Requiring true identity to post on WaccoBB.net?

[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.

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.

[MsTerry]

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

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.

["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

[MsTerry]

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.

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

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.

[MsTerry]

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?

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

[Barry]

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

[hales]

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).

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.

[MsTerry]

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

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

[Philip Tymon]

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)

[MsTerry]

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

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.

[photolite]

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.
Photo

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.

[Dynamique]

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

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.

[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.

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.

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?

[fluteman]

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!

[nurturetruth]

---

Dynamique wrote:
"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."

*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]

[Tars]

1. Barry should

2. People can "apply" to Barry

3. People can "apply" to Barry

Barry can warn them and/or revoke the privilege.

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.

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.

[MsTerry]

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.

[JuliaB]

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

[MsTerry]

---

* 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?

*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?

[MsTerry]

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.

[Sylph]

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.

[Zeno Swijtink]

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.

[Sylph]

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.

[MsTerry]

Very thoughtful!

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.

[nurturetruth]

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!


Guideline 1
Ask great questions. Share what you know. Express viewpoints and perspectives respectfully.

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.

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.

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

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.

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!

[alanora]

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?

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.

[Valley Oak]

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

[hales]

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)

[ICPP]

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.

[MsTerry]

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.