Requiring true identity to post on WaccoBB.net?

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...o-web_logo.gif

Hi Everybody,

There have been several requests lately that we require people to validate their true identity before posting to prevent people from posting unkind things that they are not responsible for. The thought is that without the shield of anonymity people will be more responsible and considerate.

Mark Morford wrote about this problem and he suggested the same solution: disclose your identity.

I am generally in favor of this approach, since my intention from the beginning is to have people use their real names (and preferably photos) as a way adding transparency and authenticity to our cyber connections and tie that back to real community. I want this to be a safe environment for the progressive community where opinions and viewpoints are welcome and presented in a respectful manner.

Since I haven't been able to validate real identities, I haven't tried to enforce it.

Another problem is that if a user is technically sophisticated, I can't prevent them from re-registering once I have removed them from the system.

I have a thought about how this could work:

First, it would only be limited to new members as of May 10th. Members who joined before this time would be warned once and then removed from the system.

Secondly, it would only apply to the discussion categories (including General Community, WaccoTalk, WaccoReader, Conscious Relationship, etc.). Users would not need to be validated for posting to For Sale or Housing or starting a new thread in Events and Classes.

If a new, un-validated user tries to post to one of the discussion categories, they would be told that they need to get validated.

Validation could happen in a number of ways:

1) 2 existing members vouch for them. If a vouched-for member gets banned (after a warning) the "vouchers" would no longer be able to vouch for future members.

2) Show up at a WaccoBB function with some ID.

3) A small donation via their credit card (and the name matches).

4) Show their ID via Skype. (This can be recorded).

I'll probably need some community support to help implement this system.

What do you folks think? :hmmm:

I think it's sad that you would need to "verify" anyone in the first place. People should respect the opinions of others and welcome calm and proper debate in a public forum. Spammers, flamers, etc. are inevitable (I guess), but it's a shame some of us cannot control ourselves and be polite while in dissagreement.

Craigslist uses "flagging" as a method of community self policing, but even this is abused as self proclaimed flagging nazis have taken control of several forums there.

I believe in the right to privacy...being a female and having had bad online experiences I understand the need to be anonymous. I personally don't like to share my personal details on the internet especially having fallen victim to the cyber crime of identity theft. It's a bitch to get your identity back once it's been stolen.

I think you should consider the Skype idea or the small donation idea via PayPal. At least that way you have a solid way of verifying a person's identity without exposing their personal details to the online world...and a source of income to help defray the costs of bulletin board upkeep. Also, it's been my expereience that once a person buys into something they take "ownership" in it and resolve to take a personal stake in maintaining the integrity of it.

Just my 2 cents. :2cents:

Cheers!
BK

[quote=Barry;89316]

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...o-web_logo.gif

>>There have been several requests lately that we require people to validate their true identity before posting to prevent people from posting unkind things that they are not responsible for. The thought is that without the shield of ananymity people will be more responsible and considerate.
...>>What do you folks think?

Friends--

To me this makes sense.

For the purpose of preventing flames, who knows? It'd probably help deter some, though I've been on lists where everyone was known, and they still went at it like sixth-graders on meth.

My hope would simply be that, to some degree, it lessens the anonymity of the exchange. If I'm talking to someone, I like to know to whom I'm talking. If I meet someone at a party who's wearing a bag on his head, I might say "Hey, neat bag," but I'm probably not going to engage in any serious interchange. How much does a name really tell me? Not much, but it tells me at least that this person is engaging with me as himself, not as a figment from Second Life.

Is there a way to validate identities? I dunno. But for some, at least, there may be a greater onus attached to entering under an assumed realistic name than under some clever handle. In any case, I'd rather carry on a conversation with a pseudonymous Leonard K. Leonard than with "Barfetissimo."

Would some people be deterred from sincere posts by having to use their own names? Possibly: they might feel the post would put their job in jeopardy, offend an acquaintance, or is just too intimate. I'd suggest, in response, that (a) there are countless sites for such posts that maintain anonymity, and (b) you'd better think twice about posting anything on the Internet for which you require true anonymity. The past outing of various posters on this list undercuts any illusion of "safety."

For me, the value of this forum is in exchanging views with a range of people, in a sense of community. I may know some of you personally, I may meet some in the future, and some I may never encounter except here. A few, I never *want* to encounter, but I'm still interested in the way they think and in trying to talk with people who may be very alien to my own perspective. Some people are always going to rant, others pride themselves on their snide-idity, but on a local community board, I'd just like to know who's talking.

I haven't addressed whether this whole notion is a fascistic squelch to free speech. I'm hopeful that we can forego opening that can of worms and those who differ with this idea will speak your concerns with both vigor and respect.

Peace & joy--
Conrad

It's an honorable endeavor, Barry, to try to sway things in a more noble direction. Gratitude, most certainly.

When you intend to prevent people from saying 'unkind' things though, that's a tricky conundrum in my experience. Some of the more 'unkind' things I've read here are from people whose true identities are not concealed, and they are simply speaking their truth. It seems to me that when it seems unkind, that's a byproduct of truth in some people's esteem.

I admire "I Love West Sonoma's" idea of using Paypal or some other form of validation by bank. Sadly, once again, I have read posts that lead me to believe that once someone is a paying member, they presume to lay some kind of claim on the site; that they can now say whatever they want because they bought in. I could be wrong. That is simply a personal judgement on my part, I admit, but it's what I've seen.

I have no answers for you. Opinions on the other hand? Economics 101A says there's a downside to every choice. No easy way to enact change, and I wish you well with this.

Barry, Everyone,

I support your effort here, and have commented numerous times about the problem of trolls on waccobb.

But I also think the right to privacy is paramount. Hence a fundamental conflict.

If there were some way for you to verify identity, but only the information a participant wants to have made publicly available is posted, then that might be the beginning of a solution.

Of course, anyone with a modicum of technical sophistication can create a completely fictitious identity that appears to be "real". (i.e. factual, whatever that means. See below for the beginning of an explanation of what I mean here.)

But the effort to create such a psuedo-identity might curb the appetite of those who flame from the shadows. (Sounds cool, but as we know, it really sucks!)

Keep in mind that some of the recent "trolls" here have been all too happy to be open about their identity. What will we do when someone is fine with giving their name but still insists on sniping away and engaging in forms of subtle and not so subtle emotional abuse? It's not like this is a problem that only arose with the invention of the internet!

This is a pickle. Requiring identification, if only to the moderators of waccobb is a beginning to trying to curb abusive posting. But I can guarantee it won't be the end of the matter.

What I have done for years as a moderator of a few local political lists (which are mostly announcement only, but some allow for discussion) is to ask an offender to stop. If that doesn't work I, "moderate their ass", which means anything they post only goes to the list if I OK it first. If that doesn't work I dump them from the list.

That has generally worked, and has only been necessary in one or two cases over the last ten years, but I'm talking about a very small pond of only twenty to one hundred and fifty people or so per list. Waccobb is a larger, more open, lake and probably will take a different approach.

By the way, PayPal doesn't work for me, as I've told Barry privately. But I've paid my annual supporting member donation by personal check via snailmail. That, plus my very public persona, should be enough to verify my identity.

Don't get me started with the numerous and sometimes complex debates about identity, truth, and reality that are at the core of much Social Theory and Social and Political Philosophy from the last fifty to one-hundred and fifty years. If not much, much longer.

Suffice it to say that we're all making it up as we go along. Any notion of objective truth, especially in these matters of what consists as reality in a society, is a socially conceived and artificially consensed fiction that we treat as "The Truth".

But that's not the question at hand... Or is it?

I don't envy you and your co-moderators your job. But I'm glad you're finally acting to attempt to resolve an endemic problem.

May you/we succeed!

"Mad" Miles

(Mad, in the sense that I care deeply about charitable and respectful communication between those willing to make the effort, and the exclusion of those who have proven they either won't, or can't.)

:burngrnbounce:

I like the proposed idea. I think it would probably work and I strongly support taking the risk of making it happen. It would make Wacco a much better, community oriented, bulletin board with various positive results that we don't enjoy now. I believe it should be attempted this year or as soon as possible.

Edward

I just got an idea. How about this:

Two Wacco Talks (maybe also Community, etc). One is 'wild and wooly' and the other is identified. The wild and wooly, anything goes. But no one can bitch about it. They get a fair warning at the beginning of their subscription and that's it. If people in the Wild 'n Wooly section complain they are simply reminded that they have a CHOICE! As time goes by, almost everyone will drift towards the ID Wacco Talk.

Just a thought.

Edward

There was a scientific study done (someone help me here) where volunteers for this project could anonymously give an electric shock to a subject that gave the wrong answer to a question. The study was done in two parts: one, the 'shocking' volunteers were right in front of the person who was being shocked. Two, the 'shocking' volunteers were absolutely anonymous in another room or with a cap and gown that covered their faces. The absolutely anonymous volunteers were merciless in their delivering numerous electric shocks to the subject (or victim).

What does that tell you? I think it's pretty obvious, especially regarding the issue at hand here in Waccoland.

As it turned out, it was precisely the volunteers (unbeknownst to them) who were the real subjects. The person 'receiving' the electrical shocks was a hired actor who wasn't shocked a single time! After the study was completed, someone sued the scientist who organized the study and it went to court. This is a famous case. I believe that he got off with no penalties but an excellent movie, starring William Shatner as the scientist, was made about this. The judge in the trial really wanted to 'fry' the scientist but he was left wanting.

This study is referred to constantly for many different reasons, including to help understand why the Germans did what they did to the Jews (although it certainly doesn't explain all of it). The experiment is cited frequently for various kinds of other studies that are done today in psychology, sociology, history, economics, politics, philosophy, war, etc.

Edward

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by theindependenteye:

How much does a name really tell me? Not much, but it tells me at least that this person is engaging with me as himself, not as a figment from Second Life.

Peace & joy--
Conrad

---

Conrad, when I go see one of your productions, who is behind the words that are spoken?
Is it the author, the actor, the character, the producer or the audience that come to hear it?

"you know, someone said the world is a stage and each must play their part"
Elvis Presley in Areyoulonesometonite

The study I was talking about earlier is called the Milgram Experiment, conducted in 1961 (Milgram experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

The movie is called "The Tenth Level" (The Tenth Level (1975) (TV)).

A decade later, in 1971, another study using the same principles was conducted at Stanford University with equally shocking results (Stanford prison experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

Edward

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

There have been several requests lately that we require people to validate their true identity...

---

Wouldn't work for me Barry, because I have a local business and I'm afraid that my sometimes controversial positions here would have a negative impact on it.

For a variety of reasons I agree with Mad Miles that moderating the hell out of the few rude and antagonistic posters you have here would be the best solution.

As you know, your primary troll sniffs out emotional vulnerability and delights in upsetting people. I have seen him/her squelch myriad discussions here in the last couple of years, and what should be a community of vibrant discussions has been paired down to a handful of participants with thick skins as a result.

Bite the bullet and stand up to the few antagonistic individuals; ban their ass, then when someone new shows up, give them one warning only. Your community will thank you for it.

I post under my own name, though I know that is considered risky behavior, by some. In general, I am in favor of letting people express themselves, unless they demonstrate a lack of concern for the feelings and situations of others. I think it's cowardly to use anonymity to be mean or hurtful. I also think it's a good idea to have some kind of boundaries, guidelines and consequences, in case one forgets to be civil, from time to time. I think I and most people occasionally need feedback to be aware of the impact what I say on others. It's important to realize that some people have been hurt in the past, or are just natually much more sensitive than those who simply enjoy a good argument to get their "blood up"..

Being forced to prove identity seems a bit Orwellian to me, I'd rather that those who do not show respect for others be warned and notified as to what constitutes civil behavior, once or twice, then put on moderated status.

If certain people want a "rubber room" for un-moderated wildness, I would have no problem with that. At lease sensitive people could easily avoid them..
: )

On the other hand, I think Barry does a good job of running this site, and should simply use his best judgment on this.. ; )

Scott.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Skook:

Wouldn't work for me Barry, because I have a local business and I'm afraid that my sometimes controversial positions here would have a negative impact on it.

For a variety of reasons I agree with Mad Miles that moderating the hell out of the few rude and antagonistic posters you have here would be the best solution.

As you know, your primary troll sniffs out emotional vulnerability and delights in upsetting people. I have seen him/her squelch myriad discussions here in the last couple of years, and what should be a community of vibrant discussions has been paired down to a handful of participants with thick skins as a result.

Bite the bullet and stand up to the few antagonistic individuals; ban their ass, then when someone new shows up, give them one warning only. Your community will thank you for it.

---

>>Conrad, when I go see one of your productions, who is behind the words that are spoken? Is it the author, the actor, the character, the producer or the audience that come to hear it?

I don't quite get how this relates to the main question, but to answer yours: I try to write words appropriate to the particular character, so they're mine and his. The "meaning" of the work isn't necessarily in those words, though, but in how they synergize with the other personae in the play. And of course the audience adds the way they hear it, which I somewhat control as director but never 100%.

I don't see the connection to Wacco here, unless it's that some people see themselves more as "creating a character" here than speaking their own minds. When that happens, it seems (whether it is or not) an attempt to make fools of us all, like real people arguing with a puppet.

Cheers--
Conrad

>>Wouldn't work for me Barry, because I have a local business and I'm afraid that my sometimes controversial positions here would have a negative impact on it.

That's surely a valid concern. Anyone have any clear answers to that?

Do you mean that you're identified closely with your business -- that is, a significant number of your customers know you by name -- and that if they knew your opinions on certain things they wouldn't patronize you? Do you avoid expressing these opinions in other social contexts where you might be known?

>>For a variety of reasons I agree with Mad Miles that moderating the hell out of the few rude and antagonistic posters you have here would be the best solution.

Yes, it's the best solution to the problem of flames & trolls, even though it's not been hugely effective up to this point. I'm quite sure that if Barry becomes more proactive in stomping down the offenders, he'll get blindsided with flames as a dictator.

My other question is to several who expressed concern that their privacy might be violated. Do you mean just your name, or other information about you?-- no one's suggested listing addresses, posting photos, etc. People have been writing letters to editors for decades, and these generally require a name. Is there a reason the Internet should be different?

I don't want to get maneuvered into being more of an advocate here than what I've already stated, so with these several questions I'll leave the floor to others.

Peace & joy--
Conrad

I think this is a good idea.

I have a concern with #2 "existing members vouch for them. If a vouched for member gets banned (after a warning) the they "vouchers" would no longer be able to vouch for future members."

If someone vouches for a member, validating their identity & then that new person gets banned for inappropriate behavior, why is the "voucher" then not able to vouch for future members? I don't like the idea of being held responsible, in a way, for another member's behavior. As long as that person is really the person they say they are, the voucher did their job.

It seems a little harsh to forever ban someone from vouching.

It's a different story if someone vouches for a new member who then turns out NOT to be who they said they were. But how could that be determined?

:hmmm:

I guess I am the only one who thinks it's strange that we are now discussing (in general community) how to deport someone from Waccoland who doesn't follow the rules and at the same time trying to keep someone in this land who doesn't follow the rules set by the US.
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/index...1tLmdpZg%3D%3D

Yes. I think that Barry should use his own judgment here, but should be a bit tougher than in the past. It shouldn't be difficult to weed out the unpleasantly clever trolls; we need a MEAN SCREEN!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by hales:

I post under my own name, though I know that is considered risky behavior, by some. In general, I am in favor of letting people express themselves, unless they demonstrate a lack of concern for the feelings and situations of others. I think it's cowardly to use anonymity to be mean or hurtful. I also think it's a good idea to have some kind of boundaries, guidelines and consequences, in case one forgets to be civil, from time to time. I think I and most people occasionally need feedback to be aware of the impact what I say on others. It's important to realize that some people have been hurt in the past, or are just natually much more sensitive than those who simply enjoy a good argument to get their "blood up"..

Being forced to prove identity seems a bit Orwellian to me, I'd rather that those who do not show respect for others be warned and notified as to what constitutes civil behavior, once or twice, then put on moderated status.

If certain people want a "rubber room" for un-moderated wildness, I would have no problem with that. At lease sensitive people could easily avoid them..
: )

On the other hand, I think Barry does a good job of running this site, and should simply use his best judgment on this.. ; )

Scott.

---

My question was to show that we don't control how others perceive us.
Words can be interpreted in many ways, and once a character is made, the audience has a hard time separating the words and the message.
The actor or director might have a different interpretation than you do of the words. The audience will have a different one.
Some in the audience might think the words came from the character, others from the director or the author.
Certainly you've heard of the actors that had to fear the audience for the audience believed the character was truly evil.
When you write words for the villain, does that make you evil?
Or are you merely being able to place yourself in somebody else's shoes?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by theindependenteye:

I don't quite get how this relates to the main question, but to answer yours: I try to write words appropriate to the particular character, so they're mine and his. The "meaning" of the work isn't necessarily in those words, though, but in how they synergize with the other personae in the play. And of course the audience adds the way they hear it, which I somewhat control as director but never 100%.
Cheers--
Conrad

---

What's missing in this discussion so far is that when you identify yourself on the web, you are exposing your identity to the whole world, not just wacco. When someone googles your name, they see everything you have ever written on the web unless your name isn't associated with it.

All my customers know me by name, I personally provide a sometimes expensive service to people who are often emotionally distraught. I have no doubt that my politics (for instance, I think Bush and Cheney should be tried for war crimes) would repel my more mainstream or conservative customers.

Or, to give another example, I wrote a parody here a while back titled "Wise man in his fifties seeks established, generous, beautiful woman in 30's". Although several people in the thread pointed out to outraged respondents that it was a parody, I received several very angry emails telling me what's wrong with me. If my name were associated with that parody, whenever a prospective customer googles my name, they'd see it, and I can't afford the risk of turning off customers.

And finally, most businesses reserve the right to refuse service to rude, obnoxious and antagonistic customers, only trolls will call Barry a dictator for doing the same.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by theindependenteye:

>>Wouldn't work for me Barry, because I have a local business and I'm afraid that my sometimes controversial positions here would have a negative impact on it.

That's surely a valid concern. Anyone have any clear answers to that?

Do you mean that you're identified closely with your business -- that is, a significant number of your customers know you by name -- and that if they knew your opinions on certain things they wouldn't patronize you? Do you avoid expressing these opinions in other social contexts where you might be known?

>>For a variety of reasons I agree with Mad Miles that moderating the hell out of the few rude and antagonistic posters you have here would be the best solution.

Yes, it's the best solution to the problem of flames & trolls, even though it's not been hugely effective up to this point. I'm quite sure that if Barry becomes more proactive in stomping down the offenders, he'll get blindsided with flames as a dictator.

My other question is to several who expressed concern that their privacy might be violated. Do you mean just your name, or other information about you?-- no one's suggested listing addresses, posting photos, etc. People have been writing letters to editors for decades, and these generally require a name. Is there a reason the Internet should be different?

I don't want to get maneuvered into being more of an advocate here than what I've already stated, so with these several questions I'll leave the floor to others.

Peace & joy--
Conrad

---

Rules. Unfortunately there has to be rules. History has proven time and time again that without rules or ethics civilization reverts to chaos and eventually to certain demise.

Imagine if we didn't bother to stop at stop signs or if we ran red lights.

The same applies here in Wacco - land.

We must have rules of conduct. Without them the board would become a cluster f**k of useless dribble and no one would want to participate.

Personally, I don't want to be subjected to participants who rant and rave and steer off topic. It defeats the purpose of the bulletin board.

The stop sign and red light here at Wacco is Barry's moderating. The rules of conduct are set and if they are broken there are certain consequences. It's important to enforce the rules so participants know if they don't abide by them, they will not be allowed to engage.

A few bad apples can certainly spoil it for the rest of the bunch.

Cheers! JFX

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by deejayjfx:

Unfortunately there has to be rules. History has proven time and time again that without rules or ethics civilization reverts to chaos and eventually to certain demise.

---

What? Because one opts to not make their identity public, civilization will crumble? Just the tiniest bit overstated, don't you think?

I'm a supporter of having the choice of online anonymity. I believe that moderation is the answer. I at least scan the posts here daily; I haven't seen an undue problem with trolling. Trolls here tend to get verbally stomped on, and/or sent to the Siberia of " Censored & Un-censored", where nobody reads them anyway, except the other pathetic conversationally-challenged.

As with others here I'm a local business owner, and to a lesser extent, involved with various types of global interactions. I like being able to post here without having negative impact on my life anywhere else. For me, no anonymity, no participation.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Skook:

Wouldn't work for me Barry, because I have a local business and I'm afraid that my sometimes controversial positions here would have a negative impact on it.

---

Edward wants to publish everybody's name that supports prop 8.
Are you worried about something like that?

Quote:

---

I have seen him/her squelch myriad discussions here in the last couple of years,

---

How odd Skook, you joined 2 months ago...............

Quote:

---

and what should be a community of vibrant discussions has been paired down to a handful of participants with thick skins as a result.

---

Barry claims over 9000 members, but only one percent will post.
Do you really think one person is preventing all those other people from posting?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Skook:

Or, to give another example, I wrote a parody here a while back titled "Wise man in his fifties seeks established, generous, beautiful woman in 30's". Although several people in the thread pointed out to outraged respondents that it was a parody, I received several very angry emails telling me what's wrong with me. If my name were associated with that parody, whenever a prospective customer googles my name, they'd see it, and I can't afford the risk of turning off customers.
.

---

Your example perfectlyillustrates the point I have been making all along.
Even though it was pointed out repeatedly (I forget who pointed it out first), some people continued to read into the post what they wanted to read into it.
People will get upset about some thing that doesn't bother others no matter what you say, even if you show that the opposite is true.

This thread is really thought provoking. Here's another thought. Is Wacco an online community or an online forum for an actual community with "place?"

I think the answer may be different for different people. For me, I view it as a communication tool that connects a real-live, real-people community. I like that I can buy and sell used items through these forums and tend to trust Wacco members more than a relatively anonymous craigslist user.

I do give weight to the comments of long-time members and frequent posters. I feel that these criteria provide a sense of credibility.

On the other hand, there are a number of very good reasons why some people may want to remain anonymous on these boards.

Perhaps a solution may be to have user validation as a voluntary option. This would allow the reader to make his or her own decision about which posts / posters to believe and how much weight to give them. If someone felt very strongly about not reading posts by unvalidated users, perhaps there could be an option to "ignore" any posts by unvalidated user, even by category. I think there is already an option to ignore individual posters, isn't there?

This is not too relevant to the discussion at large , but i have to wonder why this thread is still in "General Community" and not now in "wacco talk" where things are discussed and debated about?

I noticed Sabrina had purposely posted her "announcement" in the category General Community and not Wacco talk. I am imagining her intent was to offer information and request support, not to debate about it.

I feel that for members starting a thread in General Community..that it might be helpful when posting, if they had the option of deciding whether or not they were open to public responses or not.

As far as requiring true identity to post on Waccobb as an idea to help control unwelcome behavior patterns, I feel that it wouldn't achieve the desired results.
I have been active in reading some newspaper articles and submitting public comments. The system of editing works as such:

* the community of registered members are the ones who hold the option of either "recommending" a member's post (similar to the gratitude button) OR they have the option of "flagging" a a member post.

* When a member "flag's" or reports a particular post , a small box w/a list of community guidelines pops up for the 'flagger' to choose which guideline was not met and why they are reporting/flagging the post.

* Usually, if enough people (more than 1 person) flag/report a particular member's post, the "editor"/"moderator" pays closer attention and then edits the flagged post to automatically read: "this comment has been removed b/c it did not meet community guidelines".

This way, the community as a whole gets to contribute and have their input and not just one man behind the business or community.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by nurturetruth:

This is not too relevant to the discussion at large , but i have to wonder why this thread is still in "General Community" and not now in "wacco talk" where things are discussed and debated about?

---

Psst NT
(in soft voice) it was the barry man who started it in this section

Quote:

---

I have been active in reading some newspaper articles and submitting public comments. The system of editing works as such:

* the community of registered members are the ones who hold the option of either "recommending" a member's post (similar to the gratitude button) OR they have the option of "flagging" a a member post.

* When a member "flag's" or reports a particular post , a small box w/a list of community guidelines pops up for the 'flagger' to choose which guideline was not met and why they are reporting/flagging the post.

* Usually, if enough people (more than 1 person) flag/report a particular member's post, the "editor"/"moderator" pays closer attention and then edits the flagged post to automatically read: "this comment has been flagged b/c it did not meet community guidelines".

This way, the community as a whole get to contribute and have their input and not just one man behind the business or community.

---

we basically already have this in place.
we have the gratitude button, the barry button and the censored section.
the flagging has proven to be problematic on CL. people gang up on certain posters and flag to prevent others from speaking.
Not because they don't like the message but because they don't like the person.

Quote:

---

"this comment has been flagged b/c it did not meet community guidelines".

---

Are you saying this is in addition or instead of the offending post

This is just my opinion, but having to identify myself does not make me feel any more secure or safer from trolls. In fact, it seems like having my true name and identity could be just another piece of ammunition for those who are already more than willing to be be unkind. Not that I really mind personally, as I am not terribly sensitive when it comes to the opinions of others, and I really don't feel that trolls and the like deserve much attention or energy fed into their twisted form of ammusment. There are plenty of a-holes out there in the world, and I'm pretty sure that disclosure of identities, or lack thereof, has very little to do with this behavior. It is a baseline personality characteristic. Unfortunately we cannot force people to play nice. We cannot control the actions of others, only how we react to them. I am uncertain about countering an inflammitory problem with an inflammitory solution.:2cents:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Mad Miles:

...

If there were some way for you to verify identity, but only the information a participant wants to have made publicly available is posted, then that might be the beginning of a solution.

Of course, anyone with a modicum of technical sophistication can create a completely fictitious identity that appears to be "real". (i.e. factual, whatever that means. See below for the beginning of an explanation of what I mean here.)...

---

However, an IP address can be recorded and associated with the user's identity. Banning IP addresses of bad users would at least make it much harder for someone to keep posting using another identity.

I am searching my mind for the joke I know is so close with "vouchsafe" "vouchers" and "vouchees" along with the party of the first part! The question of how one's status would change from vouching for someone who then turned out to flame is interesting and amusing as well. Of course it only has to do with them being who they claim to be...kinda like a notary...some clever soul has a whole new field now of cybernotarizing......

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by jitterbug:

I think this is a good idea.

I have a concern with #2 "existing members vouch for them. If a vouched for member gets banned (after a warning) the they "vouchers" would no longer be able to vouch for future members."

If someone vouches for a member, validating their identity & then that new person gets banned for inappropriate behavior, why is the "voucher" then not able to vouch for future members? I don't like the idea of being held responsible, in a way, for another member's behavior. As long as that person is really the person they say they are, the voucher did their job.

It seems a little harsh to forever ban someone from vouching.

It's a different story if someone vouches for a new member who then turns out NOT to be who they said they were. But how could that be determined?

:hmmm:

---

Time Out! I think we are close to gelding the lily here. The dialog that I perceive goes on here is well within the bounds of civilized discourse. It is a bit draconian to propose anything that would dampen freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is the most precious thing we have here.

Civilized, maybe; but the definition of this bulletin board says that it is for "kind, progressive" people, and a few of the people who regularly post here (well, okay, one of them) do not fall within that classification. The problem has nothing to do with freedom of expression, as I see it; and that term is too often used to mean "anything goes." I can find mean-spirited, ego-driven "freedom of expression" in a lot of forums, but I don't want to waste my time with them.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Yubajeff:

Time Out! I think we are close to gelding the lily here. The dialog that I perceive goes on here is well within the bounds of civilized discourse. It is a bit draconian to propose anything that would dampen freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is the most precious thing we have here.

---

Before you make more of these "kind" posts, you should check out what Barry thinks is his mission, it's heading the "Advertise" section.
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...accobb-net.htm

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sara S:

Civilized, maybe; but the definition of this bulletin board says that it is for "kind, progressive" people, and a few of the people who regularly post here (well, okay, one of them) do not fall within that classification. The problem has nothing to do with freedom of expression, as I see it; and that term is too often used to mean "anything goes." I can find mean-spirited, ego-driven "freedom of expression" in a lot of forums, but I don't want to waste my time with them.

---

A couple of rejoinders:

"However, an IP address can be recorded and associated with the user's identity. Banning IP addresses of bad users would at least make it much harder for someone to keep posting using another identity. bugl3t"

This method failed in the case of one of the most prolific, early trolls on waccbb.net. Barry referred to this problem in his post originating this thread/discussion.

"Time Out! I think we are close to gelding the lily here. The dialog that I perceive goes on here is well within the bounds of civilized discourse. It is a bit draconian to propose anything that would dampen freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is the most precious thing we have here. Yubajeff"

Clearly some of us do not agree with your assessment. If we did, this discussion would not be taking place.

I'm also for freedom of expression. But I do not support the right of people who do not contribute to a discussion, and at almost every turn look for an opening to shit on, abuse and emotionally manipulate anyone and everyone they can. Their purpose, to the extent that one can be divined, is to get a rise out of their mark, so they can get their jollies by provoking a reaction. This may be the way of the internet. It should not be the way of waccobb.net.

As for the comments that Barry does a great job. I mostly agree. But there have been times when his moderation has been so tolerant as to permit repeated savagry and trolling. Yes, there is plenty of gray area in this matter. (Sic.) One person's satire is another's troll behavior.

But it's easy to spot a troll. Their consistent efforts to provoke, without adding anything else to the conversation, is the first tell-tale. Using anonymity as the position to do it from is the second. This discussion is an attempt to create a policy, which at the least, takes away the second possibility.

When my friend of eight years is in need. And an appeal for help is broadcast. And that appeal is exploited to post comments about the evils of illegal immigration (a subject thoroughly debated on waccobb.net over the last several years) and when it is pointed out that such a debate might better be held on another thread, as the rumors, character assassination and plain prejudiced and ignorant statements being made are abusive and distracting from the issue at hand, and some of the "freely expressive" posters of unmitigated shit still don't get a clue.

Well, there are several choices available for those of us who love this man.


1. Unload on the trolls in no uncertain terms and let the chips fall where they may.

That's called "feeding the troll" in internet culture. And it's a violation of the "conscious culture" of waccobb.net. Anybody who thinks they've read me at my worst on waccobb.net, please be assured that the rules of "conscious community" have kept me in check. If they were not in place you might see some real flames erupting from my keyboard.

Generally I don't even reply to provocation here, as it's not worth the time and effort. When I do respond it's because I think it's important, in spite of the risk of tedious and useless debate.


2. Abandon waccobb.net as a failed experiment.

Generally I've found this board to be nearly useless when it comes to appeals for political action. I'm an activist / organizer, when I want to mobilize people I go for venues where I see an interest in being mobilized. For various reasons, many of which I've speculated about privately, this is not that place.

Just look at the number of "views" on political posts vs. say, posts about animal rescue or puppy mills, or the interest in cheap residential rentals.

(And for the animal rights activists here, yes, your's is a political issue, but it's not the ONLY political issue.)

Why people registered on waccobb.net are politically uninterested ...

(On average, obviously there are waccobbites who are highly political, I'm basing this claim on the verifiable responses, i.e. number of hits, that political vs. non-political posts get online. What people read or don't read in their email digests is not verifiable, at least by me)

... is an interesting question that deserves some exploration. But not here and now.


3. Try to come up with a strategy that, even if it probably won't eliminate obnoxious behavior, can curb it and reduce it to an acceptable level of background noise.


In a spirit of cooperation and hope, we're discussing the possibility of option 3.

Denying that the problem exists, is not a useful contribution to the discussion.

Isn't it telling that some of our resident trolls have resorted to very neutral and reasonably sounding rhetoric to oppose the possiblity of this change in the rules? When their playground for emotional sniping and provocation looks like it might be taken away, they get all philosophical and persuasive.

But I guarantee, if the playground stays open, they'll be back to looking for chinks in the emotional armor of every available target of opportunity. It's what they do.

I just want them to have to do it somewhere else.


Happy Saturday Morning,
Hope it doesn't get too hot today,
I'm decamping to the Berkeley hills for BBQ and conversation so I at least won't be suffering from the predicted 90 degrees!

"Mad" Miles

:burngrnbounce:

Boy, Miles you really got your knickers in a mad twist!
I wont address all of your rant, but will just straighten out your erroneous claims, (obviously) directed at me, since it was my posting about Okili that started your flurry of (self-) righteousness.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Mad Miles:

When my friend of eight years is in need. And an appeal for help is broadcast. And that appeal is exploited to post comments about the evils of illegal immigration (a subject thoroughly debated on waccobb.net over the last several years) and when it is pointed out that such a debate might better be held on another thread, as the rumors, character assassination and plain prejudiced and ignorant statements being made are abusive and distracting from the issue at hand, and some of the "freely expressive" posters of unmitigated shit still don't get a clue.
"Mad" Miles

:burngrnbounce:

---

Your unsupported claims seem to come from your friendship with Okili and rather than examine my posts, you've allowed your emotions to cloud your rationale.
Upon rereading them, ( I'm sure Barry can provide you with the censored ones as well) you'll find that I never attacked Okili personally. I questioned the rationale behind being here for more than 20 years without really dealing with his situation and taking responsibility for the consequences.
I don't question the fact that he is here illegally, but the fact that he is not taking care of that situation, and now is crying foul when they came to arrest him.
Big Difference.

I think most of all what your post makes clear is that we all troll, including you and Barry (who threatens to sick the INS on me).
So why focus on that part, when you could also pointout all the gratitude I received.
Or is that what bothers you?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Mad Miles:

A couple of rejoinders:

"However, an IP address can be recorded and associated with the user's identity. Banning IP addresses of bad users would at least make it much harder for someone to keep posting using another identity. bugl3t"

This method failed in the case of one of the most prolific, early trolls on waccbb.net. Barry referred to this problem in his post originating this thread/discussion.

"Time Out! I think we are close to gelding the lily here. The dialog that I perceive goes on here is well within the bounds of civilized discourse. It is a bit draconian to propose anything that would dampen freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is the most precious thing we have here. Yubajeff"

Clearly some of us do not agree with your assessment. If we did, this discussion would not be taking place.

I'm also for freedom of expression. But I do not support the right of people who do not contribute to a discussion, and at almost every turn look for an opening to shit on, abuse and emotionally manipulate anyone and everyone they can. Their purpose, to the extent that one can be divined, is to get a rise out of their mark, so they can get their jollies by provoking a reaction. This may be the way of the internet. It should not be the way of waccobb.net.

As for the comments that Barry does a great job. I mostly agree. But there have been times when his moderation has been so tolerant as to permit repeated savagry and trolling. Yes, there is plenty of gray area in this matter. (Sic.) One person's satire is another's troll behavior.

But it's easy to spot a troll. Their consistent efforts to provoke, without adding anything else to the conversation, is the first tell-tale. Using anonymity as the position to do it from is the second. This discussion is an attempt to create a policy, which at the least, takes away the second possibility.

When my friend of eight years is in need. And an appeal for help is broadcast. And that appeal is exploited to post comments about the evils of illegal immigration (a subject thoroughly debated on waccobb.net over the last several years) and when it is pointed out that such a debate might better be held on another thread, as the rumors, character assassination and plain prejudiced and ignorant statements being made are abusive and distracting from the issue at hand, and some of the "freely expressive" posters of unmitigated shit still don't get a clue.

Well, there are several choices available for those of us who love this man.


1. Unload on the trolls in no uncertain terms and let the chips fall where they may.

That's called "feeding the troll" in internet culture. And it's a violation of the "conscious culture" of waccobb.net. Anybody who thinks they've read me at my worst on waccobb.net, please be assured that the rules of "conscious community" have kept me in check. If they were not in place you might see some real flames erupting from my keyboard.

Generally I don't even reply to provocation here, as it's not worth the time and effort. When I do respond it's because I think it's important, in spite of the risk of tedious and useless debate.


2. Abandon waccobb.net as a failed experiment.

Generally I've found this board to be nearly useless when it comes to appeals for political action. I'm an activist / organizer, when I want to mobilize people I go for venues where I see an interest in being mobilized. For various reasons, many of which I've speculated about privately, this is not that place.

Just look at the number of "views" on political posts vs. say, posts about animal rescue or puppy mills, or the interest in cheap residential rentals.

(And for the animal rights activists here, yes, your's is a political issue, but it's not the ONLY political issue.)

Why people registered on waccobb.net are politically uninterested ...

(On average, obviously there are waccobbites who are highly political, I'm basing this claim on the verifiable responses, i.e. number of hits, that political vs. non-political posts get online. What people read or don't read in their email digests is not verifiable, at least by me)

... is an interesting question that deserves some exploration. But not here and now.


3. Try to come up with a strategy that, even if it probably won't eliminate obnoxious behavior, can curb it and reduce it to an acceptable level of background noise.


In a spirit of cooperation and hope, we're discussing the possibility of option 3.

Denying that the problem exists, is not a useful contribution to the discussion.

Isn't it telling that some of our resident trolls have resorted to very neutral and reasonably sounding rhetoric to oppose the possiblity of this change in the rules? When their playground for emotional sniping and provocation looks like it might be taken away, they get all philosophical and persuasive.

But I guarantee, if the playground stays open, they'll be back to looking for chinks in the emotional armor of every available target of opportunity. It's what they do.

I just want them to have to do it somewhere else.


Happy Saturday Morning,
Hope it doesn't get too hot today,
I'm decamping to the Berkeley hills for BBQ and conversation so I at least won't be suffering from the predicted 90 degrees!

"Mad" Miles

:burngrnbounce:

---

So, MsTerry, why won't you share your name with us?

I can't help saying that I really think it's never necessary to "geld the lily".. ;)

Scott.

gild the lily:
1. To adorn unnecessarily something already beautiful.
2. To make superfluous additions to what is already complete.


to geld:
(third-person singular simple present gelds, present participle gelding, simple past and past participle gelded)

1. (transitive) To castrate a male (usually an animal).

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Yubajeff:

Time Out! I think we are close to gelding the lily here. The dialog that I perceive goes on here is well within the bounds of civilized discourse. It is a bit draconian to propose anything that would dampen freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is the most precious thing we have here.

---

The answer to your hypothetical question is of course Some things in life will remain a MsTerry............

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

So, MsTerry, why won't you share your name with us?

---

I am torn on this, but will propose my solution below.

First, historically anonymity has been an important component of free discourse. For a variety of very legitimate reasons, speakers often would not speak freely or at all if their identities were disclosed. A few people have cited such reasons here: you are a business owner afraid of the impact on your business, you are the victim of a sexual assault, you are a therapist and you need to maintain a neutral demeanor toward clients and potential clients, you are a school teacher and you are concerned how your 10 year old students might react to certain posts, etc. Or you are just expressing a very controversial view and you fear personal reprecussions.

On the other hand, anonymity can and certainly has led to abuses. I stopped participating in certain boards or sections of boards because they became nasty or were taken over by fanatics.

So, here's what I propose:

1. Barry should know the identity of everyone who is registered on WACCO. I have no problem with that.

2. People can "apply" to Barry to be allowed to post anonymously in general because they have good reason.

3. People can "apply" to Barry to post anonymously on a one time basis because they have good reason.

4. Anonymous posts should be clearly labeled as such in some very obvious manner, so that people can take that into account in evaluating their merit.

5. If someone abuses the privilege of anonymity, Barry can warn them and/or revoke the privilege. Personal attacks would certainly be cause for revoking the privilege.

This creates a lot more work for Barry-- but Barry is an overachiever.

Perhaps Barry could create some sort of neutral "appeals committee" if someone objects to one of Barry's decisions. Perhaps not-- that's asking a lot of a private business owner to do, even if it is a "community" bulletin board.

Darget Blackweld

(filling in for Philip Tymon)

The answer to your hypothetical question is of course Some things in life will remain a MsTerry............

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

So, MsTerry, why won't you share your name with us?

---

But on a more practical note,
You speak of kindness and a progressive community but you have no problem gathering a lynchmob to eliminate my writings.
You have no problem whipping them into a frenzy (starting of your post with the F-word) and revealing private information.
You have no problem hacking into our main computer and threatening to use this ill-gotten info against me.
You have no problem reprimanding and censoring me, but when others are foaming at the mouth and attacking me with their playground psycho-babble, you forget your vows of kindness and community.
You have no problem with people threatening me with bodily harm, in fact your response was that I deserved it.
If you need more reasons why I keep my private life private, let me know.

I also have a small business and would find it necessary to either withdraw from future discussions or severely censor myself for fear of retribution from those who may disagree with me on some position or another (remember the proposed boycott of of a local coffee roaster and a local herbalist for endorsing Carillo). No chat room or bulliten board is worth risking a negative impact on my livelihood.
Barry knows who I am and I paid him my membership in cash and in person. He and I have also had this discussion in the past regarding the importance I place on my anonymity here.
Just adding my 2 cents while I still can. :2cents: :2cents:
Photo :):

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Skook:

Wouldn't work for me Barry, because I have a local business and I'm afraid that my sometimes controversial positions here would have a negative impact on it.

For a variety of reasons I agree with Mad Miles that moderating the hell out of the few rude and antagonistic posters you have here would be the best solution.

As you know, your primary troll sniffs out emotional vulnerability and delights in upsetting people. I have seen him/her squelch myriad discussions here in the last couple of years, and what should be a community of vibrant discussions has been paired down to a handful of participants with thick skins as a result.

Bite the bullet and stand up to the few antagonistic individuals; ban their ass, then when someone new shows up, give them one warning only. Your community will thank you for it.

---

Noooo, you're not. But maybe people are afraid to say anything now (??)

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by MsTerry:

I guess I am the only one who thinks it's strange that we are now discussing (in general community) how to deport someone from Waccoland who doesn't follow the rules and at the same time trying to keep someone in this land who doesn't follow the rules set by the US.
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/index...1tLmdpZg%3D%3D

---

Requiring real-name posting strikes me as the absolute wrong approach.

Keep in mind that one person's "playing Devil's advocate" is another person's trolling. How you perceive it seems to depend a lot on the home/culture you grew up in. For example, if you grew up in a Jewish or some flavor of Protestant family, you may see arguing/debating as a form of sport and wonder the problem is. If you grew up as a Buddhist, you probably see arguing/debating as annoying and maybe even karmically challenged.

Another part of the equation is the crowd that is *such a hurry* to assume that a post/statement is an assault, dig, put-down, racist rant or some sort of derogatory thing. This user category needs a handy name, too. "Shrills" comes to mind.

Then there's the "Waccobb cop" types who seem to think they are in charge or are moderators.

Perhaps a way to provide Barry/Waccobb with verified identity info to make it more difficult for banned users to re-join under a new username is to require at least one payment with a credit card or PayPal.

An announcement-only post type seems like it would be helpful as well. Another potential "feedback" feature is a flip-side to the Gratitude button, such as "I disagree" or something of that nature. The "flag for review" button procedure that someone described seems sensible; however, the cop/nazi types will probably be clicking that one quite a lot!

Overall, what seems like a reasonable approach is clear guidelines of acceptable use and what constitutes abuse, combined with review/moderation and correction when necessary.

There needs to be more than just one person making decisions on what constitutes a violation of terms of use. One person being judge and jury is asking for trouble. This country's founders insisted on balance of powers and a "checks-and-balances" system for a reason.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

There have been several requests lately that we require people to validate their true identity before posting to prevent people from posting unkind things that they are not responsible for. The thought is that without the shield of anonymity people will be more responsible and considerate. ...

What do you folks think? :hmmm:

---

I must also agree that this is not a good idea. As my profile will show I haven't posted on Wacco in a long time...and I stopped posting mainly due to how the troll situations were being handled. I did offer possible solutions based on my previous moderation experience with other online forums (larger ones even)...but I guess my advice was not right for this community. I've also hesitated to become a paying member until Wacco is run with more rules in place, but again, I do not feel that this is the right way to go about it. As I've said before, if someone acts up 1) Warn, give em' a second chance to see if they shape up and if not 2) BAN THEM! Simple. Effective.

Regarding the IP addresses...try contacting your ISP...the good and talented folks at Sonic should be able to track down anyone who is posting here and masking their IP address. Find the source of the problem, eliminate it, and move on! :thumbsup:

---

Dynamique wrote:
"Requiring real-name posting strikes me as the absolute wrong approach".

:thumbsup:

"Keep in mind that one person's "playing Devil's advocate" is another person's trolling. How you perceive it seems to depend a lot on the home/culture you grew up in. For example, if you grew up in a Jewish or some flavor of Protestant family, you may see arguing/debating as a form of sport and wonder the problem is. If you grew up as a Buddhist, you probably see arguing/debating as annoying and maybe even karmically challenged.
Another part of the equation is the crowd that is *such a hurry* to assume that a post/statement is an assault, dig, put-down, racist rant or some sort of derogatory thing. This user category needs a handy name, too. "Shrills" comes to mind."

*interesting!


"Then there's the "Waccobb cop" types who seem to think they are in charge or are moderators.
An announcement-only post type seems like it would be helpful as well. Another potential "feedback" feature is a flip-side to the Gratitude button, such as "I disagree" or something of that nature. The "flag for review" button procedure that someone described seems sensible; however, the cop/nazi types will probably be clicking that one quite a lot! "

* the point of the "flag 4 review" set up is that each member could only flag once. And when a particular post gets flagged, there would be a list of community guidelines to choose from in reference to which 'guideline' had been violated. I feel encouraged that in having a list of guidelines for members to choose from when "reporting', that it would also potentially help members to become more mindful of the community guidelines .


"Overall, what seems like a reasonable approach is clear guidelines of acceptable use and what constitutes abuse, combined with review/moderation and correction when necessary."
"There needs to be more than just one person making decisions on what constitutes a violation of terms of use. One person being judge and jury is asking for trouble. This country's founders insisted on balance of powers and a "checks-and-balances" system for a reason."

*hmmmmm... I have often suggested that having a type of "wacco community council" might be helpful in maintaining the guidelines and in addressing/responding to the needs of community so that 1 man doesn't take on the full responsibility of being the 'watchdog'. This fantasized 'community council' may also come together for support when a member is dealing with another members "shadow"... or as i call it, the "coyote energy". Wacco kinda already appears to have something similar....just not called the Wacco community council.

[/quote]

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by phltymon:

1. Barry should

---

Quote:

---

2. People can "apply" to Barry

---

Quote:

---

3. People can "apply" to Barry

---

Quote:

---

Barry can warn them and/or revoke the privilege.

---

Quote:

---

This creates a lot more work for Barry-- but Barry is an overachiever.

---

Lucky you're an "overachiever" Barry, because if this board grows as it has for the past few years, you'll be spending large amounts of your work week involved in bureacracy.

Quote:

---

Perhaps Barry could create some sort of neutral "appeals committee" if someone objects to one of Barry's decisions.

---

Perhaps call it the "Political Correctness Commitee"? Sorry Darget, not intending to ridicule you personally, but just the creation of a "appeals committee" would be a gigantic boondoggle. Instead, I suggest that people who find themselves overly concerned about the correctness of how others phrase themselves, should respond to Barry's posts seeking moderators.

Every forum I've ever read periodically gets into a heated discussion about "trolls". And they always seem to devolute, as this one may be doing now, into a troll-a-rama, which just offers yet another rich opportunity for the "trolls" to revel in the attention given to them.

The programmers who build semi-public forum scrips almost universally provide a simple way for users to solve their own "troll" anxieties. On this BB it's like this:

(WaccoBB Top Menu) > "User Control Panel" > "Buddy / Ignore Lists" > "Add New User to List". Repeat as needed.

But wait, that'd be too simple. It wouldn't give us each a chance to poke our fingers in the air, and be "consciously" righteous.

Or, even easier yet, just don't respond to whomever you consider to be a troll, scroll past their posts. Enough users do this, and eventually they'll dry up and blow away, to greener troll pastures elsewhere.

But thats probably too simple...and requires individual effort, which takes away from our valuable gripe time.

By the way, IP addresses are maleable these days.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Tars:

But wait, that'd be too simple. It wouldn't give us each a chance to poke our fingers in the air, and be "consciously" righteous.

---

Wow, Tars you took the words right out of my mouth.

I really don't think this needs to be a controversy. There is a way to make both sides happy. Barry, you verify those who sign on. There are a variety of ways to do this, some of which you mentioned---or you can use programs like this:
Welcome to RelyID

after you have verified them, they can elect to have their profile, and posts, with their real name or a psuedo one. Their choice.

Julia

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by nurturetruth:

---

* the point of the "flag 4 review" set up is that each member could only flag once. And when a particular post gets flagged, there would be a list of community guidelines to choose from in reference to which 'guideline' had been violated. I feel encouraged that in having a list of guidelines for members to choose from when "reporting', that it would also potentially help members to become more mindful of the community guidelines .

---

Well, NT despite your compassion, you too have jumped on the bandwagon of punishment .
As Dynamique points out the flagging is just another tool open for abuse.
How about if we use the guidelines for the community at large as well? If someone we know on this board for example gets drunk in public, we mark it on their profile.
If they smoke marijuana near kids, we mark it down.
Speeding tickets, sex offenses, domestic violence, a whole new world opens up for things we can flag.

Oh and let's not forget the ones who blatantly tell lies, just to avenge themselves..........................
What to do about unethical and/or illegal behavior exhibited by one of the moderator, or even the owner of this BB?

Quote:

---

*hmmmmm.. I have often suggested that having a type of "wacco community council" might be helpful in maintaining the guidelines and in addressing/responding to the needs of community so that 1 man doesn't take on the full responsibility of being the 'watchdog'. This fantasized 'community council' may also come together for support when a member is dealing with another members "shadow"... or as i call it, the "coyote energy". Wacco kinda already appears to have something similar....just not called the Wacco community council.

---

Are you noticing the coyotes circling me?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dynamique:

Requiring real-name posting strikes me as the absolute wrong approach.

Keep in mind that one person's "playing Devil's advocate" is another person's trolling. How you perceive it seems to depend a lot on the home/culture you grew up in. For example, if you grew up in a Jewish or some flavor of Protestant family, you may see arguing/debating as a form of sport and wonder the problem is. If you grew up as a Buddhist, you probably see arguing/debating as annoying and maybe even karmically challenged.

Another part of the equation is the crowd that is *such a hurry* to assume that a post/statement is an assault, dig, put-down, racist rant or some sort of derogatory thing. This user category needs a handy name, too. "Shrills" comes to mind.

Then there's the "Waccobb cop" types who seem to think they are in charge or are moderators.

---

Very thoughtful post, I am the youngest of five, and in order to be heard I had to do quite some tongue wrestling. A very lively household, with usually no holds barred.
The most interesting aspect is not that I am not telling the truth, but that I am telling the truth, albeit in a reactionary way, that can be interpreted in different ways.

Privacy, or anonymity, seems to be an important requirement for many for several reasons. Some have pointed out that users could get around the requirements to use real names, and that monitoring this could be a pain in the butt.
I am in favor of a civility policy. One or two warnings, and then you're kicked off. Users who are deliberately, or even unconsciously, cruel, discourage constructive dialog. When you want help or advice, it's an unexpected downer to get a snide response. It is particularly annoying to have someone else seem to deliberately misunderstand your point in order to put you in the worst light possible.
Spirited debate is great, but we need some simple rules of engagement, especially if the board is going to remain, "real names optional".
I like the idea of an Wacco fight club where volcanic personalities can brawl. One would know, going in, that it was "no holds barred". The rest of the board should have rules like: assume good motives, no name calling and no "outing" of other members.

For me the advantage of using true identities is not so much that it encourages civility.

Knowing with whom you are in conversation makes it into a richer experience since now you can connect that conversation with all the relations you have with them and what else you know about them.

This would not be the case if only Barry knew their true identity.

Quote:

---

Knowing with whom you are in conversation makes it into a richer experience since now you can connect that conversation with all the relations you have with them and what else you know about them.

---

It would be instructive to know if a poster is a doctor, cop, artist, someone with an advanced degree, someone from another country, etc. However, there is an advantage in being able to converse without the background. Maybe the poster has what may be considered a humble job, but is well-read and brilliant with sparkling prose and wisdom to impart. He may have depths of knowledge of say, chemistry or physiology and would not get as much respect if he had to list his "lowly" occupation.
Most regular posters tend to share details of their lives, and a fuller picture does eventually emerge.
I like the idea of "mind to mind" interaction without the distractions of background and the resulting assumptions that would be made.

:thumbsup:
Very thoughtful!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sylph:

It would be instructive to know if a poster is a doctor, cop, artist, someone with an advanced degree, someone from another country, etc. However, there is an advantage in being able to converse without the background. Maybe the poster has what may be considered a humble job, but is well-read and brilliant with sparkling prose and wisdom to impart. He may have depths of knowledge of say, chemistry or physiology and would not get as much respect if he had to list his "lowly" occupation.
Most regular posters tend to share details of their lives, and a fuller picture does eventually emerge.
I like the idea of "mind to mind" interaction without the distractions of background and the resulting assumptions that would be made.

---

Msterry writes:
"Well, NT despite your compassion, you too have jumped on the bandwagon of punishment ."

Interesting perception u have there! Finding myself laughing here cause I coulda' sworn I thought u knew me better than that! Come one now!
Mostly everyone is aware that I do not support the notion of : 'bad' / 'wrong/punishment'.
However, it doesn't take a genius to realize there ARE consequences for our actions or reactions.
This online community has guidelines established. They just need to be re-enforced . (don't know a better word to use at this time)

There is an energetic "flow" that comes with "community" versus a 1 man show. If this is truly a community, then it would make sense for members in the community to feel they could speak their mind and have their opinion heard respectfully.
I continue to feel that a "flagging" option could be a very empowering process for members of this community. Flagging provides a non verbal solution. Members get to continue feeling their voice is being heard without participating in (or falling into!): word and energy games/struggles or name calling/ blame.
heck...if enough people flag a particular post and choosing the same community guideline that was not respected, then u have what's called: consensus.

I was a bit hopeful the "ignore option" would be an empowering non verbal solution when experiencing unpleasant vibrations, but the community as a 'whole' just cannot continue ignoring the unpleasant vibrations regardless of where or who they are coming from.
It really serves no purpose and doesn't feed the concept of community to continue pointing fingers.
But it does make sense to respect community guidelines and to be mindful of them.
It does make sense for members to be able to choose which guideline has not been respected.
And it does make sense for those who are not happy with the flagging system or community guidelines to not wish to participate anymore in the community.

Thank God/Goddess for the power of choice!


https://www.theunion.com/Global/imag...guideline0.jpg Guideline 1
Ask great questions. Share what you know. Express viewpoints and perspectives respectfully.

https://www.theunion.com/Global/imag...guideline1.jpg

Guideline 2 Start a dialogue. Being part of a community means expressing differing views with others. Defend your viewpoint with facts and opinions, not name calling and attacks.

https://www.theunion.com/Global/imag...guideline2.jpg

Guideline 3 The site is meant for the entire community. Explicit language and content is not welcome. If it's inappropriate for The Simpsons, it's probably inappropriate here.

https://www.theunion.com/Global/imag...guideline4.jpg

Guideline 4 Being part of a community means tolerating differing views, as well as helping keep order. Report comments that are inappropriate, not just those with which you don't agree. Guideline 5

https://www.theunion.com/Global/imag...guideline5.jpg The reasons for anonymity is to be respected. Your personal name and information that is initially required for joining this community will not be shared publicly.

https://www.theunion.com/Global/imag...guideline8.jpg Guideline 6

No one wins in a flame war. This is your community, make it a better place by sharing what you have to say. Even if it is a silent flag or gratitude.

Those who are not happy with community guidelines can either choose to leave the community OR have the choice of expressing their viewpoints respectfully either publicly or directly to one of the moderators. Feedback is always welcome!

Is gelding the lily the opposite of gilding it? "YubaJeff" has already submitted phrase to the "Urban Dictionary". Fun site for inventing own phrases or words. I wonder how long it will be before words entered here make it to the scrabble dictionary?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Yubajeff:

Time Out! I think we are close to gelding the lily here. The dialog that I perceive goes on here is well within the bounds of civilized discourse. It is a bit draconian to propose anything that would dampen freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is the most precious thing we have here.

---

This discussion was sparked by recent trolling in the Free Okili Campaign thread. As this discussion evolved, it became clear (and noble) that the future solution will also address trolling in general on the list, knocking two birds with one stone.

There seems to be, please correct me if I'm wrong, two popular solutions:

1. All Wacco list subscribers must be identified (and within this option there is a sub-debate of a 'brawling,' unmoderated section as well as the identified section).

2. A much stricter and disciplinary moderation of the list, with very few warnings and many expulsions from the list.

I have read very nearly every single post in this discussion and I have been persuaded to think differently. I now believe that it is better to use the stricter discipline approach (although this is certainly not carved in stone for me).

The heightened discipline option might also be accompanied with a 'brawling section' but this would be more of a fine-tuning of the ultimate solution.

In searching for a solution, I think that it is essential to closely study what other, larger lists do, such as Craigslist and a few others.

Edward

Preaching to the Choir, (and to the mob.. ; )

This discussion is interesting, (sometimes ; ) ; it reminds me of the bigger socio-ethical context that we live in. For instance, if there is a protest in the Bay Area over; say over some military action or an environmental abuse.. a group of people may assemble in public and voice their opinions.. okay, maybe they do it peacefully and respectfully, and no one reacts, maybe they get a little attention from passers by, or the media.

Then, say there is a bigger demonstration and they either have to get permits and work with the city, or start operating in the realm of "civil disobedience". This is historically and generally recognized at least ostensibly as a valid form of expression. In my opinion, if people do this, then they need to be willing to deal with the possible legal consequences, etc.. It can be done in the context of non-violent protest, as part of a reasoned, ethically based action, either individually or collectively. I think many of us would agree, that if there is too much repression of public speech, then individuals and groups will feel driving to act in opposition to the status quo, those in power, and even their own governments.

But, if there is a massive rally and there is some collateral property damage and looting, due to fringe elements, agents provocateurs, etc.. then it bleeds over into other kinds of infractions, with motives that are much muddier.. some folks just like a good excuse to throw a rock through a window, knock over newspaper vending machines, etc., or perhaps they are just trying to stir up more conflict, because they enjoy that, or were paid to, or whatever. Or maybe they are truly anarchists with no respect for social contracts, rules or laws. Maybe they are frustrated that "no one is listening, man", and do not have a better idea...

I was looking at some writing about civil disobedience, for instance at:

Civil disobedience - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's interesting that in movements that espouse civil disobedience, there are generally strict rules and guidelines to protect the protesters and to
strengthen the message of the protest. For instance in M.K. Gandhi's or Martin Luther King's non-violent movements, certain kinds of actions and speech were to be avoided.

Nonviolent resistance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I find it interesting that in this (privately-owned and operated) forum, we have so many well-meaning people, most of whom are well-intentioned, respectful, and fairly linguistically and intellectually sophisticated. I think most of us would respond to feedback and moderate ourselves, yet a small minority find this too repressive a system, or perhaps too much fun to ignore. Unfortunately, it seems to bring the level of discourse down quite a bit and even discourage some folks from participating. And it makes people want more rules, controls, and oversight. (!!) That's a whole can of worms kind of discussion..

I tend to idealism and romanticism, yet age has taught me that people are fallible, sometimes greedy, and often driven by distorted emotions such as anger and fear. How do we create and sustain a community of safety and good will if that is not the motivation of all it's members?

I'm starting to like the idea of a wacco council and a warning system. If this could be done without losing anonymity, then fine. (Using a technical fix where offenders can be blocked, even if they adopt pseudonyms?)

On the other hand, apparently there are already guidelines, they just aren't being respected. Having raised a kid to adulthood, (more or less.. ; ),
I am used to the idea of "safe and flexible", but firm boundaries. (If kids have no boundaries, they will act out, until they find some!) Why not simply have progressive action if people do not respect the boundaries? (btw, this would only involve access to a discussion.. not exile on an island or corporal punishment!). I think the main question is who is going to take that role, if any.

While I value the conversation about freedom of speech (with the context to illustrate it, close at hand!), I don't particularly enjoy it when individuals hog the bandwidth, so to speak. That being said, I realize that I can be "that guy", some of the time. And, I can choose to stay out of a discussion or block someone from my in-box, for the most part.

Guess I'll step down off the soap box, now.. ; )

Scott. (really)

It's truly bizarre that almost four years after ThePhaint/MsTerry showed up here to torture the internet naive, he/she is STILL the center of attention in almost every discussion.

Are you all a bunch of masochists?

He/she is laughing his ass off, and can't wait for the 'tribunals' to convene.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by hales:

While I value the conversation about freedom of speech (with the context to illustrate it, close at hand!), I don't particularly enjoy it when individuals hog the bandwidth, so to speak. That being said, I realize that I can be "that guy", some of the time. And, I can choose to stay out of a discussion or block someone from my in-box, for the most part.

---

Yes, you can be "that guy" too, not only you but it seems that most respondents (except for Edward) have admitted or shown being "that guy". So it might be prudent to remove the message rather than the messenger.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by ICPP:

He/she is laughing his ass off,

---

I wish!
I could stand to lose some pounds!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by nurturetruth:

heck...if enough people flag a particular post and choosing the same community guideline that was not respected, then u have what's called: consensus.

---

If wacco has 9500 members, how many would it take to call it consensus?

Quote:

---

There is an energetic "flow" that comes with "community" versus a 1 man show. If this is truly a community, then it would make sense for members in the community to feel they could speak their mind and have their opinion heard respectfully.

---

If this truly is a community, don't you think they come in all sizes and shapes?
Do you stop smelling the roses caus they have thorns?

:fairy duster:I've been logging on to WaccoBB since I first moved to Sonoma County, July '06. It seemed, at that time, to be a good way to get some recommendations for places to shop, dentists, restaurants, etc, things a new person in the community would like to know about. I also found out about a women's group that was starting up & met a few people that way, so all was well. After awhile (months? a year or more?) I started to notice that people were posting lengthy opinions about whatever topic struck their fancy (we're talking MANY paragraphs long, scrolling down & down to get to the end), which didn't seem to make any sense to me (not the topics, but why they'd use this forum for posting those kinds of things...wasn't this a "Community Bulletin Board"? Who'd post something like that on a public cork bulletin board? No one, I suspect.:hmmm:

I also found myself getting sucked into "threads" that would somehow contort, change their slant, or lose the topic completely as it's transformed into something unrecognizable. Why would that occur? To what end? The original topic was not meant to be distorted, yet it often would be.:confused:

Sometimes I added my opinion about something I either felt strongly about or felt I had more experience with/knowledge about than some other people posting misinformation (usually about animal-related topics; I'm a veterinarian so I have more than the average experience/knowledge about many animal-related topics), only to be blasted by someone who was STILL angry with me for something I'd posted about an entirely different topic several weeks/months earlier---they were holding a grudge about something I'd said that offended them and weren't going to let me forget it! :fire: How mature....

The point is, I'm leaving Sonoma County within the next few weeks, moving across the country, so it no longer matters what kind of response I get if I've offended anybody in THIS posting (somehow, I don't know how or why, SOMEone will be pissed off), so I'm just going to add my 2 cents' worth about the bulletin board in general. I think you should go back to the basics, make it a helpful venue for announcing events, places to live, jobs available, people in need, all of those things that make a place a community. I think too many people (you know who you are) believe that their postings are more worthy than other people's postings, for some reason or other---probably due to the fact that they've been more "visible" at WaccoBB events, or have helped Barry with maintaining the bulletin board, or maybe they just have a god complex, I don't know. But I don't think ANYone's posting is more important than anyone else's, and I don't think people should be allowed to ramble on & on about topics that no one gives a hoot about. As far as trolls go, identify them (by their screen names), ignore tham, & hopefully they'll go away. :tantrum:

Support the people who advertise, since they keep the bills paid. Be kind to each other, or turn the other cheek (I know, I should take my own advice). But don't turn into a bunch of savages, or like the "alliances" on "Survivor" (the TV show, for those of you who are so proud to not own TVs and use every oppotunity to point that out). Just go back to the simpler times, when you didn't have to be "known" as "the person who always says this", or "that guy who thinks he's so cute", or "the woman who riding on Barry's coat tails (I don't mean Mrs Wacco)", etc. just be yourselves, try not to take offense when you're corrected, don't hold resentments (they're poisonous), and try not to be mean-spirited. :grouphug:
Smiles,
Vet-To-Pet/Paula:pawprint:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sylph:

It would be instructive to know if a poster is a doctor, cop, artist, someone with an advanced degree, someone from another country, etc. However, there is an advantage in being able to converse without the background. Maybe the poster has what may be considered a humble job, but is well-read and brilliant with sparkling prose and wisdom to impart. He may have depths of knowledge of say, chemistry or physiology and would not get as much respect if he had to list his "lowly" occupation.
Most regular posters tend to share details of their lives, and a fuller picture does eventually emerge.
I like the idea of "mind to mind" interaction without the distractions of background and the resulting assumptions that would be made.

---

I hope you enjoy your new home..

happy travels.

Scott.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Vet-To-Pet:

:fairy duster:I've been logging on to WaccoBB since I first moved to Sonoma County, July '06. It seemed, at that time, to be a good way to get some recommendations for places to shop, dentists, restaurants, etc, things a new person in the community would like to know about. ..snip..
The point is, I'm leaving Sonoma County within the next few weeks, moving across the country, so it no longer matters what kind of response I get if I've offended anybody in THIS posting (somehow, I don't know how or why, SOMEone will be pissed off)

---

Paula, what a great post!
Yes, a lot of people hold on to their past and grudge. You had to move away to state the truth.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Vet-To-Pet:

Just go back to the simpler times, when you didn't have to be "known" as "the person who always says this", or "that guy who thinks he's so cute", or "the woman who riding on Barry's coat tails (I don't mean Mrs Wacco)", etc. just be yourselves, try not to take offense when you're corrected, don't hold resentments (they're poisonous), and try not to be mean-spirited. :grouphug:
Smiles,
Vet-To-Pet/Paula:pawprint:

---

Our Troll is a Psychopath!

from delancyplace.com:

In today's excerpt - Jonah Lehrer proposes that
morality is a form of decision-making, and is based
on emotions, not logic:

"Psychopaths shed light on a crucial subset of
decision-making that's referred to as morality. Morality
can be a squishy, vague concept, and yet, at its
simplest level, it's nothing but a series of choices
about how we treat other people. When you act in a
moral manner - when you recoil from violence, treat
others fairly, and help strangers in need - you are
making decisions that take people besides yourself
into account. You are thinking about the feelings of
others, sympathizing with their states of mind.




"This is what psychopaths can't do. ... They are
missing the primal emotional cues that the rest of us
use as guides when making moral decisions. The
psychopath's brain is bored by expressions of terror.
The main problem seems to be a broken amygdala, a
brain area responsible for propagating aversive
emotions such as fear and anxiety. As a result,
psychopaths never feel bad when they make other
people feel bad. ... Hurting someone else is just
another way of getting what he wants, a perfectly
reasonable way to satisfy desires. The absence of
emotion makes the most basic moral concepts
incomprehensible. G. K. Chesterton was right: 'The
madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The
madman is the man who has lost everything except
his reason.'



"At first glance, the connection between morality and
the emotions might be a little unnerving. Moral
decisions are supposed to rest on a firm logical and
legal foundation. Doing the right thing means carefully
weighing competing claims, like a dispassionate
judge. These aspirations have a long history. The
luminaries of the Enlightenment, such as Leibniz and
Descartes, tried to construct a moral system entirely
free of feelings. Immanuel Kant argued that doing the
right thing was merely a consequence of acting
rationally. Immorality, he said, was a result of illogic. ...
The modern legal system still subscribes to this
antiquated set of assumptions and pardons anybody
who demonstrates a 'defect in rationality' - these
people are declared legally insane, since the rational
brain is supposedly responsible for distinguishing
between right and wrong. If you can't reason, then you
shouldn't be punished.



"But all of these old conceptions of morality are based
on a fundamental mistake. Neuroscience can now
see the substrate of moral decisions, and there's
nothing rational about it. 'Moral judgment is like
aesthetic judgment,' writes Jonathan Haidt, a
psychologist at the University of Virginia. 'When you
see a painting, you usually know instantly and
automatically whether you like it. If someone asks you
to explain your judgment, you confabulate ... Moral
arguments are much the same: Two people feel
strongly about an issue, their feelings come first, and
their reasons are invented on the fly, to throw at each
other.'



"Kant and his followers thought the rational brain
acted like a scientist: we used reason to arrive at an
accurate view of the world. This meant that morality
was based on objective values; moral judgments
described moral facts. But the mind doesn't work this
way. When you are confronted with an ethical
dilemma, the unconscious automatically generates
an emotional reaction. (This is what psychopaths can't
do.) Within a few milliseconds, the brain has made up
its mind; you know what is right and what is wrong.
These moral instincts aren't rational. ...



"It's only after the emotions have already made the
moral decision that those rational circuits in the
prefrontal cortex are activated. People come up with
persuasive reasons to justify their moral intuition.
When it comes to making ethical decisions, human
rationality isn't a scientist, it's a lawyer. This inner
attorney gathers bits of evidence, post hoc
justifications, and pithy rhetoric in order to make the
automatic reaction seem reasonable. But this
reasonableness is just a facade, an elaborate self-
delusion. Benjamin Franklin said it best in his
autobiography: 'So convenient a thing it is to be a
reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or
make a reason for everything one has a mind to
do.'



"In other words, our standard view of morality - the
philosophical consensus for thousands of years - has
been exactly backward. We've assumed that our moral
decisions are the byproducts of rational thought, that
humanity's moral rules are founded in such things as
the Ten Commandments and Kant's categorical
imperative. Philosophers and theologians have
spilled lots of ink arguing about the precise logic of
certain ethical dilemmas. But these arguments miss
the central reality of moral decisions, which is that
logic and legality have little to do with
anything."



Jonah Lehrer, How We Decide, Houghton,
Mifflin, Harcourt, Copyright 2009 by Jonah Lehrer,
Kindle Loc. 1922-79.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by MsTerry:

If wacco has 9500 members, how many would it take to call it consensus?

If this truly is a community, don't you think they come in all sizes and shapes?
Do you stop smelling the roses caus they have thorns?

---

Sara, it is not very kind of you to expose Edward and Miles in public, it is consistent though.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sara S:

Our Troll is a Psychopath!

'The
madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The
madman is the man who has lost everything except
his reason.'.

---

As I read about requiring true identies to post on WaccoBB.net, I can not help but think of Thomas Paine and his most famous piece of literature, Common Sense. Of course, it took some time to attribute the piece to him, since it was written anonymously. I suppose that was due to the fact that his opinion would not have been popular under the government at the time. And, any citizen loyal to the tyrannt, King George, would have gladly apprehended him or killed him just for his freedom of expression on the subject.

Of course, without those writings, we would not be free to express as we do today. An interesting juxtaposition, wouldn't you say?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by capttankona:

As I read about requiring true identities to post on WaccoBB.net, I can not help but think of Thomas Paine and his most famous piece of literature, Common Sense. Of course, it took some time to attribute the piece to him, since it was written anonymously. I suppose that was due to the fact that his opinion would not have been popular under the government at the time. And, any citizen loyal to the tyrannt, King George, would have gladly apprehended him or killed him just for his freedom of expression on the subject.

Of course, without those writings, we would not be free to express as we do today. An interesting juxtaposition, wouldn't you say?

---

Yes, it is interesting. I also think it's interesting to notice that even with "Freedom of Speech" being a commonly held value, and to some extent an assumed right, it is easily eroded and compromised from many different directions.. for instance, even under the guise of protecting others' rights, we sometimes can not fully express ourselves.. since what is true and valid for one person may not be politically correct, or acceptable, for another.

I keep coming back to the idea that community is based on mutual agreements, even if the agreement is to have no boundaries.. and that when people (or monkeys!) interact, there is a kind of natural boundary that arises when someone simply will not allow you to do or say what you want.. perhaps because it impinges on their own space or freedom, or perhaps because the "other" might be more dominant in the social hierarchy. The idea of "your freedom ends at the end of my nose"

The topics of power, hierarchy, dominance/submission and freedom are on my mind a lot lately. I have a sort of non-dominant personality, but I really don't like being pushed or led around, and obviously, I sometimes like to express myself. I'm generally looking for a kind of balance with others. Some people just aren't that into balance, I find..

What seems to be working the best for me personally, is to listen better and to communicate more clearly with those I want to be in relationship with. There is so much more opportunity for agreement, or even for agreeing to disagree, that way. It's kind of a fun game to try to improve the clarity of discourse, IMO.

I'm kind of wondering what the point of a community that doesn't serve the needs of the many is.. since I think that generally, the purpose of community is to share the requirements of survival and hopefully, even beyond that, to enhance the lives of it's members. This goes for couple relationships, too, I suppose. Sometimes people stay in a relationship, or accept non-optimal arrangements, because they are afraid of change, because they are getting the good end of a bad deal, or, maybe one or both is/are too lazy to do the work of better communication?

Throughout history people have explored many different ways to be in community or relationship. The very interesting thing, to me, is that on-line communities are predominately optional and voluntary. I think it's a cool lab for experimenting with new ways of interacting and sharing interests, with relatively few negative consequences, although as more an more business is transacted on-line, I suppose there are more and more opportunities for predatory activities that have real-world consequences.

I find it kind of fun to be in a slightly wild and experimental environment, but then again, I do not enjoy seeing people treating each other badly. As a parent, I came to appreciate that idea of maximum fun and freedom, with minimal risk of actual injury. Once people start getting hurt, (or angry), then it's time to reevaluate, for sure.

I guess that's why it's hard to totally embrace the idea of more rules, and such.. unless, of course, the majority of people agree to those standards, for the good of the whole group.

Scott.

A great truth I told my son when he was 14 is, "You can do anything you want, however, you are 100% responsible for anything you do." With or without your name. Just my :2cents:.

That's a nice sentiment, but if it were true we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Obviously, many people do what they want in this world without being responsible for it, and that's the truth too. Otherwise, we wouldn't need lawyers, police departments or collection agencies among other things.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by tezor:

A great truth I told my son when he was 14 is, "You can do anything you want, however, you are 100% responsible for anything you do." With or without your name. Just my :2cents:.

---

I like the idea of open and free here on this BB. Revealing your identity will hopefully continue to be your own choice.

I would not want this to become a place where everyone agrees and and is polite and kind all the time... because that wouldn't be 'real life'.

Sonoma County is NOT all 'progressive lefties' and what a boring BB this would be if it were sanitized to anyone's particular version of "reality".

I don't post on here much and I certainly don't agree with some of what is said, but I do sometimes enjoy reading the different opinions and points of view.

Thanks to you folks who are willing to speak your minds... NO MATTER WHAT!
... and to a BB that allows it.

...back to lurking

Hi, Texor,
I believe in karma/cause and effect, but it's also true that many people don't choose to take responsibility for their actions. I salute you for instilling this value in your son, though. I tried to do the same with my son, who is now 20 years old and came out pretty well, I think. He has high integrity and values.

Anonymity does tend to bring out the worse in certain types of folks, unfortunately, since they believe that there will be no consequences to what they say or do.

Scott.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by tezor:

A great truth I told my son when he was 14 is, "You can do anything you want, however, you are 100% responsible for anything you do." With or without your name. Just my :2cents:.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by tomcat:

...
I would not want this to become a place where everyone agrees and and is polite and kind all the time... because that wouldn't be 'real life'.

Sonoma County is NOT all 'progressive lefties' and what a boring BB this would be if it were sanitized to anyone's particular version of "reality".

I don't post on here much and I certainly don't agree with some of what is said, but I do sometimes enjoy reading the different opinions and points of view.

Thanks to you folks who are willing to speak your minds... NO MATTER WHAT!
... and to a BB that allows it.

...back to lurking

---

This is NOT an open bulletin board for all to use. This board is for the Conscious/Progressive community.

The Press Democrat runs public forums which appear to welcome "all points of view". In fact there is a discussion thread about Okili's deportation (the same subject that triggered this discussion). Check it out at Santa Rosa drummer faces deportation - Topic Powered by Eve For Enterprise

That's what "free speech" will get you. I created WaccoBB.net to host a public forum for a select community. It's not for everybody, because many people aren't interested in associating with us left-wing "wackos"; I let a select few people who are clearly not progressive and/or conscious know that they are not welcome here.

On the other hand, I have welcomed folks who wished to participate that are clearly not progressive if they are respectful. I keep a close eye on their conversations. When they create too much animosity and emotion rather than exploration, thoughtfulness and consideration I ask them to leave. Most are thankful for the opportunity and understand that it's time to go.

Absolute "freedom of speech" with no space holding leads to a dominance of very aggressive "speech" since the rudeness and violence of it drives away many other potential participants, as illustrated in the PD "discussion". Does this really support "freedom of speech"?

In my view, you can only have "freedom of speech" when people feel safe to speak. Maintaining that safety is of paramount importance for nurturing public dialog.

There are still plenty "versions of reality" (some of which are quite out there :wink:) within the progressive community. There is plenty of "disagreement" and differing opinions to go around. What I insist on, though, is that we treat each other with respect. Kindness is encouraged and meanness will not be tolerated.

Transgressions are difficult to work with, both because the standard ("respect") and the transgression are not absolute. It's not like the guideline is "42" and someone posts "37" and has thus broken the guideline. It all happens in millions of shades of gray. Some are clearer than others.

I often first engage people privately who I feel are outside the limits. Often this is sufficient, at least for a while. If I feel the need to take more drastic action (asked to leave/banning) I consult with many other people either privately or publicly. I don't take the move lightly, and in the 4years I've been running this service I may have banned less than a dozen people (besides the spammers and flat-out right wing nutjobs).

My tendency has been to "interfere" as little as possible. I have been asked many times to remove a poster or a post and I have demurred. I have preferred to use the bully pulpit instead and I should probably use it more.

As several have posted, WaccoBB.net has gotten a reputation as being a rough and unsafe place and many choose not to join or post here. This pains me and detracts from the many benefits that this community creates. I will endeavor to re-establish safety here, while not quashing free flowing dialog or the expression of opinion.

It is not a mere coincidence that most aggressive posters do so anonymously. And it's also true that there are some valid reasons for posting anonymously, as have been expressed in this thread. One key difference is that anonymity used to provide protection while revealing sensitive information about yourself is appropriate, whereas hiding behind anonymity while attacking others is not.

I have decided to maintain the current policy of requesting real names but not insisting on them. I am encouraged that most people do provide their real names and I think this greatly enhances the "personalness" of this forum. Validating real names sounds like a large hassle and there are valid situations where exceptions would need to be made.

I will be posting soon about other steps I will be taking to maintain the safety of these pages.

Barry

I vote for anonymity myself...It's a kind of privacy...And I like that for myself...And I'm fine with 'getting to know' who people are with their 'sign on' names...whether 'real' or not...

And the moderator/s seem to be doing just fine...

I've been on boards where they do have that 'ignore' button if things get too heated for someone...

Barry,
I appreciate your thoughtful and well-balanced approach, except you're leaving out a few little details.
And guess who has the nerve to bring them up.
LOL
You're running a business, Wacco is a business.
Besides avocados, you sell numbers, and numbers is what pulls in MONEY.
You can sell how many members you have, how many posts, how many visitors, how many views.
In short, traffic is what makes the difference for a business.
Now if you look at the threads and look at the ones that have something important to offer, like the the ones from Zeno, you'll find that they have a low traffic volume.
This thread on the other hand, after only one week has almost 900 views and several opinions.
There is a villain, a victim, some philosophers, an angry mob and a benevolent dictator. (It's almost like the crowd chanting to Pontius' crucify, crucify, crucify)
The ones who are above it all get to say so in public, cheered on by gratitude and applause.
The villain gets kicked around and everybody is happy.
People LOVE drama, people thrive on controversy, good cop/bad cop and it creates a lot of traffic.
It's the kind of stuff that sells newspapers and TV shows.
And it works for Wacco too.
That's why Barry likes to keep me around.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

This is NOT an open bulletin board for all to use. This board is for the Conscious/Progressive community.

The Press Democrat runs public forums which appear to welcome "all points of view". In fact there is a discussion thread about Okili's deportation (the same subject that triggered this discussion). Check it out at Santa Rosa drummer faces deportation - Topic Powered by Eve For Enterprise

That's what "free speech" will get you. I created WaccoBB.net to host a public forum for a select community. It's not for everybody, both because many people aren't interested in associating with us left-wing "wackos" and I let a select few people who are clearly not progressive and/or conscious know that they are not welcome here.

On the other hand, I have welcomed folks that wished to participate that are clearly not progressive if they are respectful. I keep a close eye on their conversations. When they create too much animosity and emotion rather that exploration, thoughtfulness and consideration I ask them to leave. Most are thankful for the opportunity and understand that it's time to go.

Absolute "freedom of speech" with no space holding leads to a dominance of very aggressive "speech" since the rudeness and violence of it drives away many other potential participants, as illustrated in the PD "discussion". Does this really support "freedom of speech"?

In my view, you can only have "freedom of speech" when people feel safe to speak. Maintaining that safety is of paramount importance for nurturing public dialog.

There are still plenty "versions of reality" (some of which are quite out there :wink:) within the progressive community. There is plenty of "disagreement" and differing opinions to go around. What I insist on, though, is that we treat each other with respect. Kindness is encouraged and meanness will not be tolerated.

Transgressions are difficult to work with, both because the standard ("respect") and the transgression are not absolute. It's not like the guideline is "42" and someone posts "37" and has thus broken the guideline. It all happens in millions of shades of gray. Some are clearer than others.

I often first engage people privately who I feel are outside the limits. Often this is sufficient, at least for a while. If I feel the need to take more drastic action (asked to leave/banning) I consult with many other people either privately or publicly. I don't take the move lightly, and in the 4years I've been running this service I may have banned less than a dozen people (besides the spammers and flat-out right wing nutjobs).

My tendency has been to "interfere" as little as possible. I have been asked many times to remove a poster or a post and I have demurred. I have preferred to use the bully pulpit instead and I should probably use it more.

As several have posted, WaccoBB.net has gotten a reputation as being a rough and unsafe place and many choose not to join or post here. This pains me and detracts from the many benefits that this community creates. I will endeavor to re-establish safety here, while not quashing free flowing dialog or the expression of opinion.

It is not a mere coincidence that most aggressive posters do so anonymously. And it's also true that there are some valid reasons for posting anonymously, as have been expressed in this thread. One key difference is that anonymity used to provide protection while revealing sensitive information about yourself is appropriate, whereas hiding behind anonymity while attacking others is not.

I have decided to maintain the current policy of requesting real names but not insisting on them. I am encouraged that most people do provide their real names and I think this greatly enhances the "personalness" of this forum. Validating real names sound like a large hassle and there are valid situations where exceptions would need to be made.

I will be posting soon about other steps I will be taking to maintain the safety of these pages.

Barry

---

A quick look at a few other thread's numbers might put your narcissism in check, but I doubt it. The more replies a thread has, the more often people who are following it will come back and view it.

This thread, at the moment, has 75 replies and 883 views.

'Too Much Junk Art in Sebastopol' has 26 replies and 471 views.

'Free Market Capitalism Replaced By?' has 10 replies and 171 views.

You do the math. Far more people are following the other threads than this one.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by MsTerry:

Barry...
You're running a business, Wacco is a business.
Besides avocados, you sell numbers, and numbers is what pulls in MONEY.
You can sell how many members you have, how many posts, how many visitors, how many views...
That's why Barry likes to keep me around.

---

OK, so you didn't read what I wrote.
Barry sells numbers!

883-75= 808
compared to
471-26= 445

You see the difference? It's 363 !
It doesn't take into account the people who'll read the digest, and the fact that once you have posted, you can follow the thread via email.
Click on this link and Barry will explain it to you himself!
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/index...h1bWJzdXAuZ2lm
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...ccobb-net.html

And as a matter of fact you proved my point, both subjects you used are controversial, hence the traffic to that thread. https://www.waccobb.net/forums/index...h1bWJzdXAuZ2lm

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by ICPP:

A quick look at a few other thread's numbers might put your narcissism in check, but I doubt it. The more replies a thread has, the more often people who are following it will come back and view it.

This thread, at the moment, has 75 replies and 883 views.

'Too Much Junk Art in Sebastopol' has 26 replies and 471 views.

'Free Market Capitalism Replaced By?' has 10 replies and 171 views.

You do the math. Far more people are following the other threads than this one.

---

I don't think that anyone is objecting to reading "different opinions" here; my objection is to people who don't mind being unkind in an effort to display their own cleverness.

The "real world" isn't kind, true enough, but I can see/read all I want to about that in the newspaper; the definition of WACCO is that it's for kind, progressive people.

All of the various "versions of reality" make for interesting and thought-provoking reading; it seems to be impossible for some posters, though, to express themselves intelligently without taking a swing at another person.

I would bet that many people have discontinued reading and posting here because of the meanness so often displayed.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by tomcat:

I like the idea of open and free here on this BB. Revealing your identity will hopefully continue to be your own choice.

I would not want this to become a place where everyone agrees and and is polite and kind all the time... because that wouldn't be 'real life'.

Sonoma County is NOT all 'progressive lefties' and what a boring BB this would be if it were sanitized to anyone's particular version of "reality".

I don't post on here much and I certainly don't agree with some of what is said, but I do sometimes enjoy reading the different opinions and points of view.

Thanks to you folks who are willing to speak your minds... NO MATTER WHAT!
... and to a BB that allows it.

...back to lurking

---

I am sure we all have done that, right Sara? (is my punctuation OK?)

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sara S:

I don't think that anyone is objecting to reading "different opinions" here; my objection is to people who don't mind being unkind in an effort to display their own cleverness.
.

---

Okay, so you don't understand basic arithmetic. There's roughly twice as many people following the other two threads as this one, in terms of direct views.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by MsTerry:

OK, so you didn't read what I wrote.
Barry sells numbers!

883-75= 808
compared to
471-26= 445

You see the difference? It's 363 !

---

Nice one! Let me know what form you'd like "some community support" to take.

Thanks, as always.

- Rex

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

Hi Everybody,

There have been several requests lately that we require people to validate their true identity

I'll probably need some community support to help implement this system.

---

Sorry, but I majored in math.
Your supposition is mere speculation since you don;t have any data to show how people are following their posts or the thread, via email, via the digest or the website..

My point was that controversy creates traffic for a website, and with your little survey you proved me right! https://www.waccobb.net/forums/index...h1bWJzdXAuZ2lm

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by ICPP:

Okay, so you don't understand basic arithmetic. There's roughly twice as many people following the other two threads as this one, in terms of direct views.

---

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/index...1tLmdpZg%3D%3D

Ummmm.... now you're really embarrassing yourself. I made no supposition or speculation, YOU did.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by MsTerry:

Sorry, but I majored in math.
Your supposition is mere speculation since you don;t have any data to show how people are following their posts or the thread, via email, via the digest or the website..

---

The ONLY data we have is that which shows more than twice as many people are following the other threads in terms of direct views.

Perhaps you know a grade school student who might be willing to explain what this means to you. Be sure to show her your cute little formula, here's a link for your convenience;
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...html#post89854

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by ICPP:

Ummmm.... now you're really embarrassing yourself. I made no supposition or speculation, YOU did.

---

This is really dumb ICCP.
I stated that controversy creates traffic, your data confirmed this idea. Traffic means how many views a thread or site gets.

you stated; There's roughly twice as many people following the other two threads as this one, in terms of direct views.
and
The more replies a thread has, the more often people who are following it will come back and view it.
You don't have anything to support your supposition..
Can you back up your claim that Far more people are following the other threads than this one.?

Hi everyone,

I haven't read all the posts here but most of them so I hope I'm not being redundant.

I value privacy. Politics is a sticky subject sometimes. Few other subjects can unknowingly whip people into bad behaviors that are not typical of their true personality and social contributions.

If we were all easily identified, I'm worried about the possibility of being red-bated at work or other civil organizations because of the political positions we declare here and not our occasional personal gaff.

In short time, we all know who the trolls and antagonizers are. I think the best way for me/us to repel the troll is to ignore them 100% and they simply go away withing days. They are like poison oak. Don't scratch it and it disappears much, much sooner.

Barry, thanks for this awsome forum. I'm not a progressive (I can't fully identify myself except to say, I am everything, so I can't put a label on me other than that) but I was born into the progressive culture and spent my early years on one early Marin commune. The progressive community is all I know, it is my home, too, even though I no longer self-identify as progressive.

We, as a family within a family, lived a hard but often happy, subsistance life since the beginning. My parents have passed before I reached an age of awareness so I have no answers for the life they brought me into. I cleave to my progressive community because its the only family I know. It's in my DNA.

Currently, I study and support only the politics of our founding fathers. I figure it is a safe place to start my road to the answers I didn't get from my parents. They had a low level contemption for traditional Americanism and I want to know why they distrusted capitalism and the West in general. So I went to the source of their distrust (in an effort to compare and contrast) and actually liked what I saw. It makes more real-world sence to me. The Right is less destructive. Now I've returned home, to this forum, to seek the answers I've wanted my entire adult life. That is, why my parents were progressives.

I've read our moderator's warning about those outside the progressive community and appreciate his guarded tolerance (though I'd rather be celebrated than tolerated) and have to ask that I myself am not considered "_" (fill in the blank) enough to contribute to this community. I am of color and suffered discrimination on the streets throughout my life and I hope progressives, of all people, don't actually turn into what they hate most.

Getting back on topic, let's keep privacy at a premium, encourage openness and bring down the heavy hammer of shun to the obvious trolls.

Thank you, I love you all!

He's right, you simply average the number of direct views per reply. The unknown views apply to all threads, and have nothing to do with your irrelevant equation or supposition.

The point is, people are bored with your trolling and are following the two other threads at more than double the rate of this one, in terms of direct views.

And don't bother sending me emails, I'll delete them unread just like the last one.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by MsTerry:

You don't have anything to support your supposition..
Can you back up your claim that Far more people are following the other threads than this one.?

---

I don't know whethe this applies here, but it's interesting:

from delancyplace.com:

In today's excerpt - the 80/20 rule, the
expression commonly used to state that a
small percentage of the total of any set
accounts for a large percentage of the output
or effect of that set:



"Have you ever heard of the 80/20 rule? It is
the common signature of a
power
law - actually it is how it all started, when
Vilfredo Pareto made
the observation that 80 percent of the land
in Italy was owned by 20 percent of the
people. Some use the rule to imply that 80
percent of the work
is done by 20 percent of the people. Or that
80 percent worth of effort
contributes to only 20 percent of results,
and vice versa.



"As far as axioms go, this one wasn't phrased
to impress you the most:
it could easily be called the 50/01 rule,
that is, 50 percent of the work
comes from 1 percent of the workers. This
formulation makes the world
took even more unfair, yet the two formulae
are exactly the same. How?
Well, if there is inequality, then those who
constitute the 20 percent in the
80/20 rule also contribute unequally - only a
few of them deliver the lion's
share of the results. This trickles down to
about one in a hundred contributing a little
more than half the total.



"The 80/20 rule is only metaphorical; it is
not a rule, even less a rigid
law. In the U.S. book business, the
proportions are more like 97/20 (i.e.,
97 percent of book sales are made by 20
percent of the authors); it's even
worse if you focus on literary nonfiction
(twenty books of close to eight
thousand represent half the sales).



"Note here that it is not all uncertainty. In
some situations you may
have a concentration, of the 80/20 type, with
very predictable and tractable
properties, which enables clear decision
making, because you can identify
beforehand where the meaningful 20
percent are. These situations are very
easy to control. For instance, Malcolm
Gladwell wrote in an article in The
New Yorker that most abuse of prisoners
is attributable to a very small
number of vicious guards. Filter those guards
out and your rate of prisoner abuse drops
dramatically. (In publishing, on the other
hand, you do
not know beforehand which book will bring
home the bacon. The same
with wars, as you do not know beforehand
which conflict will kill a
portion of the planet's residents.)"



Nassim Nicholas Taleb, The Black Swan,
Random House, Copyright 2007 by Nassim
Nicholas Taleb, pp. 235-236.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by ICPP:

Okay, so you don't understand basic arithmetic. There's roughly twice as many people following the other two threads as this one, in terms of direct views.

---