I have been
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tracyanne Apr 13, 2013 7:10 PM EDT |
"fired" as contributing editor. I received the following Pm from Scott this morning. Quoting:Scott_Ruecker The post he is referring to is this Quoting: tracyanne which was in response to this one by Caitlyn Quoting:caitlyn in particular the last sentence "A little respect for other beliefs goes a very long way." Apparently Scott and or the owners of this site believe I was calling Caitlyn Psychotic, and on re reading Caitlyn's response, I think she has assumed the same. And therein lies the problem. I thought I was giving an example of why it is not reasonable to respect all beliefs, by citing one example where I thought all involved could agree some beliefs are unreasonable and not due any respect. It however appears that some people read too much into comments made by others. Nothing I can do about that, as I certainly make no apology for what I said... no apology being necessary. As Ned Kelly said, just before they hanged him "Such is life." However this does highlight one important point, and demonstrates, why I am correct when I pointed out that not all beliefs are equal, and therefore do not all rate the same respect. If I had believed that Caitlyn is Psychotic, as clearly I don't Quoting:tracyanne and had actually stated such, then that is a belief that deserves no respect at all, because clearly there is no evidence to support such a belief. PS Scott, this is not some attempt to be reinstated as contributing editor. I am quite aware that in doing this there is no way you or the owners could make that offer. This is an attempt to put the record straight. |
| DrGeoffrey Apr 13, 2013 7:36 PM EDT |
The life of an editor (contributing or otherwise) is never an easy one. They get all the blame, and darn little of the glory. |
| jdixon Apr 13, 2013 7:46 PM EDT |
> Apparently Scott and or the owners of this site believe I was calling Caitlyn Psychotic, and on re reading Caitlyn's response, I think she has assumed the same. And therein lies the problem. Strangely enough, I didn't take it that way. Probably because I've known you long and crossed swords with you often enough that I'm fairly confident that if you wanted to call someone psychotic, you would simply do so, and not attempt to be subtle about it. I did PM Scott about the thread in question, but not to complain about anything you said. Instead, I was thanking him for letting it go as long as he did. Up unto near the end, it was a relatively polite and reasoned discussion, even if it did skirt around a topic outside the TOS. Nonetheless, I'm sorry to have had a part in the thread which resulted in your dismissal as an editor. For whatever small part I may have played in the matter, I apologize. |
| djohnston Apr 13, 2013 9:35 PM EDT |
tracyanne, We don't know each other, but you have seemed to me to be even-handed and respectful in any spat. There have been too many of them lately. In the thread you are pointing to, you also seemed to be even-handed to me. It's a shame what happened. And I think most of us know who the catalyst is in most of these spats. Wishing you all the best. |
| Francy Apr 13, 2013 10:58 PM EDT |
tc
Sorry to hear you have been treated like this.
There was nothing wrong or unclear with the way you expressed yourself. And to fall in with djohnston.........Yes, most of us do know ! |
| HoTMetaL Apr 14, 2013 4:24 AM EDT |
Quoting:There was nothing wrong or unclear with the way you expressed yourself.Amen to that. tracyanne is the latest example of what happens when you're viewed as unsympathetic to religious idiocy. You get your rights taken away or worse. Not unrealistic at all to suggest that some beliefs are simply psychotic to any rational, thinking person like tracyanne. Or myself. Or many, many others. But perhaps not Scott. This action seems very personal and, well, quite unjustified. |
| jdixon Apr 14, 2013 10:36 AM EDT |
> Amen to that. tracyanne is the latest example of what happens when you're viewed as unsympathetic to religious idiocy. OK, contributing once was enough. I'll bite my tongue and let HoTMetaL close this thread all by himself. |
| BernardSwiss Apr 14, 2013 5:14 PM EDT |
I don't get this. It strikes me as very much "mountains out of molehills" territory. It's true that forums participants (and especially representatives of the forum itself) need to maintain a certain level of courtesy. It's also true that this cuts both ways, that people who maybe inclined to "take offence", and strongly enough launch a complaint, should also be courteous enough to look twice, to consider context and intent, and whether their own response might be a knee-jerk reaction, rather than continuing to take outraged insult when clearly no insult was intended. If tracyanne was this vulnerable to such judgement, over such circumstances, what does that mean for the rest of us, and our ability to consider this forum a relaxed, friendly environment? |
| tracyanne Apr 14, 2013 5:49 PM EDT |
@DrGeoffrey, As I've already said, such is life. @djohnston, Francy, actually I don't know, and have no information from which to form an opinion. Scott did not even suggest such was the case. @jdixon, no apology is necessary. @HoTMetaL while your support is very much appreciated, your comment is out of line, and quite unnecessary. @BernardSwiss, Quoting:what does that mean for the rest of us, and our ability to consider this forum a relaxed, friendly environment. That is certainly something for Scott and the owners to consider. |
| jdixon Apr 14, 2013 7:16 PM EDT |
> ...what does that mean for the rest of us, and our ability to consider this forum a relaxed, friendly environment? Scott and company have to walk a very fine line in allowing as much freedom of expression as possible while keeping the forums under control, the environment family friendly, the lawyers at bay, and making enough to cover the costs of the site. I seriously doubt LXer does much more than break even on the financial front. In general, they've done a good job over the years, perhaps even being too lenient on occasion. I've crossed the line in the forums a few times myself, and they still let me post here. Note that tracyanne hasn't been banned from LXer, merely removed as an editor. She can still post here as she sees fit. Had Tracyanne actually referred to a poster in an open forum as psychotic (which I think we can all agree she didn't), and given the wrong person on the other end (which caitlyn isn't and I'm not) LXer could have faced a lawsuit. I'm afraid that may have factored into the decision. |
| number6x Apr 15, 2013 9:46 AM EDT |
@Tracyanne, From your history, I would think you were the last person to make a hurtful comment. I don't think that your entire history was fully taken into account in this decision. You are sometimes firm, but not spiteful. However, the decision has been made. I'm sorry this incident resulted in these consequences. I hope that you continue to grace us with input here in the forums and comments. You are appreciated. I like the opinions and information from most of our regular contributors. One of the reasons I enjoy Lxer is because of the higher standards in editing. You certainly helped keep the community sane over the last few years. Thank you, Sean |
| Fettoosh Apr 15, 2013 10:14 AM EDT |
Deleted comment. Wrong thread. |
| Scott_Ruecker Apr 15, 2013 1:34 PM EDT |
Tracy lost her editor privileges, not because she expressed a viewpoint that was unpopular, but because she failed to observe the TOS provision that disallows religious discussions. We expect all LXer members to comply with the TOS requirements but we hold editors to an even higher standard due to the importance of their position as a leadership role model. |
| notbob Apr 15, 2013 4:08 PM EDT |
heh heh..... Now it's religion, not the term "psychotic". Oh well, it matters not. Forums are what they are, which is little fiefdoms with overseers, who feel they are obligated, at times, to exercise their power. It's their game and their ball and you've jes been exercised upon! Buck up, Tracy. There's always usenet. ;) |
| tracyanne Apr 15, 2013 6:15 PM EDT |
@number6x At the moment I'm feeling very angry, way more angry than I can express, or would be reasonable on this forum. The shine has certainly gone out of this board for me. In spite of the supportive posts, I've received here, at the moment my heart is not in it, the magic has gone away. I probably won't spend much, if any, time here for a while. In fact I am so angry, and disappointed that I have had two sleepless nights, so I need to take some time to get myself together. @notbob, it doesn't surprise me that Scott would change his tune, when publicly shown to be have made a wrong decision, I've seen the process all my adult life, such that I knew that there would never be an admission, either publy or privately. @Scott, Quoting:Scott_Ruecker I disagree, openness dictates that this be done in the open, from your original stated reason for "sacking" me to your hypocritical amended reason, which is also wrong. If you and or the owners feel embarrassed because this was made public, that is not my problem, it is yours for attempting to keep it secret. If you re read that thread, you will notice that I was not discussing religion, but defending Marcel's right to say whatever he wants on his own blog.... and pointing out why it is unreasonable to assume that all beliefs (and indeed opinions) should be given equal weight, and therefore unreasonable to call for Marcel to stop posting his opinions on his own blog. I was attempting head off what I believed to be unreasonable demands by reasoning with those whom I believed were being unreasonable. I believe I was actually doing my job as an editor (read moderator). @All The thing that I suppose feel most angry about is the way in which I was "fired". At no time, no matter how heated a discussion has become, have I ever attacked a person personally, indeed I have often taken that discussion off line, so as to continue it in a private forum, and even there I have never attacked the person, just their expressed opinions, beliefs and ideas. I have seen many people attack others on a personal basis, calling them all sorts of names,, but I have never done so. For me ideas, opinions, beliefs are fair game, but the person is not. Yet in spite of my record, at no time did I receive any sort of "please explain" from Scott, I was simply summarily dismissed. This has left a very bad taste in my mouth, so to speak. Once again, to those who have shown me support. Thank you. |
| Ridcully Apr 15, 2013 6:32 PM EDT |
Gently people. I think it might be a very good idea for all involved to step back and think of what is happening because what I am seeing is both sad and very destructive. Personally, I don't think a site like LXer is the place for religious discussions, personal ethics, or personal attacks of any kind from any direction. Explanations without any rancour, perhaps; but this thread is setting up a "them and us" situation and on a site where I have always felt that integrity is an underlining principle. No, I am not being patronising or setting myself up as a pontificating judge - I have neither the right nor the inclination.....I am simply expressing my extreme distress as I watch this sorry situation continue to unfold and, what is worse, apparently feed on itself. |
| slacker_mike Apr 16, 2013 12:16 AM EDT |
I know I am not one the true regulars on LXer. I will say that this entire situation is sad. I hope that regulars here can just use this as a reminder to keep topics from descending into subjects that frankly should be discussed elsewhere. |
| JaseP Apr 16, 2013 9:02 AM EDT |
I was the OP of that thread,... and my original intent was to segregate religious topics from discussion on LXer by not pointing to Marcel's unfiltered blog,... Once Marcel indicated he had a version of his blog, sans non-computer related topics, I thanked him... I, for one, would have been happy if it had stopped there... |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 16, 2013 10:46 AM EDT |
It is very easy, far, far too easy, to take personally what is read, especially if what is read is not quite what was meant by the person who was writing. Woe be it I fail to mention having been on both the giving and receiving ends of such things myself a couple of times. We all interpret, filter, assume, because otherwise each post would be a 50 page legal "brief" with all the wherefores and whereases spelled out in endless detail. I would also like to say that even the most rancorous and vexatious threads on LXer have a basis in reality and the personalities involved, I have rarely noticed anything like deliberate 'trolling". And that is a very nice thing. |
| jdixon Apr 16, 2013 11:30 AM EDT |
Ownership and the moderators face a conundrum. The official TOS are that politics and religion of off limits for discussion in the forums. However, to pretend that politics doesn't influence FOSS would be disingenuous at best. And there are both religious oriented distributions and religious oriented programs out there, which should be reported on and discussed. So obviously the topics cannot be completely off limits and still have a functioning FOSS oriented news site. And limiting discussion on such topics without good reason results in a dissatisfied user base that leaves for greener pastures. The policy, in practice if not in theory, seems to have been that the moderators will allow discussion of such off limit topics when there is a clear link to the article being discussed and as long as the comments are factual, polite, and considerate of others. While the thread in question met those criteria at the beginning, it spiraled out of control near the end. As with Bob, I've been involved in my share of thread closures. :( I've therefore tried to tone down my comments over the years, not always successfully. |
| djohnston Apr 16, 2013 5:21 PM EDT |
Quoting:However, to pretend that politics doesn't influence FOSS would be disingenuous at best. And there are both religious oriented distributions and religious oriented programs out there, which should be reported on and discussed. So obviously the topics cannot be completely off limits and still have a functioning FOSS oriented news site. Exactly. Which makes the imposed dichotomy impractical. |
| Ridcully Apr 16, 2013 6:55 PM EDT |
With all due respect djohnston, I disagree, and jdixon has expressed the situation perfectly in these words which followed the section of his text that you quoted:Quoting:The policy, in practice if not in theory, seems to have been that the moderators will allow discussion of such off limit topics when there is a clear link to the article being discussed and as long as the comments are factual, polite, and considerate of others. The "imposed dichotomy" has a simple and practical solution: it's always a matter of applying your common sense, your personal ethics and a desire to conform wherever possible to the TOS. I'd agree without any hesitation that the boundaries of "what is acceptable and what is not" are not a "thin black line", but are actually a very grey area; nevertheless I think that all of us recognise very quickly when that boundary has been crossed detrimentally and that is when the alarm bells should ring. |
| djohnston Apr 16, 2013 7:21 PM EDT |
@Ridcully, Well, since you put it that way ... Yes, you make a very valid point. I stand corrected. |
| caitlyn Apr 16, 2013 8:03 PM EDT |
Just for the record, I did not complain about that thread to management. I didn't post any sort of complaint at all. In fact, this is the first time I've been back on the site in a number of days. I quite literally haven't said or written anything to anyone about tracyanne or the comments she made. Having said that, tracyanne has repeatedly made disparaging comments about anyone and everyone who has any belief in any religion. I don't think that belongs on LXer. I also don't think any of us who are believers in anything really should be raising that as an issue on LXer. It isn't relevant and can only be divisive. I agree with Ridcully when he wrote: Quoting:Personally, I don't think a site like LXer is the place for religious discussions, personal ethics, or personal attacks of any kind from any direction. Explanations without any rancour, perhaps; but this thread is setting up a "them and us" situation and on a site where I have always felt that integrity is an underlining principle. While I was not involved in this decision in any way, shape or form I can understand why Scott did what he did. Like others I've been involved in a few thread closures in my time. I try to stay within the TOS and trust the editors to use common sense. I do feel Scott did just that in this case. |
| skelband Apr 16, 2013 10:15 PM EDT |
> Just for the record, I did not complain about that thread to management. I didn't post any sort of complaint at all. It wasn't me! It wasn't me! Honest! > I do feel Scott did just that in this case. Reading through the forum post, I think that, within the terms of the TOS, what Scott did was pretty inevitable. However, I think that the subject of religion causing so much rancour and disagreement by so-called intelligent people in the 21st century, in *any* context is beyond disbelief (if you will pardon the pun). We discovered that the Earth is round, not flat, many years ago. Asserting that fact got people tortured and killed in days gone by. That some facts are unsayable in the 21st century speaks volumes about where we are as a "civilisation". |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 17, 2013 10:33 AM EDT |
> That some facts are unsayable in the 21st century speaks volumes about where we are as a "civilisation". Oh, the facts are perfectly sayable, so long as they do not provoke. I say this because I've seen ancillary comments that said pretty much everything short of overt racism, but that were ignored, which were editorially ignored as well. They did not "provoke". I've also seen perfectly on-topic comments, integral to F/OSS, such as posts concerning Copyright/Patent law, which, because they "provoked", were declared to be TOS violations. (and no, not just _my_ posts, which, of course, have always been of the highest character and noblest construction, haha) The only thread deletion (before they were simply closed) I rue was where it had gone on for quite some time, and although it had been quite heated and personal, was actually achieving resolution. To lose that progress into the memory hole saddens me. |
| jdixon Apr 17, 2013 11:05 AM EDT |
> The only thread deletion (before they were simply closed) Yes, that is a considerable improvement. Now people can actually see a closed thread and see what caused it to be closed. |
| dinotrac Apr 17, 2013 5:43 PM EDT |
Wow. I take a little time away and everything explodes. See what happens when you don't have me to blame? I have to admit to wondering what could have gone on. We've had more than a few dust-ups around here without resorting to blows or the collapse of the universe. Sad to think that we may create our own version of a deadly black hole. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [Editors, MEMBERS, SITEADMINS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!