I wouldn't worry about it too much
Superstring01 said:
Tiassa: I want you to read this. I'm sure you'll tell me how I've earned this, and I may well have, but this idea which we both know will curve our conservative members more than the liberal ones is being met by a bit more resistance by those in your court.
Oh, I'm reading. And to a certain extent I'm chuckling my way through this, but that's sort of a separate point. The short version there is that
we (all) have earned this. Some people aren't thinking this through.
I
could split a hair about the objections, but to the one, I take your meaning and, to the other, it's kind of a useless hair to split.
You've established yourself as the point man on this. If these changes were coming from Plazma or James, we'd hear objections both in general and specifically in their contexts. If I were to take on a new title and join you and Madanthonywayne in WE&P (and, for the record, the membership should be advised that, at this time, we have no such plan to do so, and I don't intend to be applying), and had
I been the one to take point on this overhaul, well, there would be plenty of objections in a context specific to me.
Back before your service, we had something of a minor uprising from a limited but vocal group of members. These were, actually, generally more conservative members. One, for instance, accused me of baiting a member for giving him a chance to support a broad swipe against Mexicans. Horrible fascism! Oh, my God! They're demanding
support for extraordinary assertions! The horrible, horrible Sci-Nazis!
Okay, so I demanded that he support the assertion, or else face sanction. Still, though, you can't go making such broad accusations against nationalities without offering
something. And the guy was a vocal racist. It took us a while to deal with a crew of racists we had around that time, including one who went so far as to post arguments based on phrenology, but even then there was a segment of the membership that joined in the arguments about our actions not because they were openly racist, but because they were openly anti-authoritarian.
No matter what we do, it's always too much for some members. I mean, hell, asking people to cite their quotations in order to avoid plagiarism (which can become a legal issue for site ownership) is too much for some.
But to focus on a couple of the objections, or, at least, parts of them, is revealing:
StrawDog said:
And... in a nutshell, the to and fro that makes this place so damned interesting. Slightly disturbing to find Guantanamo Bay has come to Sci.
Guantanamo? Oh, for fuck's sake. It seems odd to presume that these changes will end the to and fro that makes engagement so interesting. There is a famous jab in English parliamentary history:
Gladstone: You, sir, will die either on the gallows or of venereal disease.
Disraeli: That, Sir, depends on whether I embrace your morals or your mistress.
Now, isn't that just an
awesome rejoinder? It certainly wouldn't have been as memorable had Disraeli replied, "Well, fuck you, poof!" or, "Asshole!"
In the past, all we ever asked was that people put some sort of effort into the fight. Try to incorporate it into the larger discussion. And, over the years, the constant result was that we were asking way too much of people.
In the end, the to and fro shouldn't be disappearing just because people are acting in good faith. The problem is that people want all the thrill of condemning their neighbors without having to put in any of the effort.
That is what people have objected to over the years.
There will be plenty to fight about. Admittedly, the overhaul might put those who are merely functionally literate at a disadvantage, but I once got into a nasty, protracted dispute because a couple of members (including a regular detractor) could not follow the actual conversation; that is, they complained about a context that was purely and demonstrably of their own intention. Okay, more than once. But this one was hilarious. I was thinking of it the other day because I was looking for an old quote, and found an article that had been part of that thread. Some people don't want to read for context, though. These will be at a distinct disadvantage.
But, by and large, there will be plenty to fight about. People might just have to put more effort into venting their fury.
There is also this one to consider:
WillNever said:
I'm forced to agree with the above. Manipulative, self admittitingly dictatorial moderation of a forum is never in the best interest of discussion.
This is a guy who joined our community last month. It is easy enough to write that bit off and presume he has no clue what he's talking about. Perhaps if he showed he had some grasp of the history of this community, such histrionics wouldn't seem so ... well, histrionic. And consider the next part, too:
Occasionally, you come across a forum moderator who makes such admissions because they seek a status that they feel has been denied to them in their real, everyday lives. In the mean time, the ordinary, well-adjusted and normal-acting board members, are the ones who end up being hurt by that. One bad moderator can ruin a board, and forcing a viewpoint onto other people who don't necessarily agree with you, and then integrating that viewpoint into the actual forum rules, does just that: it ruins the board. A good example is that B. Hussein Obama stuff that Galt was banned for. I'm one of the most liberal minded people on this board... and once in a while even I will pop out the whole B. Hussein Osama thing. It's meant to be humorous... but a moderator here, superstring, has already decided in his head that it is racist and has since been trying to throw his weight around by "making the forum more his" by suggesting and then supporting this change.
Nevermind that we call Ulysses Grant by his middle name. (his first name is actually Hiram). Nevermind that we call George Bush Jr. "Dubya" which is a reference to his middle name. Some people prefer to fly off the handle over what are -- in the final analysis -- inconsequential topics and statements because it helps them to "win" the conversation against other people. That's the underlying reason behind this forum change, truth be told. The individual who came up with this idea simply did not like the way that they personally were faring in arguments with other people... so they came up with a new system of rules where they can silence anybody for nonsense rule violations that almost ANY behavior could conceivably and remotely fit under. Such things are typically the behavior of unremarkable, uncreative, and usually inarticulate individuals.
Something about
context goes here. Note that his own notion of the Hussein issue is intended to be humorous. In his case, perhaps it is. There is a time and place for everything, including Barack Hussein Obama. But he completely ignored Mr. Galt's history in his analysis, and that bit about Presidents Grant and Bush is so numb to context that it's hard not to laugh.
President Grant
chose to go by Ulysses. He even adopted a fake middle initial so he could be "U. S. Grant". President Bush and his circle made "Dubya" part of his public persona. Of course, it's not like anyone
made the point about Dubya in this thread. President Obama did not campaign as Hussein. It is not his preferred name of address. And as we've both pointed out, the issue surrounding Mr. Galt involves both JTG's history as a member
and the history of the Hussein-as-insult political ruse.
We might wonder, then, if Will's objections stem from the fear that he is one who will have to put some more effort into his posts and understanding of issues.
I think what you're dealing with, in the end, String, is the expected flak. Indeed, I confess I'm a bit surprised at how limited the protests are. I expected more people to speak out.
I'll chalk it up as a lesson once I figure out what that lesson is.
To recount a story that you may or may not recall, there was a time when a particular member criticized me obliquely by responding to and condemning another member's praise of one of my posts. The other member, who necessarily goes nameless, was fairly famous within our membership; he and I had quarreled vociferously many times before. Indeed, I pointed out to my critic that in the context of this community, it was unusual that I should be receiving any praise from the other. Of course, that didn't matter to my critic.
Will hasn't necessarily been around long enough to know our history, String. It may well be that some of the potential voices against are tempered by the fact that we appear to be getting along in this moment. And on this occasion I would think it functionally, and not just statistically, significant. I don't fight with you simply because of political labels. There are times when I thought the problems I laid at your feet were visibly apparent.
And now you want to go ahead with this? I mean, I can't say it's exactly what I wanted, but neither am I going to complain. In the first place, I'm
never going to get exactly what I want; that's reality. To the other, at the point it became clear to me this was a serious proposition and not something just thrown up in exasperation, how could I
not throw in with it? I can either oppose you for the sake of opposing you—which, contrary to much presumption around here, is not my style—or take genuine part and hope for the best. I don't think I presume too much on your part if I say we'd rather work together than flail angrily through the night.
If some people do, actually, find that significant, well, good.
So we press forward and work toward the best possible outcome, I think people will find the result more than satisfactory. Certainly, some folks will have to work a bit harder to keep up with the standards, but all we're really doing is stepping up enforcement of the current rules. For those more adept with words, ideas, and expression, there is great potential that they will develop, to borrow (and twist a bit) from Hype, "a keener expression of what [they] find important in the Big Picture, and how to express, promote, and defend what [they] value."
That's all we want for people. If some can't hack it ... well? Sciforums isn't the real world. Nobody's going to starve to death or be eaten by wolves for being left behind. If people can't get used to the idea of an intelligent community, they might as well call themselves "goth" even though they don't wear the clothes, listen to the music, or have a clue what the goths are saying.
