board77

If I may clarification, I posted hastily and very late at night yesterday. I'm on vacation and my head is really not here. I came for a quick check of the boards and was very taken aback by much that had been discussed and on learning Ethel's situation. I fear my words were hurtful; I regret that.

With regard to misrepresentation of the board - I did not at any time intend to imply that anyone was untruthful. I do think, though, that there was - and is - a lot of wishful thinking and naivety in the way the board is represented to those not on B77. It is very well intended - people here WANT it so much - but the unfortunate reality is that there is an anti-TORC sentiment which is very perceptible, especially on first arrival and especially if one is not inclined that way.

So please accept my apologies if anyone feels I was accusing anyone here of underhand motives in how the board is presented. I don't believe that, though on re-reading my own post and Iavas' response to it I can see how it can be read that way.

With regard to banning/resigning/removal of permissions - the idea of removing a username altogether, so that posts become anonymous, so that the name disappears from the membership list - I certainly would not suggest that, not for any MB! I agree that one cannot erase history.

That is one of the reasons that I have stayed - the fact is that I DID accept the invitation, my curiosity won over caution and doubt and I must stand by that decision, not pretend I did not make it. And indeed, I like so many of the posters here (I would say all, but I don't know everyone, some are completely unfamiliar to me), it's not that I want to see the back of you all.

It is such an irony to me that it was Ethel who persuaded me to return following my recent departure, with her suggestion that those with dissenting views from the majority can only make their views heard by verbalising them.

In any case, I did not ask to be locked out in the hope of having all the evidence of my participation removed; I'm not ashamed of my participation; I don't wish it undone. I suspect that if I'd had greater knowledge I may well have declined the invitation until such time as the board was open but that is all speculation with the benefit of hindsight and beside the point.

This is why I wanted the lock: When a poster leaves others don't really know why. Even if the poster states 'this is why', there is still the thought that perhaps the person is still following the argument via lurking. Or that s/he merely holding silence. Alternatively, perhaps the silence is even seen acquiescence, a condoning of the prevailing view.

Asking for the door to be closed behind you has nothing to do with will-power; it has to do with stating clearly, Sadly, I don't agree, and I won't participate, I won't be a fly on the wall.' I'm sure I stated it in my thread though perhaps not in so many words but as I'm on dial-up and on vacation, I really can't check it right now.

Telling me that it's not the business of the administrators (as representatives of the membership) to 'collude' with me (or whoever) in making that statement is a little too self-righteous in my view. Are there not people here who asked for a voluntary ban on TORC? And what was that about? Have they been condemned here for that action, or have they been lauded for standing on principle? Are some principles more equal than others?

In the wider world, people have been known to 'tear up their membership cards' to political parties, unions, gymnasiums, private clubs...and do the adminstrators of these institutions say, 'no, sorry, you're not allowed to resign. You can exert your powers of self-control and not walk in through the door or come to our meetings, but we won't remove you from our roll and we'll still send you all our membership minutes and developments because it makes us feel really bad that you don't want to be in our club/party/union'.

And how would you (pl) feel about an institution responding in that way?

Again - I'm not saying this in anger. I'm not saying it to make you feel bad. I'm just pointing out an alternative perspective to the dominant one here. At the time I asked to be banned I did, indeed, act in anger but even so, I felt very sad at the prospect of losing contact with so many poeple - some of whom I was only beginning to know, to my great delight.

This is not personal. I have no wish to hurt people's feelings. In many ways I have felt intimidated here because there is a heavy chorus of unhappiness - or, at best, polite acknowledgement that feels oddly cold and alien whenever my views are put forward (either by me or the few others who feel in the same way).

'Venting' seems to be open only for the those who hold a contrasting point of view - indeed, it is condoned and ellicits substantial emotional back-patting. So I have held my tongue on many matters because I see no point in fanning the flames, no point in causing offence or further pain.

But then to be told that I could not protest in even the most non-confrontational way because that was manipulative...that was very badly done, I feel.

Quote:

Are there not people here who asked for a voluntary ban on TORC? And what was that about? Have they been condemned here for that action, or have they been lauded for standing on principle? Are some principles more equal than others?

I just want to answer some of your questions, Impentinent. There are those who did ask for a ban either to get work done or whatever the reason. Personally, I don't condone even that. Here is where the will power issue comes into play. You (as a responsible poster) have to be able to walk away if the board is affecting your ability to do your job. I think, if possible, members should be able to set their own permissions if they find this too difficult. I don't see a big difference between asking to be banned because you're fed up or because you are too addicted.

I also do not think that a member's past presense should be "erased" from the board, regardless of what the member thinks. If you don't want people reading anymore of your posts, go through and edit them.

With your analogy, what information is still being sent to Ethel that would make it work? You can set your profile up (after deciding to leave) to not receive anything or show any contact information. So, really, I don't follow how the two are related.

The discussion that was formerly in this thread has been split into a new thread here. This thread can now return to its original topic.

Wilko, I accidentally included a post of yours that belongs here in the split--I'm sorry. It's on the last page of the new thread. I can't move it back for you, but maybe you could repost it here--you had an interesting point.

I'm sorry to put you to the trouble. Everything I do, just about, is for the first time and not quite done right. . . .

Prim, no problem .

---

A purely pragmatic note:

On TORC, people achieve their "statement" by just flagrantly breaking the TOS, and adding "I expect to be banned for this, of course". If people really want to be banned permanently, I don't see how you can really stop them using that tactic. I'm not sure if allowing them to be banned by request would be preferable to that?

Thanks, Prim. Now I can go back and respond to Impenitent's post in this thread like I meant to do. I'm still not sure how my post that was supposed to be in the invite thread got here instead, or why the one that I drafted here disappeared, but I'm going to try again.

Impenitent wrote:

If I may clarify, I posted hastily and very late at night yesterday. I'm on vacation and my head is really not here. I came for a quick check of the boards and was very taken aback by much that had been discussed and on learning Ethel's situation. I fear my words were hurtful; I regret that.

I certainly did not think your words were hurtful, Impy, just honest.

Quote:

With regard to misrepresentation of the board - I did not at any time intend to imply that anyone was untruthful. I do think, though, that there was - and is - a lot of wishful thinking and naivety in the way the board is represented to those not on B77. It is very well intended - people here WANT it so much - but the unfortunate reality is that there is an anti-TORC sentiment which is very perceptible, especially on first arrival and especially if one is not inclined that way.

I agree. Unfortunately, the closed nature of the board allows this kind of thing to flourish, because people say things about people who are not here that they would not otherwise say if they knew the people they were talking about could read them. That needs to change.

Quote:

So please accept my apologies if anyone feels I was accusing anyone here of underhand motives in how the board is presented. I don't believe that, though on re-reading my own post and Iavas' response to it I can see how it can be read that way.

I did not feel that way.

Quote:

With regard to banning/resigning/removal of permissions - the idea of removing a username altogether, so that posts become anonymous, so that the name disappears from the membership list - I certainly would not suggest that, not for any MB! I agree that one cannot erase history.

I agree. When I posted before that I thought Ethel should have been removed from the membership list altogether at her request I did not realize that it would have this effect.

Quote:

That is one of the reasons that I have stayed - the fact is that I DID accept the invitation, my curiosity won over caution and doubt and I must stand by that decision, not pretend I did not make it. And indeed, I like so many of the posters here (I would say all, but I don't know everyone, some are completely unfamiliar to me), it's not that I want to see the back of you all.

Well said.

Quote:

It is such an irony to me that it was Ethel who persuaded me to return following my recent departure, with her suggestion that those with dissenting views from the majority can only make their views heard by verbalising them.

Impy, I wonder whether you would be willing to gently remind Ethel of her words to you. We really need her here.

Quote:

In any case, I did not ask to be locked out in the hope of having all the evidence of my participation removed; I'm not ashamed of my participation; I don't wish it undone. I suspect that if I'd had greater knowledge I may well have declined the invitation until such time as the board was open but that is all speculation with the benefit of hindsight and beside the point.

This is why I wanted the lock: When a poster leaves others don't really know why. Even if the poster states 'this is why', there is still the thought that perhaps the person is still following the argument via lurking. Or that s/he merely holding silence. Alternatively, perhaps the silence is even seen acquiescence, a condoning of the prevailing view.

Asking for the door to be closed behind you has nothing to do with will-power; it has to do with stating clearly, Sadly, I don't agree, and I won't participate, I won't be a fly on the wall.' I'm sure I stated it in my thread though perhaps not in so many words but as I'm on dial-up and on vacation, I really can't check it right now.

Thank you for explaining that so clearly.

Quote:

Telling me that it's not the business of the administrators (as representatives of the membership) to 'collude' with me (or whoever) in making that statement is a little too self-righteous in my view. Are there not people here who asked for a voluntary ban on TORC? And what was that about? Have they been condemned here for that action, or have they been lauded for standing on principle? Are some principles more equal than others?

Very excellent point. I myself, while not asking to be banned, stated at TORC that expected to be banned for my actions (even though I did not think my actions justified being banned).

As for the question "are some principles more equal than others," yes they are, at least in my mind. Principles that are based on mutual respect and courtesy are greater then principles that are based solely on self-interest, in my mind. That has nothing to do with asking to get banned either here or at TORC, but I did want to make clear my answer to that question. I suspect that it is not all that different from your own.

Quote:

In the wider world, people have been known to 'tear up their membership cards' to political parties, unions, gymnasiums, private clubs...and do the adminstrators of these institutions say, 'no, sorry, you're not allowed to resign. You can exert your powers of self-control and not walk in through the door or come to our meetings, but we won't remove you from our roll and we'll still send you all our membership minutes and developments because it makes us feel really bad that you don't want to be in our club/party/union'.

And how would you (pl) feel about an institution responding in that way?

Good analogy.

Quote:

Again - I'm not saying this in anger. I'm not saying it to make you feel bad. I'm just pointing out an alternative perspective to the dominant one here. At the time I asked to be banned I did, indeed, act in anger but even so, I felt very sad at the prospect of losing contact with so many poeple - some of whom I was only beginning to know, to my great delight.

I for one do not (and never have) questioned your motives. I have great respect for your principles, and as I said above I don't think they are any different in any substantial way from my own.

Quote:

This is not personal. I have no wish to hurt people's feelings. In many ways I have felt intimidated here because there is a heavy chorus of unhappiness - or, at best, polite acknowledgement that feels oddly cold and alien whenever my views are put forward (either by me or the few others who feel in the same way).

I think you would be surprised to learn that there is a lot more common ground then you think there is.

Quote:

'Venting' seems to be open only for the those who hold a contrasting point of view - indeed, it is condoned and ellicits substantial emotional back-patting. So I have held my tongue on many matters because I see no point in fanning the flames, no point in causing offence or further pain.

Impy, I too have held my tongue on many matters to avoid fanning the flames. I see now that that was probably a mistake. We need to get all of these issues out in the open and settled or this place truly does not have a future.

It is my desire that the guiding principles of board77 be those of mutual respect, courtesy, and openness to others. We have a long way to go to reach that goal (if it is indeed a goal that others share)

Quote:

But then to be told that I could not protest in even the most non-confrontational way because that was manipulative...that was very badly done, I feel.

I agree, but I for one never made this point. Any effort that I have made to keep you (or Ethel) from leaving is founded on exactly the principle that you quoted Ethel as saying to you: we need you here.

Voronwe and Imp,

I am going to respectfully disagree with one point that seems to be taken as a "right" of B77. From your post, Mr. V. -

Impy, I too have held my tongue on many matters to avoid fanning the flames. I see now that that was probably a mistake. We need to get all of these issues out in the open and settled or this place truly does not have a future.

Voronwe, one of the things I have always admired about you is that you do not fly off the handle thoughtlessly, and I would not like to see that change. Not that your honest opinions would ever be thoughtless ... but I think that many of the "crises" we have experienced on B77 have begun because people did speak thoughtlessly, believing it was their right here to express any and all opinions in whatever language sprang to hand.

Every time an insult is delivered and an apology pulled from the person afterwords, the rationale is nearly always given along these lines: I thought this was a place where I could express my opinion freely.

Thoughtful opinions are always welcome. Thoughtless, self-righteous, or personally hurtful criticism is never welcome.

The fact that there is more openness on B77 than there is on TORC does not mean that civilization comes to an end when we register here. It is still incumbent upon us to think before we post, and to take into account the consequences of our words, and to own up to those words once we have spoken them, and apologize when necessary, and learn from our mistakes.

By and large, we've all done a good job of apologizing when we realize we've caused hurt, but best of all is for us to internalize those lessons and not throw, or allow ourselves to be thrown, into fits of anger over and over again. I have to say that this board could do with a whole heck of a lot more common courtesy, and I really wish that we would all commit to working on this virtue.

Jn

Jn, thanks for the gentle reminder. But I think you pretty much are agreeing with me. I would be pretty hypocritical of me to call for an atmosphere of mutual respect and courtesy and openness to others and then do so in a way that is thoughtless and hurtful. I hope that I never come across that way.

That having been said, at some point some of these issues are going to have to be put on the table and discussed so that a concensus can be reached (or not reached) at exactly what our guiding principles are. This discussion will need to take place among the full board, not just the constitutional committee.

Yes, I agree.

Members asking to be banned is on the table right now. And everyone will get a chance to ratify/or not.

Jn

wilko185 wrote:

A purely pragmatic note:

On TORC, people achieve their "statement" by just flagrantly breaking the TOS, and adding "I expect to be banned for this, of course". If people really want to be banned permanently, I don't see how you can really stop them using that tactic. I'm not sure if allowing them to be banned by request would be preferable to that?

I think that tactic is likely to be used far less often than saying "Please ban me," which has already been done several times.

I expect there will be many fewer instantly bannable offenses that an established member can commit here--criminal behavior and not too much else. The road to getting banned is going to be fairly long and complicated, probably ending with a vote of the membership that will take almost three weeks.

So, no instant "statement" there.

One of my favorite proverbs about the Jewish community is: We don't let you live but we won't let you die.

I sort of envision our system like that. You can walk away and not look back but you can't commit ritual suicide because your membership in the community counts to everyone.

Jn

Jnyusa wrote:

Voronwe and Imp,

I am going to respectfully disagree with one point that seems to be taken as a "right" of B77. From your post, Mr. V. -

Impy, I too have held my tongue on many matters to avoid fanning the flames. I see now that that was probably a mistake. We need to get all of these issues out in the open and settled or this place truly does not have a future.

Voronwe, one of the things I have always admired about you is that you do not fly off the handle thoughtlessly, and I would not like to see that change...

Jn

I hope I am not to take that comment as meaning that my post above was both thoughtless and flying off the handle?

I have attempted here to make my point as gently, diplomatically and honestly as possible. You think it is nevertheless rude and inflamatory? If so, then I must give up indeed, for I can't see any way forward for me.

These issues are important to me. I do feel a double standard; I do feel a cold blanket of disapprobation spread over dissent. I feel I must gag myself to maintain cordial relationships.

If this is what is expected of me, of anyone, then why stay? I am not interested in participating in a community in which those standards hold sway.

Impy, I think Jn I was talking mostly to me. Anyway, I hope you read my response to you, and not just Jn's comment.

I don't think that's what Jny meant...I think she was just trying to make us ALL aware that even though our points may be valid, the way we try to make others understand them matters a lot. We all want to say what we think, but we also tend to get insulted when other people don't think the same...I think it's still the TORC syndrome...we think we need to do something rash to be heard at all...we get defensive, thinking our voice will be drowned in people saying 'everything's okay'...

We're all learning I think.

I see several reasons why we are getting so defensive. Most of us here are the walking wounded - we've been hurt by or disillusioned by people on another message board. So maybe we are just more sensitive than the average poster. If we were too young and clueless about the problems on the other message board, or had less invested emotionally, we'd still be there, not here.

We're also going through a mourning process, giving up the great thing we thought we had. And depression, even a little healthy sadness from letting go of something, can also make people sensitive.

Add to that new found sensitivity - each of our own feelings - not necessarily others' - mixed with the crusty old personas that some of us used to have in Manwe and Movies, and you have ample opportunity for sarcastic remarks to be taken personally as affronts, rather than as familiarity.

Then add to that the problem of trying to create something here on B77. It isn't going to look like the other message board, ever. And it still has growing pains, and doesn't suit anyone perfectly, or even half way perfectly. But we dare not be openly dissatisfied with something of our own making.

Then there's the self-policing aspect. On a heavily moderated message board, you have to word things more carefully. Here you can be off the cuff and misunderstood.

Then of course there is that niggling problem about Europeans not understanding Americans and visa versa. There is a much higher ratio of internationality here. (Note: this is a joke, OK?)

Or maybe it's just spring fever, for us northern hemispherites.

Personally, I'm just crabby because I'm here inspite of myself, instead of finishing my late homework.

Primula_Baggins wrote:

wilko185 wrote:

A purely pragmatic note:

On TORC, people achieve their "statement" by just flagrantly breaking the TOS, and adding "I expect to be banned for this, of course". If people really want to be banned permanently, I don't see how you can really stop them using that tactic. I'm not sure if allowing them to be banned by request would be preferable to that?

I think that tactic is likely to be used far less often than saying "Please ban me," which has already been done several times.

Well it will be, if the option to be banned by request is there (which is sort of my point ).

Quote:

I expect there will be many fewer instantly bannable offenses that an established member can commit here

It only needs one (eg copying the Invites forum to someone?)

Quote:

The road to getting banned is going to be fairly long and complicated, probably ending with a vote of the membership that will take almost three weeks.

So, no instant "statement" there.

No matter what the gap between the rule-violation/member leaving, and the formal decision of the vote, I think people can still make a "statement" by getting banned, if they choose. I agree, it's not likely to be tried much though.

Quote:

It only needs one (eg copying the Invites forum to someone?)

First of all, that was never suggested to be a bannable offense.

Secondly, there won't BE an Invites forum when we open.

Impy, I had a post here yesterday which got moved to the new thread... I'm not sure if you saw it.

I just wanted to say, as Voronwe has said in a more graceful way , that you are not as alone as you think. I for one appreciate your honesty in expressing your feelings, and I am glad we have your input here. We need your thoughts, and we need you.

I read what jn wrote, and though I cannot speak for her, I felt that her comments were not directed at you at all.

Her comments were, I feel, directed to all of us to consider our posts' impact when we make them. Not bad advice, really... and a good reminder from a kind friend.

No, we are not as tightly policed here as we were on TORC, and freedom of expression is a good thing... but it carries a bit of responsibility. Again, this is not directed to you at all, Impy... I feel like you have been very cordial in your comments.

But I think that Jn teh Wise has a good point. We are all stewards of our own words.

About the actual question here:

I wrote:

As to the actual question posed here: again, I think we are in a very volatile, very temporary situation here. There are LOTS of growing pains.

Bound to be. Completely expected, that. Bad case of the normals!

Perhaps we should just shelve any new rules made to address this recent phenom of people asking to be banned... we know that it may not persist after we're an open board.

No drastic measures, right now; no voluntary bannings, no rules about NOT voluntary banning, nothing like that... not right now.

We can hang in there for the very short while until we open up, I think.

We really are okay.

Edit: for clarity.

Anth! Sorry. . . .

I need an "abasing myself" smiley. I thought Wilko's was the only post I missed.



And it was an excellent post. Both the old bit and the new bit.



I think we do need to address this bit of the rules, because it fits in a section of the charter that needs to go in front of the membership as soon as possible. If we don't take care of it now, we'd have to go back much later, in a separate process, to amend the charter (and working out how we do that is pretty far down the agenda).

This is another way of pointing out that discussing self-banning now isn't a reaction to anything anyone has said or done; it's just where we are on the agenda.

Oh, and Anthy:

Prim: no, no, NO! It is SO not a big deal!

No need to , my friend; moving my comments here was EASY stuff. Completely no sweat.

I could have been more considerate of the way you might read my post when I wrote it; I didn't even think about your moving my previous post as problematic, and therefore wasn't at all aware that I might be implying that. Not at all!

I really just wanted Impy to see it, if she hadn't already.

BTW: I am in awe of you for taking on this responsibility. I appreciate all that you do, for all of us. In a really big way!

Prim ROCKS!

It's not that much. Really--there aren't even new members to process right now. And everyone is so nice. And there's no TOS. And I haven't been issued my metal-edged ruler yet.

Frankly, I could phone this stuff in.