A Few Words on Issues Briefly Encapsulated and Expressed
Gustav: On Two Questions
Question the First: You're fighting over an opinion, in this case. Comparatively, if I refuse to back the assertion that "[expert's] explanation is wrong because he's calculating the wrong mass for the moon, which is actually made of cheese", that is problematic. James' opinion of your SBE thread? Not so problematic.
What you have in that is a useful example that might already have achieved dead-horse status, and may well have already progressed to "mudhole" stage.
So James was in error as he formed his opinion. This is the sort of card that you don't want to play in every hand.
Think of it this way: James is Australian. No, no, that's not the usual chuckle some folks have over the sensitivities and sensibilities of our neighbors Down Under, which often seem out of phase with American perspectives. Rather, just work with me, here: he's Australian.
I live over a thousand miles north of Los Angeles. And here's the thing: I knew your thread title meant something, but I never bothered to look it up. If you cued us to the meaning in-thread, I never even noticed.
But I did, in fact, think of you, friend, and lacking any booze at hand hoisted my coffee in tribute to your spirit when I saw a cable news segment a couple weeks back about a KCRW transition (Nic Harcourt's departure, I think).
It's significant to my memory because it is the second time in recent years I have been exactly wrong about the prospect of losing a KCRW show. That is, I didn't catch the segment squarely, with the result that I thought MBE was about to go dark. Previously, perhaps two years ago, I heard a news segment on NPR that To the Point was slated for cancellation in the new economic landscape, and mourned that coming loss such that I never did figure out just when the show was saved, or if I was remembering a dream, or whatnot, since Warren Olney is still leading some of the best roundtables in American broadcasting.
But neither was it until a couple weeks ago that I even recognized the phrase Morning Becomes Eclectic.
Not a hint of it when I blew through LA to San Diego in May. Didn't even notice.
I mean, you would think I would have seen a bumper sticker, an advert or article in San Diego City Beat.
Something like that, right? I mean, especially since I'm a public radio fan in general. The odds that I would have caught a whiff of MBE during four days in southern California?
But I didn't. Not until I encountered a strange cable news bit I now presume to be about Harcourt's exit did I even know MBE existed.
Which leads me back to a certain point: James is Australian.
I should know MBE. It turns out to be a very, very important show in the histories of American radio broadcast and pop culture alike. And I've never heard it. Don't get me wrong, I've seen Screaming Trees on Later. I have three television and three separate radio series of Mark Steel's work. In fact, the idea that I've never encountered MBE strikes me as downright odd.
But somehow I missed it. Even with all the musicians I've known over the years, nobody ever put a recording in my hand that was taken from MBE. And, well, given the number of bootlegs some of my associates have collected, I would think at least one of them would have had a recording from MBE.
Just sayin' ....
Right. James is Australian. I cannot reasonably expect him to know the title, either.
Which brings us to the actual substance—as I see it—of this count of your complaint.
And this is more than just James.
Question the Second: For some reason, internet transmission appears to coincide with critical degradation of context. That is, from your fingers to God's ear, you're likely going to Hell because if it went via the internet, God is going to take you completely wrongly.
What chance have we humans?
We've all done it, before. Missed context, that is. Sympathetic sarcasm ends up perceived as vile hostility. I remember one time I upset a member by either my use of the phrase "hep-cat", or else some variant of dancing/marching to a different beat/drummer. I can't remember, exactly. But part of it had to do with the question of whether or not "hep-cat" had a racist context or connotation.
And while that was a puzzling moment for me, this case must leave you scratching your head hoping to uncover a clue, or scratching your ass hoping to find a pony.
James missed the reference. And in this case he's missed it as badly as a number of people who, over the years, missed a point or reference obnoxiously without suffering moderation or administrative wrath.
But he made a very simple, very human mistake that is only highlighted so dramatically because of his administrative station, and because the present thread is intended to subject him to a sort of scrutiny that only becomes proper at our insistence if we say, "He's the Admin, so he deserves this scrutiny that is too much to ask of any of us."
What you have, in the end, if you don't beat this dead horse into a mudhole, is an example that can be soberly recalled at times it might be useful to do so.
It's the changes that we don't notice that are the most significant. In my own circles, it is hard to correct this kind of an error by rubbing it in. Such a course usually has the effect of making its point, but also inviting future sarcasm, snark, and bitterness as the corrected becomes the corrector.
If you don't try to beat him about the head with this one like it's a sockeye fresh off the boat, the longer-term effect will probably include the installation, adoption, or acknowledgment of an obscurity meter.
The number of times I have offended someone by making a remark aside that, by my understanding, they damn well should have understood, yet somehow failed to, is enough that when someone says something that doesn't sound quite right, or seems formulaic, or doesn't necessarily make sense compared to reality, my mind automatically rolls through relevant obscurities; my eyes look around to see who is giving a sly, fourth-frame glance. And, yes, usually that tells me what I need to know. In some company, I have adopted the habit of prefacing these sorts of remarks by saying, "Would it be inappropriate to say ...?" You know, a way of signalling those who might not be in the loop to not be entirely offended by what sounds crass to their uninitiated ears, but actually means something specific to those who know what I'm talking about.
It's also why I often say, "Something about _____ goes here." I mean, if I said something to, say, Quadraphonics, about whacking him with an olive loaf°, can I reasonably assume that he will understand the reference? Or, if he misses it, will he presume I am threatening him? Making a bizarre gay sexual advance?
And as Quadraphonics and I have been at odds, lately, I don't think I would be incorrect to keep a specific wit about me: Will he simply miss the point?° Or will he not only miss the point but leap to the most inflammatory interpretation he can construe?
To a certain degree, after James missed the reference, he presumed the worst. I say to a certain degree in two ways. First, while such a presumption is evident in the outcome, the magnitude of effect is uncertain. Secondly, we must treat the phrase "presuming the worst" in a broader context akin to Original Sin, which predisposes adherents to expect people to make the wrong decision more often than not. That is, we need not presume he is presuming the absolute worst of you, but, rather, that he might well be seeing a negative context for the title because he expects a negative context.
A Conclusion, of Sorts; Or Perhaps a Hypothesis: What I would propose on the question of MBE itself is that yes, James took a swing at it and whiffed. In baseball metaphor, he's hitting well enough; the question is whether he's tanking some plays, or if we're simply noting a weak spot in his game. Even still, there is a danger that James will take the phrase "weak spot" too severely. He doesn't watch baseball. I'm not certain if there is a cricketer's equivalent°. Is it the high and inside he's not hitting well? Maybe low and away?
Handled correctly, perhaps in this case by presenting a reasonable pretense of dignity and understanding, such that you might even prefer it to fretting—no, really, I don't know, y'know?—the occasion itself might have the effect of causing James to think twice when his obscurity alarm goes off. Perhaps he doesn't even notice it right now.
Again, I don't know. But the bigger deal you, we, or anybody makes out of this particular swing and a miss, the less chance human nature usually indicates for future adjustment and accommodation of the factors that led to error.
A Brief Note, Not Entirely Unrelated: Part of the reason I ducked the earlier invitation to get involved in this is that it won't do any good. Ultimately, the broader issue is one of procedure versus interpretation. Or, at least, I think that's a suitably neutral way of saying it. That is, do we continually adjust the rules, or reassess our interpretation of what the rules indicate? Inevitably, both are required; we have some gaps, and we also have differing perspectives on offense and magnitude thereof.
In the MBE example specifically, we are looking more at interpretation, not so much of rules but of content, and thus the nature of offense and magnitude thereof.
Appendix—A Note as a Moderator: Those who know us well enough are aware that the staff periodically undergoes all manner of convulsions behind closed doors, fighting bitterly among one another, and in many cases over the fates of specific individuals within our community. I give you my word that we are all heartily sick of it.
Still, though, the questions remain. Compared to some of the things we haven't flagged over the years, I have personally become somewhat befuddled by some of the things we do let get under our saddles. Under our skin. Up our asses. Whatever. My colleagues and I recognize that this effectively creates variable standards.
Perfectly uniform enforcement is not possible without specific censorship and a large increase in the bureaucracy, either in the form of faceless moderators you sometimes get to yell at or else robots simply replacing words with stars, auto-deleting posts that exceed predetermined quantitative thresholds, and issuing infraction points accordingly; suspensions might even be automated in such a case.
Some interpretive questions resulting in disputes over the rules:
And so on.
Truth told, we rarely explore these issues properly when the questions start so specifically. That is, the clash of particulars doesn't seem to lead to any useful general application.
As almost any occasion can be construed as an opportunity, let us then use the present specifics—e.g., Gustav and James—in consideration of a more general application.
For my part, as a moderator, I'm not certain I am comfortable applying the scrutiny I see in some of the infractions against Gustav. As a result, plenty of people who conduct themselves in much more annoying, considerably less productive ways are generally ignored to muck up various discussions and create the appearance of variable standards.
And, well, that appearance would be accurate.
To the other, some of my colleagues do not perceive the intellectual dishonesty I've described to them about other people's conduct.
I issue few yellow cards, as a result, and rarely suspend anyone. But I've lost track of the system by which we interpret offense and culpability; all I know is that if I followed certain examples, I would piss off a great many people. To the other, in not following those examples, I'm leaving many people to wonder what's up with the variable standards.
I do not know what progress we can make, as a community, simply fighting out these particular disputes without considering a more general context.
____________________
Notes:
° whacking him with an olive loaf — Okay, come on. Somebody around here ought to know what that refers to. Anybody? Anybody?
° Will he simply miss the point? — This does not presuppose that our neighbor will always miss the point. But hidden context can be a risk if one is wrapped up in dispute, we can presuppose periodic failures to communicate. A phasing effect, metaphorically, between nonharmonic tones. The primary question, of course, is what to do in order to minimize such occasions. Beside that enigma is the question of what to do when such occasions arise. What can one expect, and how is the gap best bridged?
° a cricketer's equivalent — MLB is big on the nine-square (tic tac toe) pitch-track grid. But several years ago they also experimented with on-screen graphics describing a hitter's strong and weak spots over the same grid. It was a great stat; I have not seen it used in years. I'm not certain why they don't use it; I guarantee the basic statistic is recorded, as it is essential information in a batting coach's repertoire and vital to the proverbial books kept for the benefit of pitchers and catchers. No, seriously. A good catcher will know that on a 2-2 count, with RISP, this batter hits .180 if you set the slider high and inside, but .300 if you hang it over the middle; he hits .325 on a fastball to the high outside, but mostly pops up to a whopping .210 low and inside by constantly getting under and ahead of heaters under 93 mph. Yeah, baseball is a game of stats. Period. Everything else depends on the numbers.
Gustav: On Two Questions
Question the First: You're fighting over an opinion, in this case. Comparatively, if I refuse to back the assertion that "[expert's] explanation is wrong because he's calculating the wrong mass for the moon, which is actually made of cheese", that is problematic. James' opinion of your SBE thread? Not so problematic.
What you have in that is a useful example that might already have achieved dead-horse status, and may well have already progressed to "mudhole" stage.
So James was in error as he formed his opinion. This is the sort of card that you don't want to play in every hand.
Think of it this way: James is Australian. No, no, that's not the usual chuckle some folks have over the sensitivities and sensibilities of our neighbors Down Under, which often seem out of phase with American perspectives. Rather, just work with me, here: he's Australian.
I live over a thousand miles north of Los Angeles. And here's the thing: I knew your thread title meant something, but I never bothered to look it up. If you cued us to the meaning in-thread, I never even noticed.
But I did, in fact, think of you, friend, and lacking any booze at hand hoisted my coffee in tribute to your spirit when I saw a cable news segment a couple weeks back about a KCRW transition (Nic Harcourt's departure, I think).
It's significant to my memory because it is the second time in recent years I have been exactly wrong about the prospect of losing a KCRW show. That is, I didn't catch the segment squarely, with the result that I thought MBE was about to go dark. Previously, perhaps two years ago, I heard a news segment on NPR that To the Point was slated for cancellation in the new economic landscape, and mourned that coming loss such that I never did figure out just when the show was saved, or if I was remembering a dream, or whatnot, since Warren Olney is still leading some of the best roundtables in American broadcasting.
But neither was it until a couple weeks ago that I even recognized the phrase Morning Becomes Eclectic.
Not a hint of it when I blew through LA to San Diego in May. Didn't even notice.
I mean, you would think I would have seen a bumper sticker, an advert or article in San Diego City Beat.
Something like that, right? I mean, especially since I'm a public radio fan in general. The odds that I would have caught a whiff of MBE during four days in southern California?
But I didn't. Not until I encountered a strange cable news bit I now presume to be about Harcourt's exit did I even know MBE existed.
Which leads me back to a certain point: James is Australian.
I should know MBE. It turns out to be a very, very important show in the histories of American radio broadcast and pop culture alike. And I've never heard it. Don't get me wrong, I've seen Screaming Trees on Later. I have three television and three separate radio series of Mark Steel's work. In fact, the idea that I've never encountered MBE strikes me as downright odd.
But somehow I missed it. Even with all the musicians I've known over the years, nobody ever put a recording in my hand that was taken from MBE. And, well, given the number of bootlegs some of my associates have collected, I would think at least one of them would have had a recording from MBE.
Just sayin' ....
Right. James is Australian. I cannot reasonably expect him to know the title, either.
Which brings us to the actual substance—as I see it—of this count of your complaint.
And this is more than just James.
Question the Second: For some reason, internet transmission appears to coincide with critical degradation of context. That is, from your fingers to God's ear, you're likely going to Hell because if it went via the internet, God is going to take you completely wrongly.
What chance have we humans?
We've all done it, before. Missed context, that is. Sympathetic sarcasm ends up perceived as vile hostility. I remember one time I upset a member by either my use of the phrase "hep-cat", or else some variant of dancing/marching to a different beat/drummer. I can't remember, exactly. But part of it had to do with the question of whether or not "hep-cat" had a racist context or connotation.
And while that was a puzzling moment for me, this case must leave you scratching your head hoping to uncover a clue, or scratching your ass hoping to find a pony.
James missed the reference. And in this case he's missed it as badly as a number of people who, over the years, missed a point or reference obnoxiously without suffering moderation or administrative wrath.
But he made a very simple, very human mistake that is only highlighted so dramatically because of his administrative station, and because the present thread is intended to subject him to a sort of scrutiny that only becomes proper at our insistence if we say, "He's the Admin, so he deserves this scrutiny that is too much to ask of any of us."
What you have, in the end, if you don't beat this dead horse into a mudhole, is an example that can be soberly recalled at times it might be useful to do so.
It's the changes that we don't notice that are the most significant. In my own circles, it is hard to correct this kind of an error by rubbing it in. Such a course usually has the effect of making its point, but also inviting future sarcasm, snark, and bitterness as the corrected becomes the corrector.
If you don't try to beat him about the head with this one like it's a sockeye fresh off the boat, the longer-term effect will probably include the installation, adoption, or acknowledgment of an obscurity meter.
The number of times I have offended someone by making a remark aside that, by my understanding, they damn well should have understood, yet somehow failed to, is enough that when someone says something that doesn't sound quite right, or seems formulaic, or doesn't necessarily make sense compared to reality, my mind automatically rolls through relevant obscurities; my eyes look around to see who is giving a sly, fourth-frame glance. And, yes, usually that tells me what I need to know. In some company, I have adopted the habit of prefacing these sorts of remarks by saying, "Would it be inappropriate to say ...?" You know, a way of signalling those who might not be in the loop to not be entirely offended by what sounds crass to their uninitiated ears, but actually means something specific to those who know what I'm talking about.
It's also why I often say, "Something about _____ goes here." I mean, if I said something to, say, Quadraphonics, about whacking him with an olive loaf°, can I reasonably assume that he will understand the reference? Or, if he misses it, will he presume I am threatening him? Making a bizarre gay sexual advance?
And as Quadraphonics and I have been at odds, lately, I don't think I would be incorrect to keep a specific wit about me: Will he simply miss the point?° Or will he not only miss the point but leap to the most inflammatory interpretation he can construe?
To a certain degree, after James missed the reference, he presumed the worst. I say to a certain degree in two ways. First, while such a presumption is evident in the outcome, the magnitude of effect is uncertain. Secondly, we must treat the phrase "presuming the worst" in a broader context akin to Original Sin, which predisposes adherents to expect people to make the wrong decision more often than not. That is, we need not presume he is presuming the absolute worst of you, but, rather, that he might well be seeing a negative context for the title because he expects a negative context.
A Conclusion, of Sorts; Or Perhaps a Hypothesis: What I would propose on the question of MBE itself is that yes, James took a swing at it and whiffed. In baseball metaphor, he's hitting well enough; the question is whether he's tanking some plays, or if we're simply noting a weak spot in his game. Even still, there is a danger that James will take the phrase "weak spot" too severely. He doesn't watch baseball. I'm not certain if there is a cricketer's equivalent°. Is it the high and inside he's not hitting well? Maybe low and away?
Handled correctly, perhaps in this case by presenting a reasonable pretense of dignity and understanding, such that you might even prefer it to fretting—no, really, I don't know, y'know?—the occasion itself might have the effect of causing James to think twice when his obscurity alarm goes off. Perhaps he doesn't even notice it right now.
Again, I don't know. But the bigger deal you, we, or anybody makes out of this particular swing and a miss, the less chance human nature usually indicates for future adjustment and accommodation of the factors that led to error.
A Brief Note, Not Entirely Unrelated: Part of the reason I ducked the earlier invitation to get involved in this is that it won't do any good. Ultimately, the broader issue is one of procedure versus interpretation. Or, at least, I think that's a suitably neutral way of saying it. That is, do we continually adjust the rules, or reassess our interpretation of what the rules indicate? Inevitably, both are required; we have some gaps, and we also have differing perspectives on offense and magnitude thereof.
In the MBE example specifically, we are looking more at interpretation, not so much of rules but of content, and thus the nature of offense and magnitude thereof.
Appendix—A Note as a Moderator: Those who know us well enough are aware that the staff periodically undergoes all manner of convulsions behind closed doors, fighting bitterly among one another, and in many cases over the fates of specific individuals within our community. I give you my word that we are all heartily sick of it.
Still, though, the questions remain. Compared to some of the things we haven't flagged over the years, I have personally become somewhat befuddled by some of the things we do let get under our saddles. Under our skin. Up our asses. Whatever. My colleagues and I recognize that this effectively creates variable standards.
Perfectly uniform enforcement is not possible without specific censorship and a large increase in the bureaucracy, either in the form of faceless moderators you sometimes get to yell at or else robots simply replacing words with stars, auto-deleting posts that exceed predetermined quantitative thresholds, and issuing infraction points accordingly; suspensions might even be automated in such a case.
Some interpretive questions resulting in disputes over the rules:
• Should accusations of hate speech and hatred itself be considered violative of rules against flaming and personal attack?
• Should explanations of why a member, argument, or behavior is considered racist be considered of rules against flaming and personal attack?
• What constitutes a threat?
• Does the fact of a given volume of complaints about a member or moderator automatically validate those complaints, regardless of accuracy?
• Chicken or egg? Is it appropriate to issue sanctions against those who flame outrageous and violative behavior, but not the originally assesrted outrageous and violative behavior?
• Why is behavior in certain subfora frowned upon in others?
• Is all crackpottery the same?
• Should explanations of why a member, argument, or behavior is considered racist be considered of rules against flaming and personal attack?
—Think of it this way: If I say you're a racist, have I just flamed you? It's an unsubstantiated argument, right? But what if I present my evidence, based on your posts, explaining what looks racist, and why? Is that, then, a personal attack? The sum effect prevents people from identifying bigotry in various forms.
• What constitutes a threat?
• Does the fact of a given volume of complaints about a member or moderator automatically validate those complaints, regardless of accuracy?
• Chicken or egg? Is it appropriate to issue sanctions against those who flame outrageous and violative behavior, but not the originally assesrted outrageous and violative behavior?
• Why is behavior in certain subfora frowned upon in others?
• Is all crackpottery the same?
And so on.
Truth told, we rarely explore these issues properly when the questions start so specifically. That is, the clash of particulars doesn't seem to lead to any useful general application.
As almost any occasion can be construed as an opportunity, let us then use the present specifics—e.g., Gustav and James—in consideration of a more general application.
For my part, as a moderator, I'm not certain I am comfortable applying the scrutiny I see in some of the infractions against Gustav. As a result, plenty of people who conduct themselves in much more annoying, considerably less productive ways are generally ignored to muck up various discussions and create the appearance of variable standards.
And, well, that appearance would be accurate.
To the other, some of my colleagues do not perceive the intellectual dishonesty I've described to them about other people's conduct.
I issue few yellow cards, as a result, and rarely suspend anyone. But I've lost track of the system by which we interpret offense and culpability; all I know is that if I followed certain examples, I would piss off a great many people. To the other, in not following those examples, I'm leaving many people to wonder what's up with the variable standards.
I do not know what progress we can make, as a community, simply fighting out these particular disputes without considering a more general context.
____________________
Notes:
° whacking him with an olive loaf — Okay, come on. Somebody around here ought to know what that refers to. Anybody? Anybody?
° Will he simply miss the point? — This does not presuppose that our neighbor will always miss the point. But hidden context can be a risk if one is wrapped up in dispute, we can presuppose periodic failures to communicate. A phasing effect, metaphorically, between nonharmonic tones. The primary question, of course, is what to do in order to minimize such occasions. Beside that enigma is the question of what to do when such occasions arise. What can one expect, and how is the gap best bridged?
° a cricketer's equivalent — MLB is big on the nine-square (tic tac toe) pitch-track grid. But several years ago they also experimented with on-screen graphics describing a hitter's strong and weak spots over the same grid. It was a great stat; I have not seen it used in years. I'm not certain why they don't use it; I guarantee the basic statistic is recorded, as it is essential information in a batting coach's repertoire and vital to the proverbial books kept for the benefit of pitchers and catchers. No, seriously. A good catcher will know that on a 2-2 count, with RISP, this batter hits .180 if you set the slider high and inside, but .300 if you hang it over the middle; he hits .325 on a fastball to the high outside, but mostly pops up to a whopping .210 low and inside by constantly getting under and ahead of heaters under 93 mph. Yeah, baseball is a game of stats. Period. Everything else depends on the numbers.
