue will be looked at. But probably not today (and more important: not by me), maybe tomorrow? |
| gus3 Sep 16, 2009 4:01 PM EDT |
Quoting:As Gus suggests, he didn't see where a violation of sufficient magnitude had occurred, so he's confused about it.It's true that I didn't see where the violation occurred, but that doesn't mean it didn't. I simply regret not seeing the prior discussion. I trust our mods and editors to be mostly consistent, and honest about inconsistencies. If I didn't, I wouldn't hang around. Quoting:Again, please have some patience. Your voices are heard, this issue will be looked at.Thanks for the feedback on it, Hans. We can bounce around a few ideas and improvements while we wait, because after all, isn't that what Open Source is all about? |
| hkwint Sep 16, 2009 4:04 PM EDT |
It sure is gus. I'm reading along as the discussion progresses. |
| softwarejanitor Sep 16, 2009 4:11 PM EDT |
Well, obviously it is already possible to kill individual posts without locking a thread because my response to the "I really dont get it. :-?" thread just went "poof". I guess it must have offended someone even though I don't know what about it would have possibly been a violation of TOS. |
| hkwint Sep 16, 2009 4:41 PM EDT |
sj: Try again I suggest. AFAIK there was no deletion over there. Or maybe your response collided with mine? |
| bigg Sep 16, 2009 4:46 PM EDT |
> it is already possible to kill individual posts without locking a thread I think Scott said that it's not possible. I'm not Scott, so I could be wrong. |
| hkwint Sep 16, 2009 4:54 PM EDT |
AFAIK bigg is right. But I'm not Scott either. |
| mrider Sep 16, 2009 5:01 PM EDT |
Hans, perhaps something to consider would be a three step process: 1) Minor (but sufficient to warrant action) TOS violations get overwritten with boilerplate text, e.g. "thread redacted due to TOS violations". As opposed to making a whole post go "poof" (which may or may not be happening). 2) If TOS violations continue, then the thread is locked. 3) Only in the case of flagrant and egregious violations will the thread be removed. I have no idea if any of this would require back-end code changes with the lxer code as it stands. |
| softwarejanitor Sep 16, 2009 5:02 PM EDT |
@hkwint Well, I tried again, and verified that it was there after I posted it. So if it goes poof again it will be proof that somebody has the ability to kill individual posts. |
| TxtEdMacs Sep 16, 2009 5:31 PM EDT |
Quoting:AFAIK bigg is right. But I'm not Scott either.bigg ... Hans, what's this as far as I know stuff? If neither of you are Scott, all I want to know if this is some sort of Matrix game where Scott is nothing but a Gimped (or Photoshopped) bogatar. We want to know! As always, Your Buddy Txt. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 16, 2009 5:32 PM EDT |
> nothing but a Gimped (or Photoshopped) bogatar. Is that something like a Gatorduck? |
| TxtEdMacs Sep 16, 2009 5:57 PM EDT |
Bob, No. Definition bogator == bogus avartar YBT Oops, I dropped the "v", now I understand your confusion. You are forgiven. |
| tuxchick Sep 16, 2009 6:12 PM EDT |
I am willing to give a modified TOS a test-drive. All of this debating is fun and everyone gets to play, but "A single test is worth a thousand arguments." So why not try it and see what happens? |
| Scott_Ruecker Sep 16, 2009 7:13 PM EDT |
I'm not sure where to begin, I can delete individual posts but I usually tell the person why I am doing it. I haven't deleted an individual post in months. It is almost all spam posts that get that treatment. I also delete a lot of spam threads as well and we have banned many many users for just that. Only Bob and I have the ability to close or delete a thread or posts. As E-i-C it is my job to enforce the TOS which means the decision to moderate or not rests solely on my interpretation of where the conversation is, where it is going and whether it is against the TOS or not. Its really that simple, yet not so simple because it is my interpretation of what is going on and it is sometimes wrong I am not to proud to admit. Recently I have decided to close and or delete threads because I feel that I have let a little too much rope out on the line. Too many times I have waited until everyone is mad at everyone else and I figure I would rather you be mad at me for stopping the conversation than letting it go too long as I have. No more. I understand and completely agree that FOSS has its social and political implications and I for one think its great. The problem is that it is impossible for people to talk about those things without bringing up their social and political opinions, citing examples and specific instances that quickly deteriorate the conversation into extremely opinionated debates that end up having nothing to do with the original topic. A good old fashion TOS violation. Which then leaves me no choice but to moderate the forum. If it is possible to talk about FOSS's social and political affects without bringing social and political opinion into it I would sure like to see it. I am going to bring this up to the other editors and Bob and see what we all think about this. Scott |
| caitlyn Sep 16, 2009 7:41 PM EDT |
Quoting:Recently I have decided to close and or delete threads because I feel that I have let a little too much rope out on the line. Too many times I have waited until everyone is mad at everyone else and I figure I would rather you be mad at me for stopping the conversation than letting it go too long as I have. No more. Thank you, Scott. I, for one, appreciate what you are doing. If I want to visit a political debating forum I can do that. That isn't why I come to LXer.com and I suspect I am far from alone in feeling this way. |
| jdixon Sep 17, 2009 1:04 AM EDT |
> If it is possible to talk about FOSS's social and political affects without bringing social and political opinion into it I would sure like to see it. I'm not sure it's possible to do so without bringing opinions in, but I think it's been demonstrated that it's possible to do so cordially. It to me that it's when polite conversation breaks down that you need to step in. However, I can understand you not wanting to let thing go that far before stepping in. |
| Sander_Marechal Sep 17, 2009 6:07 AM EDT |
@Scott: The main problem appears to be a forum bug. When a tread is closed, you can access the thread but it appears empty. No posts are shown. IMHO the posts should be shown. Just no new posts can be added. That's the most common interpretation on a "closed thread" and I think is what should have happened on LXer. It's probably just a bug because it makes little sense that you can access a thread but not see the posts in it. |
| krisum Oct 02, 2009 4:01 PM EDT |
Seeing how a spammer can kill so many threads (maybe even this one!), we should have old posts of a closed thread still visible as others suggest above. |
| Scott_Ruecker Oct 02, 2009 4:12 PM EDT |
I can delete individual posts and then the thread stays up but I can also delete whole threads as well. |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 02, 2009 4:12 PM EDT |
@Krisum: I already talked to Bob about that this morning. |
| krisum Oct 02, 2009 4:19 PM EDT |
Thanks Scott, Sander. Can the editors get rid of accounts too? It might be temporary if the spammer comes back with another identity but probably will be better than dealing with individual posts. |
| krisum Oct 02, 2009 4:25 PM EDT |
@Mikee Oh, so you are really not a script? Are you sure? |
| gus3 Oct 02, 2009 4:30 PM EDT |
But your scummy nature still shines through. |
| krisum Oct 02, 2009 4:31 PM EDT |
Do you think that if we sing scum, scum in unison he will go away? |
| Scott_Ruecker Oct 02, 2009 4:34 PM EDT |
I want to apologize to all who visit LXer about this. I am doing my best to stay on top of this and get it resolved as soon as possible. Scott |
| krisum Oct 02, 2009 4:38 PM EDT |
> Do you think that if we sing scum, scum in unison he will go away? (answering self): nah, he is too scummy to care |
| bigg Oct 02, 2009 4:40 PM EDT |
@MikeeUSA2: Check this out. It might help. http://mentalhealth.about.com/od/psychopharmacology/Mental_H... |
| azerthoth Oct 02, 2009 4:46 PM EDT |
Scott, a start is to ban MikeeUSA here. |
| gus3 Oct 02, 2009 4:54 PM EDT |
Your behavior here does nothing to counter that notion. |
| theBeez Oct 02, 2009 5:37 PM EDT |
@MikeeUSA2 If you find your endless post so darn important, open up a blog, post it there and get it out of your system. Posting and reposting it does NOT add anything to this discussion. You may thank the patience of the moderators here that you haven't been banned already. If you tried that at my blog, you would have, believe me. |
| montezuma Oct 02, 2009 5:38 PM EDT |
After what I saw in the other thread MikeeUSA2 is referring to I also would support permanently banning him.
That material was amongst the worst I have seen on any forum. Also Scott it seems to me that the ability to rapidly delete offensive posts would help a lot in reducing temperatures and flaming. Once you let an offensive post stand for a while the damage is done. For an example of a forum where this is done and flaming is very effectively controlled I suggest looking at dsl reports. http://www.dslreports.com/forums/all Edit: I would also like to respond to Dino that I am all in favor of complete free speech on personal blogs but if you are using someone else's website and they wish to maintain certain standards of civilized behavior then the moderators are kings imho. They have a thankless job as it is and it is remarkable how a good tone in an online community can promote intelligent discussion as opposed to trash talking. |
| Scott_Ruecker Oct 02, 2009 6:27 PM EDT |
I do my very best to get offensive stuff down ASAP, the second I see it or hear about it, I zap it. It just seems that its always when I am away from a computer that it happens. We are working on the banning of you know who, trust me, it will happen. Scott |
| tuxchick Oct 02, 2009 6:35 PM EDT |
Scott has a life? Geez man, who gave that to you?? I want too, it never hurts to have a spare. |
| azerthoth Oct 02, 2009 6:39 PM EDT |
Mikee its not disagreeing, its just that you seem to be unrepentantly oppressive. Its not about any freedoms that you have lost, rather preventing others from attaining an equal standing. A persons gender does not affect their intellect or abilities. If you think grunting and pounding your chest somehow makes you superior, then yes your correct, it is exactly that kind of thinking that we are saying can not (not should not) be tolerated. As much as I believe in an individuals freedoms it would be hypocritical of me to suggest that you change your outlook. This leaves the only possible solution to your kind of myopic misogynistic behavior as removing you from polite society. In olden days this was termed shunning. Since the digital age has overtaken and allows anyone to project their thoughts onto nearly any stage, this means instead refusing to allow such neolithic throwbacks a voice in discussion once they are identified. This does not mean you have to change, your free to be a neanderthal to your hearts content, just that others should be allowed to choose to or not to associate with you. In the case of the community here, I think I can speak for nearly everyone when I say we would choose to not have you present. Truly though feel free to continue your self indulgent "I disagree and therefor I am being oppressed" whining elsewhere. |
| krisum Oct 02, 2009 7:17 PM EDT |
> Scott: what are you apologizing for? Your deletion of the thread I was originally responding to?
Are you for real? He is apologizing for you, or more precisely for us having to endure your posts. > those which I disagree with are mentally insane. No, but based on all evidence in your case an exception has to be made. |
| tracyanne Oct 02, 2009 8:00 PM EDT |
MikeeUSA2 typifies the sort of person that Carla and her mob should be going after, but instead she and they choose to attack people like Mark Shuttleworth, why? Because she and they can't do anything about the real scumbags, so they go after the good guys instead, the easy targets, the ones who actually give a damn, because she and they know they can bully those people into accepting her grey, spoonfed, humourless, bundle women in cotten wool view of the world. It typifies the cowardice, the fuzzy thinking and religiousity of the "Feminist" Political Correctness movement. |
| tuxchick Oct 02, 2009 8:07 PM EDT |
meh, can't delete posts. OK a poem instead: god in his wisdom made the fly and then forgot to tell us why |
| krisum Oct 02, 2009 8:19 PM EDT |
> May I assume that you are a pro-women's rights female?
You may not. @Carla > god in his wisdom made the fly > and then forgot to tell us why Because of the nature of fly that it wanted to fly :) (no, serious) |
| flufferbeer Oct 02, 2009 8:55 PM EDT |
@caitlyn (if you're still reading this), Just wondering what your input is on all these goings-on since your last comment above two weeks ago ?? Don't wish to lead to any possible accusations of anti-Semitism or LXer TOS violatons here, but are you (or maybe were you), caitlyn, somehow involved with the big Biblical Holiday of Succoth/Booths going on in Israel this weekend ?? I'm just very curious, 'cause since your previous comment on Rosh Hashanah, I myself have noticed a conspicuous absence of your comments anywhere on this whole issue, whereas we've seen quite a few comments from contributors tracyanne and tuxhick like the recent ones above. fb |
| jdixon Oct 02, 2009 9:28 PM EDT |
> If you tried that at my blog, you would have, believe me. Yeah, I'd have banned him a while ago, and I think everyone here can agree that that's saying something. Well, one good thing about it, at least Libervis doesn't have the record for the longest average post any more. |
| caitlyn Oct 03, 2009 9:51 AM EDT |
I've been mostly avoiding LXer.com because of political diatribes last week. If they continue I may disappear entirely. There is a difference between disagreement and obvious racism/sexism/intolerance. I missed the original threads. From what I see here, yes, that guy should be banned. Oh, and yes, I believe that sort of thing could and should be a TOS violation. |
| theBeez Oct 03, 2009 11:56 AM EDT |
@tracyanne
I second this motion. Yes, that is exactly the kind of people we're talking about. Note the FLOSS polls report explicitly stated they wanted some psychological support because they came around some wierdos they couldn't handle. Carla reacted as if stung by a bee. No, this debate has been hijacked by radical feminists, posing as the real deal. That's why we're in these weird discussions. It has nothing to do with PC, it's way beyond that. Ok, now I'm awaiting two obvious answers. Who's first? |
| gus3 Oct 03, 2009 12:17 PM EDT |
Comparing apples and light-bulbs. The only thing they have in common is that they're both round. Mikey hasn't posted his vile tripe in (how many?) hours now. Has his account been blocked, and his ISP notified? That's how you deal with nutjobs in your own house. Mark Shuttleworth may be a pro-Linux businessman who's ignorant of his own sexist attitudes, but he isn't a nutjob. The power of the word, both spoken and written, is a more appropriate reaction to him. |
| dinotrac Oct 03, 2009 12:21 PM EDT |
Beez -- You forget the golden rule --- "No politics unless it's mine." Everything else is TOS. It's the road you go down when you wish to suppress debate and conversation. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 03, 2009 1:34 PM EDT |
Now seeing what had been vigorously deleted, I agree they're abusive. Time to go back and read "Horton Hears A Who": "A person's a person no matter how small." I am somewhat surprised that even arrogance is getting labeled by some people as "political". > "No politics unless it's mine." And then, get to define what is "political". I just HATE intolerant people. |
| tracyanne Oct 03, 2009 6:44 PM EDT |
Quoting:Mark Shuttleworth may be a pro-Linux businessman who's ignorant of his own sexist attitudes, No he's a pro-Linux businessman with no sexist attitudes that I can discern. Quoting:No, this debate has been hijacked by radical feminists No Hans, it's been long hijacked by PC Nazis. THis is not feminism. This is some arse backwards ideology that at it's core assumes that women are such delicate little flowers that we will turn to jelly if the F word is mentioned or someone makes a sexually explicit joke (and Mark's joke about Releases was not even slightly explicit, it was little play on words, not especially funny, but not bad as an icebreaker), or in some way makes a joke about women not being vey good with technology (in my experience that is much truer of most women than it is of most men, although from my perspective I could as easily make the same joke about men) The problem with political correctness is that it's a double edged sword, and a slippery slope. We've got Carla and her mob calling for the likes of Mark Shuttleworth to clean up his jokes and refrain from "dumb blond" type jokes. But what does she or they do when an even more radical PC group starts agitating for restraints that even she and they cannot stomach? Already one cannot say things that upset Christians, or Jews, and I suppose multitudes of other ridiculous belief systems. So as an Atheist I am already constrained to watch my language, least I accidentally insult the follower of some obnoxious faith based system of belief, like Political Correctness. The corrollory of all this is that one can no longer take the Ayatollah's to task, one can no longer comment on the clothing that Muslim women are forced to wear, or the silly cultural practices of any number of groups least in the name of Political Correctness we offend. But, of course, the reality is that what is politically correct is that which is defined by the particular denomination the PCers belong to. Everything else is fresh meat. It's just another form of hypocrisy. |
| softwarejanitor Oct 03, 2009 7:19 PM EDT |
@tracyanne I agree, the problem is political correctness taken to an extreme... |
| dinotrac Oct 03, 2009 7:32 PM EDT |
Careful, tracyanne, your obvious hatred of women will get you banned. |
| tuxchick Oct 03, 2009 8:52 PM EDT |
TA, you crossed the line when you made it personal and started with the name-calling. I already told you what "my mob" does when the likes of Mikeusa appear, and here you are ranting again how they get a free pass, while poor innocent Mark S. gets all beat up. That is a flat out lie, and I'm tired of your insults and misrepresenting what I say and stand for. You drag in all this unrelated Ayatollah and religion and blah blah, all because you don't like what I said about Mark Shuttleworth's comments. Did I ever call you names, or your Saint Mark names? No. Did I ever go off-topic and blame you for all the ills of the world, the way you are doing to me? No. You have gone over the line and around the bend, and I am sick of it. It's bad enough when the predictable trolls come in and drop their dung, I thought better of you. I suggest you go cool off for a few days and think about why you're so wound up. If it's really about something I said, then I want specific quotes and what you want me to do about it. I see no reason to take anything you say seriously until then. |
| dinotrac Oct 03, 2009 8:54 PM EDT |
TC -
Quoting: I suggest you go cool off for a few days and think about why you're so wound up. |
| tuxchick Oct 03, 2009 8:58 PM EDT |
Dino, it's really not necessary to sit on the sidelines and take pot shots. |
| jdixon Oct 03, 2009 10:03 PM EDT |
> Dino, it's really not necessary to sit on the sidelines and take pot shots. It sort of is, at least when 3/4 of what you post is immediately called a TOS violation, regardless of whether there was any intention to be political or not. When that happens, sitting on the sidelines and taking pot shots is pretty much all you have left. |
| gus3 Oct 03, 2009 10:17 PM EDT |
Argh. What to do when everyone says something you agree with, and everyone says something you disagree with? |
| tuxchick Oct 03, 2009 10:30 PM EDT |
Ok, this is my last comment, since most of you seem bound and determined to turn this into something it isn't. I took some very focused positions on sexism and exclusion in FOSS, and said that Mark Shuttleworth made some sexist and exclusionary comments. Simple. Easy to understand. Does everyone agree? Of course not. I knew there would be big noisy freakout insane backlash-- there always is, more than any other topic. I've been bombarded with personal attacks, abuse, and rants about every off-topic thing in the world. I've tried to keep my own comments focused on those issues and not get sucked into tangents, which none of you critics have made even a feeble attempt at doing. I think I've done OK at keeping my temper, though I can always do better. I have not attacked anyone personally, or called them names, or insulted them in any way that I can recall. If I have feel free to point it out and I will do my best to make amends. That's all. I am disappointed, though not all that surprised. |
| dinotrac Oct 03, 2009 11:05 PM EDT |
Jd - Yup. |
| dinotrac Oct 03, 2009 11:22 PM EDT |
TC - OK, Fine. I have a great deal of respect for you (which you may not, at this moment, believe -- but it is true), so I will say a little more, even though it makes me a hypocrite in light of this site's antipathy to the exchange of ideas. First, you have a point. You've been rocked and rolled in several threads lately, and in a way that more or less proves your general point. I'm a great believer in "Methinks he doth protest too much", and I've seen an awful lot of "doth"ing going on. People laugh or shake their heads when you're just plain ridiculous. The shrieking chorus means you've hit a nerve, but... I went back and read tracyanne's posts in this thread and seriously wonder at your reaction to them. Blunt? Sure. Clearly at odds with your point? Sure. Personal attacks? Hardly, unless you object to your "Mob". If so, I'd prefer to think that you've been rubbed raw by some of the comments lately, and are more sensitive than usual, because, If I were putting personal attacks on a scale of 1-10, tracyanne's comment on this thread have to go tippytoe and do the big hair thing to reach a 2. Just one dumb old man's opinion. You are free to differ. |
| beirwin Oct 03, 2009 11:42 PM EDT |
Carla, I admire your ability to "count to 10" (as I was told to do as a kid when getting wound up to lash out and have a hissy fit at someone ).
Over the past couple weeks I've been disappointed and discouraged at the number of personal attacks, rants, rudeness, boorishness, and other unseemly behaviour by some members of the FOSS community. I've been around long enough to remember the struggles women had in the late '60's and the '70's to be something more than "just the little woman at home", and I thought we had put this kind of neanderthal thinking behind us. I guess not. There's clearly work to do here to make FOSS more welcoming to *anyone* who wants to join us. So, Carla, try not to be discouraged -- I know there a lot of people in our community that don't condone this kind of behaviour and are working everyday in positive ways to spread the word about the coolness of FOSS. We just have to ignore the people who will never "get it" about being polite, helpful, and respectful - just like we have done with those who think Microsoft is the bees knees. So, keep up the good work, Carla. Best Regards, Barbara |
| tracyanne Oct 04, 2009 1:30 AM EDT |
Quoting:I already told you what "my mob" does when the likes of Mikeusa appear, And I've told you I'd be only to glad to help. Quoting:and here you are ranting again how they get a free pass, IF you say so. Quoting:while poor innocent Mark S. gets all beat up. And indeed he and many others in the FOSS community are being beat up by you and your mob of PCers. Quoting:That is a flat out lie, and I'm tired of your insults and misrepresenting what I say and stand for. If you want to represent calling a spade a spade as a flat out lie, I can't stop you. What you are doing is nothing more nor less than advocating Political Corectness. Quoting:You drag in all this unrelated Ayatollah and religion and blah blah, Well it wasn't me who introduced the blah, blah bit into the conversation. But the other bit is certainly relevant. One of the consequences of Political Correctness is that it bites both ways. One of the consequences your Political Correctness is that no one, including you, in spite of any Feminist ideals you may have, can say things about the way in which any religion treats women, because to do so might insult someone. Quoting:all because you don't like what I said about Mark Shuttleworth's comments. No, not just because of what you said about Mark Suttleworth's comments, what you said about his comments is merely the straw that broke the camels back. Up until then I was content to simply disagree and let live, as is my preference. Quoting:Did I ever call you names, or your Saint Mark names? Did you just become the pope? I wasn't aware that Mark Shuttleworth had been sainted. I haven't called you names. i referred to your Political Correctness, and expressed my disgust of Political Correctness, and I referred to the mob that has gathered behind you Quoting:No. Stop talking to yourself. Quoting:Did I ever go off-topic and blame you for all the ills of the world. the way you are doing to me?, Blame you for the ills of the world? Where, when? I accused you of Political Correctness, I blamed you for setting a mob on to Mark Shuttleworth, among others Quoting:No. Talking to yourself again. You need to see someone about this affliction of yours. Quoting:You have gone over the line and around the bend, Actually, sweetie, you have gone way over the line. Political Correctness is the bane of our times. Quoting:and I am sick of it. You're sick of it, Listen darlin, I'm fed up to the back teeth with this pretentious Political Correctness bullsh**. Quoting:It's bad enough when the predictable trolls come in and drop their dung, Yeah well we agree on something. Quoting:I thought better of you. And I thought better of you Carla, does that mean we're both wrong. I will just have to learn to live with my mistake. Quoting:I suggest you go cool off for a few days and think about why you're so wound up. It's very simple, cut the Political Correctness cr**, I'll calm down real quick Quoting:If it's really about something I said, then I want specific quotes and what you want me to do about it. Nothing specific sweetie, just the whole tenor, sorry, soprana, of your attack on the Whole FOSS community, taring it with a very broad brush to further your Political Correctness agenda. |
| krisum Oct 04, 2009 2:46 AM EDT |
So this thread has also gotten hijacked and since the relevant points have already been addressed by Scott and Sander, I suggest people continue with this in another more relevant or a new thread. |
| dinotrac Oct 04, 2009 8:04 AM EDT |
tracyanne -- Cool off is not bad advice. Proper arguments devolve into hillbilly feuds unless somebody simply chooses to step back and cease taking umbrage. I think we have reached that point. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 04, 2009 1:08 PM EDT |
> I suggest people continue with this in another more relevant or a new thread. Again? Why not just get it over with, finally, right here? |
| theBeez Oct 04, 2009 1:31 PM EDT |
@Bob Robertson I'd be happy to do that - as one of the more vocal participants. But if Carla really want to spend an entire series to this subject I'm afraid it will flare up at one time or another. |
| jdixon Oct 04, 2009 1:36 PM EDT |
> I think we have reached that point. Agreed. Both Carla and Tracyanne are normally reasonable people, and they've been going at each other like a cat and dog in this instance. And I doubt either of them means to attack the other, it's just that they disagree about this specific issue. I don't intend this as an attack at either of you, but I'd say you both need to step back and re-examine things. It's entirely possible for both of you to be right by your own standards, and both of you to still be wrong. The truth may be somewhere in between. In my experience, when two otherwise reasonable people disagree, that's usually the case. |
| tracyanne Oct 04, 2009 4:52 PM EDT |
@JD, some say the sun rises in the east, some say the sun rises in the west, The truth I'm told is somewhere in between. |
| gus3 Oct 04, 2009 5:22 PM EDT |
Yup. The greatest nuggets of wisdom are often found in /usr/share/games/fortune/. |
| azerthoth Oct 04, 2009 5:45 PM EDT |
/me wonders how many more threads will get shut down before everyone takes the hint. Everyone is still talking but no one is listening, except to find points to hammer on. This means that the debate is utterly and completely useless at this point. |
| dinotrac Oct 04, 2009 6:08 PM EDT |
azer - Yup. There comes a time to say...OK, I'm done, I've said all I can say. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 04, 2009 6:51 PM EDT |
> There comes a time to say...OK, I'm done, I've said all I can say. Isn't that what the "Unwatch Thread" link is for? |
| dinotrac Oct 04, 2009 6:52 PM EDT |
Bob -- There you go letting reality intrude. Stop that! |
| jdixon Oct 04, 2009 6:59 PM EDT |
> The truth I'm told is somewhere in between. In most places, it is. Here the sun rises in the southeast. And in wintertime at the poles, it doesn't rise at all. :) |
| tracyanne Oct 04, 2009 7:31 PM EDT |
The point, JD, is that sometimes there is no in between, and one or another POV is wrong. If it's mine, I'll just have to change my beliefs, and learn to live with it. |
| jdixon Oct 04, 2009 9:55 PM EDT |
> ....is that sometimes there is no in between, and one or another POV is wrong. Sometimes, yes. But I doubt this is one of those cases, Tracyanne. Which was the point I was (obviously ineffectively) trying to make by my comment about the sun. Even what seem to be obvious truisms can be wrong when viewed from the correct viewpoint. One of you is wrong about his motives, but you can both be right about the results. While I suspect you are correct and Carla is attributing motives which do not exist due to cultural differences, there is no doubt that many did find Mark's remarks offensive (my wife agrees with Carla, FWIW, and she's normally a reasonable person too. I don't know the culture well enough to judge myself, so I'm willing to take your word for it). If Mark wishes to be an effective representative of FOSS in the US, he'll need to take that into account . Whether he wishes to do so is his decision to make. In the meantime, Mark is being vilified for remarks he seems to consider inoffensive, just as you're saying, and he's the only one who can really know his intent. Oh, and if you wish to discuss the matter with me in any more detail, we should take it to private mail. |
| krisum Oct 04, 2009 11:39 PM EDT |
@jdixon > Carla is attributing motives which do not exist due to cultural differences So where has Carla attributed any motives to Mark? While I have no problem with people calling Carla's and other such comments as hypersensitive (and I could share some of that opinion), this repeated talk about motives, vilification etc. is simply a misrepresentation of their position and probably being made just to make them look silly. @Bob > Why not just get it over with, finally, right here? Firstly because "here" is not the proper place for that. And secondly it is obvious, to me at least, that we cannot "just get it over with". |
| theBeez Oct 05, 2009 1:53 AM EDT |
@krisum "And secondly it is obvious, to me at least, that we cannot "just get it over with"". I agree with you there. Carla opened Pandora's box, now it's better to let the plague rage over the world and get it over with. Since it flares up and up, there is obviously still something to say and discuss. Darn, this is gonna cost me a lot of free time again..! ;-) |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 05, 2009 9:06 AM EDT |
Krisum, > So where has Carla attributed any motives to Mark? Her entire premise is that it was not an innocent mistake. Everything TC has said is predicated upon sexism as his motivation. That's what "sexist" means. |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 09, 2009 4:25 AM EDT |
You'll be pleased to hear that we have finally found and resolved the bug with closed threads. You should now be able to see the posts in a closed thread again. It took some time to find because the bug only applied to normal members. Moderators could see the posts just fine so they didn't notice the bug. |
| dinotrac Oct 09, 2009 7:26 AM EDT |
Sander - Good job to whomever spent the hair-pulling time to chase that one down. |
| jdixon Oct 09, 2009 9:42 AM EDT |
> ...we have finally found and resolved the bug with closed threads. Thanks, Sander. Hopefully that will make it easier to avoid thread closures in the future. |
| Scott_Ruecker Oct 09, 2009 9:53 AM EDT |
I agree, Sander is the man on this one. I never would have figured it out. |
| caitlyn Oct 09, 2009 10:30 AM EDT |
If the offensive posts are left in place I'm not at all sure this is a good change. Suddenly there is no motivation not to go over the top. Quite the opposite: post something really offensive, get the thread closed, and you get the last word. |
| gus3 Oct 09, 2009 11:27 AM EDT |
Wop hop! @Sander: Is comment visibility on a closed thread optional? I.e., can the comments be hidden anyway? |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 09, 2009 11:39 AM EDT |
@gus3: No, but we can still delete threads of course :-) My personal policy is to delete as little as possible. If a thread is going haywire then close it. Really offensive or OTT posts could be edited or deleted prior to closing the rest of the thread. Full thread deletion should be reserved for spam only. That also serves as a warning to all of you. Think before you post. Anything you say can and will be archived for future reference ;-) |
| krisum Oct 09, 2009 12:10 PM EDT |
> post something really offensive, get the thread closed, and you get the last word I suppose the moderators could then first delete the offensive post before closing the thread. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 09, 2009 12:37 PM EDT |
> I suppose the moderators could then first delete the offensive post before closing the thread. Or after, for that matter. The good thing is that we can finally point back to something and say, "That was too much. Period. Don't go there." This is an unqualified GoodThing(tm reg us pat off). |
| dinotrac Oct 09, 2009 12:56 PM EDT |
>lthere is no motivation not to go over the top That's true only if you presume the worst of people. |
| Scott_Ruecker Oct 09, 2009 3:49 PM EDT |
I have tried to close threads before it goes into the deep end, and failed, so I can understand the 'too little too late' feeling it can leave on your stomach. I try my best, I swear. Sander is correct, unless your post is deleted for a TOS violation or is a part of a thread that is deleted it is archived permanently by us, it should stay saved in your 'watched' threads as well and can be found in the list of threads whether it is in the LXer Meta Forum or the Linux forum. Your absolutely right Dino, if you expect the worst in people you usually get it. Scott |
| TxtEdMacs Oct 09, 2009 4:59 PM EDT |
[serious] Do not be too quick to erase the words that have spilled from frothing mouths. Times change, words that are so easily accepted in the current milieu become dated and paint the poster in an unfavorable light. I regret that stupidity I have seen on some threads were erased sparing the idiots the derision they so rightly deserve. Despite the facile recourse to the deriding altered views as "political correctness", many are later shamed to rightly no longer say what still resides in their hearts. That is because to many their views have become unacceptable. Moreover, the apologists suffer in hind sight. It is much harder to claim misquotes or misunderstanding when the words retain their unadulterated venom to be read by more enlightened minds. Their words are damning and no lame excuses will not suffice to wash it away. I suggest simply keep as much as possible. There are good arguments for a complete historic record no matter how distasteful the content. [end of serious] Too exhausting, YBT |
You cannot post until you login.