board77

NOTE: If some of you wonder where some of their posts have gone, they're here.

Thank you, rowanberry!

TORN the sad and forlorn wrote:

[at the risk of jinxing things . . .]


:cheers :cheers :cheers . . . in celebration of a full 48 hours without a post in a certain forum that an outsider might otherwise mistake as a watering hole for those wishing to discuss the latest news in the cycling world!!! May the tide be fully turned!!! :cheers :cheers :cheers

Hey, it's been almost a week without a post there!

But, TORN, don't you think that it's better to have the stuff in the Bike Racks than all over the board, upsetting threads?

Moving something to the bike racks can cool people down, too. It makes them realise they are having a serious argument, where before they were only giving in to the spur of the moment. Because of that they have a much better chance to look at the problem reasonably and maybe solve it.

While I agree that every quarrel is a reason for a emoticon, seeing a new post in the bike racks is no reason for one, IMO.

truehobbit wrote:

But, TORN, don't you think that it's better to have the stuff in the Bike Racks than all over the board, upsetting threads?

Not automatically.

Snipping out bits of thread this way may (I am not saying that it did, but it may) significantly change the appearance of the debate. It may make it seem that everybody is agreeing and getting along nicely. It also may (not saying that id did) become a repressive tool, where someone expresses a dissenting opinion, another poster gets upset by it and - boom! the dissention is in the BikeRacks. Something to watch out for.

That said, I wish this came up back in the thread committee. We could have added an option to split posts that qualify as a personal attack under today's rule into the BikeRacks and kept the "discussion" intact.

ETA: I went to the BikeRack thread, and I feel that the split was broader than necessary. The only truly personal issue I observed here was TrueHobbits frustration with Impenitent's use of word "fabrication". The rest of the discussion IMO was civil and constructive. Ethel's post was emotional, but again people replied constructively to it. And we lost Jny's thoughtful, and very relevant IMO, post.

I wonder if instead of splitting off posts, TH would consider inviting Impy into a separate BikeRacks thread, as Voronwe has done in the past.

Frelga wrote:

I feel that the split was broader than necessary.

I kind of agree since those posts did pertain to bridge building. Though, I think there was a very good chance things could get sour.

Do you think we are bridge-building here?

Actually, I should re-state that: I'm glad that your feeling is that the process of bridge-building is continuing in a constructive way.

I've had my doubts, in view of the ongoing acrimony, but I guess it's a process of one step forwards, one step back.

Frelga, I don't agree. I wish you had chosen to make your post in the bike racks rather than here, but I have to comment where your post is.
Imp's choice of words in commenting to me is one thing. I'll happily discuss it with her in the bike racks, if she wants to.
However, repeating the same stuff of feeling treated with hostility when someone doesn't agree with you (which is was both Imp and Ethel's posts said) is another, added to this is bringing up a point we had said few weeks ago should in the future go to the bike racks.
It's a good thing that people on this board calm down and forget their anger from previous discussions.
But there is also a time, I think, that we have to start acting according to our words.
We have been asking and arguing and warning and pleading, that the repetition of this one theme, especially in terms that do not contribute to a rational solution, should stop interrupting each and every thread here. Apparently to no avail. At some point you have to let action follow your words.
And Jny's post isn't lost, it is right there for all to read!

I disagree with you. Continuity of the discussion is valuable, dissenting viewpoints are valuable and IMO Rowanberry's action was a little too pre-emptive, but never mind, it is done and she acted as she thought was best and appropriate at the time.

I think you should let it go, but of course it your decision if you want to hold on to that stuff.

I'm not trying to be stubborn, I'm just trying to explain why I think the split was correct.

I think there was no continuing discussion - the whole page before the split is off-topic. The discussion only began with the post where rowanberry started the split, and it was not about bridge-building, it was again the board being charged with hostility etc - a subject we've been through ever so often now, that we can't let it enter into all the threads anymore, IMO.

The bike racks is not for punishment or to get rid of unpleasant discussion - on the contrary, discussion is meant to be continued there, in a more constructive way than it would be possible in a place where it's in the middle of another subject! That's why I think TORN has no reason to be saddened by seeing new posts in the bike racks.

Jnyusa wrote:

You asked me if I was telling you to "pipe down," to which I answered that you by yourself are not annoying. But you are one of many voices all saying the same thing in different ways - that you don't like us and are not one of us - and the aggregation of complaint has exceeded what any reasonable person would agree to listen to ad nauseum, especially from those who insist they are not 'one of us.' If you continue to insist on voicing complaints against us at this moment in time, then yes, you become part of the problem.

Lumping any and all "negative" voices on the board into a single of chorus of dissent seems overly defensive to me. [If there really *is* a unified chorus of complaint, maybe you should be willing to accept the possibility that the complainants might have a point btw, but that's a different issue]. I'm not sure what "complaints" about the board you think I've made in this thread, or where I've said that I don't like you (?). "I'm not one of you"? Not because of what I've posted in this thread, I hope, since several people seem to agree with me. No doubt I have have said things along these lines, but a link to the proper context woud be nice, please? I am not altogether on anyone's side, because no one is altogether on my side. I don't kid myself that I'm just one of the gang here, but I wouldn't have expected you to lapse into such Bush-esque "you're either with us or against us" attitudes.

Quote:

There's a right time and a right place and a right duration for everything, Wilko. It is very unlike you to adopt extreme postures for the sake of argument.

How have my "arguments" in this thread (I thought they were more like "observations") been "extreme"?

Quote:

We are not obligated to spend our entire posting lives discussing our deficiencies with you just because you happen to find it relevant and want to do it. We also have our needs and we have the right to assert them.

I've actually said comparatively little in this thread, and I'm not sure what you're getting so worked up about. But if I see something I disagree with, I like to say so. You are free to ignore me and this thread, of course.

Quote:

You hold animosity towards us and make no secret of it.

Links and quotes please? And who is this monolithic "us"?

Quote:

That makes your criticism belligerent, not kindly, not entirely constructive, you see, but a product of resentment as well as reason.

It's quite ironic, but I would probably have never come back to this board, if you hadn't requested my input (twice) on an old problem thread here. I don't think my attitude is substantially different than it ever was. If you now see me in a different context, I suggest it's because your context has changed, not mine.

Quote:

Is self-restraint on the part of others really too much to ask? Are edits, locks, and bans the only things that you understand? Are you so not-an-adult that we have to send you to your room without dinner before you will cooperate with the rest of the family?

Words almost fail me at this. No, sorry, I will not ignore things I disagree with, just because you want bad things to go away.

Quote:

Wilko, I really can't believe I'm having this conversation with you of all people. You have always been one of the first to recognize when enough is enough and to find the path of cooperation.

Well on my part, I'm somewhat dismayed at your comments and attitude, I must say. I'm sorry that you're apparently so threatened by my posts, but until I can understand why I don't think I'll change my approach much.

Quote:

I intend to make sure that nothing else gets in the way of our celebration on August 18 by firmly asking people who continue to ruffle feathers and inflame issues to please stop.

Duly noted. You may observe that I've only been replying to repsonses in this thread, nothing more.

Ax wrote:

We have constructed what we are going to in regards to the narrow question, re: the binding vote on retiring wilko's thread. Thus, yes, at this point any ADDITIONAL criticsim on the same point is becoming counterproductive.

Who here was even offering any ADDITIONAL criticism on that point?

Quote:

The broader issue, which seems to be whether we can please everyone, all the time, whether they are here or not, is thankfully insoluble and thus not worth discussing.

Paraphrasing the "broader issue" in that ridiculous way does indeed make it seem pointless. However, going from that to "there can therefore be nothing to discuss" is rather glib, I feel.

truehobbit wrote:

Quote:

Quote:

I definitely agree that some assurance of intent should be asked!

Indeed, but my earlier point was that it would seem polite and sensible for that to be pre-empted, and for one to be offered by the party making the approach.

Well, yes - but that doesn't invalidate what I said, does it?

I wasn't disagreeing with you, just saying that ideally there would be no need to ask.

Quote:

Quote:

Sorry, I didn't realise that I was being misleading. It's a good job that my hypothetical question was not actually used then .

If that's indeed the case, yes - it sounded rather like the standard thing to ask of people who wanted to come back.

You mean you thought I was giving you a standard question that the TORC admin use? I was speaking off the top of my head, and as far as I'm aware there are no "standard questions" - every case is different after all.

Quote:

You are simply saying that everybody contributes something in the broadest possible sense - i.e. they post, and don't try to bring down the board with it.

"Not bringing the board down" is not the same as "contributing" .

Quote:

This doesn't seem to have anything to do with what I was saying, which was merely an argument of logic – trying to show that two views that you supported are contradictory.

I'm sorry, I really don't understand you here. I don't support both views. I disagree with the one about individuals not contributing (you said this "premise" arose from your own musings and something Jonathan posted a few months ago - have I also implied it in my own posts somewhere?).

On points of strict logic:

Quote:

If you contribute something which makes the board better, then stopping doing that, makes it worse.

Not necessarily, it may leave it unchanged. Unless you view stasis as a bad thing, which is perfectly valid (like the shark, a board must move forward or drown).

Quote:

If not posting can't make a board worse, posting can't make it better.

I don't see how that follows. I think refraining from posting can make a board worse ... and there are always circumstances where the inverse may be true.

Sorry, I feel tied up in knots here, I don't get what you mean.

Quote:

I used myself as example: if I stopped posting, I would be affected, my friends would (hopefully) be affected - but there would be enough people who wouldn't even notice.

"Enough" for what?

Quote:

There are quite a few people of the original members who hardly post anymore. Once in a while I think "haven't seen soandso for ages" - but it doesn't really harm "the board" that they are busy with other things now, even though it would be nice to have them around.
Or just look at the recent post on TORC, somebody asking "where's Star-of-hope?" - someone as seemingly integral to the boards not being missed for two years!

One person doesn't notice (or rather, forgets) that one other person has been absent for a lot longer than they thought. That doesn't mean the board didn't feel their loss. Yes, it's all a question of degree. I've never tried to argue that any particular loss will cause a certain level of angst. There are cuts and nicks, and there are gashes and amputations. They all hurt though, on some level. And leave scars which may or may not heal, and also may teach lessons, which may or may not be heeded.

Quote:

However, there may well come a time when you've had enough (as you very well know!) - but we don't shut anyone up here, and if Jny sounded a bit exasperated, she still doesn't forbid you to speak, and she still doesn't stop replying!
She just asks you to drop it for a while.

Private conversations are one thing. If this were one, I wouldn't keep on replying to Jnyusa once she made it clear she finds it unhelpful. However, this is a public discussion, which others are carrying on by jumping in here. At which point should I leave questions unanswered, and points I disagree with unchallenged?

TLE wrote:

If you want to influence anything on this board, go vote and discuss the ratifications at hand, or you should even have become involved in the earlier ratifications when you had the chance.

You were in here early. You had a chance to influence, just like the rest of us, how this board would go. You didn't seize that opportunity. What is this board? An experiment in internet democracy, that's all.

Like 90% of this board, I have not been much involved in ratifying the charter, but I also don't have any problems with what has been done with it. This is a complete red herring, I have no issues with the structure of the board.

Quote:

When you started to complain about hidden messages in the byline, I think that's when I started to lose interest in your posts in this thread.

Two points here:

I had no complaint.

I think this is where you actually lost interest.

Wilko, I fear we are talking past each other.

Of course you must be free to respond if people address you and you are of course free to continue your discussion with Truehobbit.

The point where I became uncomfortable with the first topic you introduced was when members started to talk seriously about changing our name to please hypothetical TORCers. That surpasses my tolerance for self-flagellation.

My tolerance for the "who me?" response has also been surpassed here and in several other places so I am taking your advise and ignoring this thread.

Jn

Quote:

Who here was even offering any ADDITIONAL criticism on that point?

I choose my words poorly. What I should have said was, "anyone still offering criticism related to the narrow point." And everything I've seen is still related to the fact that a couple of people got offended when we actually acted in a fashion desgined NOT to offend them, and how somehow this is OUR collective fault for not being sufficiently nice to folks some of us were still pissed at SIX FUCKING MONTHS AGO.

THIS IS A WASTE OF TIME AND BOARD SPACE. IF IT COMES UP AGAIN AFTER THE BINDING VOTE I WILL IMMEDIATELY ASK THAT THE OFFENDING POST AND THE POSTER BE MOVED TO THE BIKE RACKS.

As to the broader issue: I basically don't give a shit what anyone not on this board thinks of what we do on this board. I used to, a little, but at this point, after giving some inches and seeing some miles taken, I just don't think anyone who continually declares themselves an outsider here has anything constructive to offer us that we can't figure out ourselves without the guilt trip.

Jnyusa wrote:

Wilko, I fear we are talking past each other.

I feel that I'm hearing you loud and clear. But if you really feel unable to respond to any of my points or questions, then I'm at a loss.

Quote:

The point where I became uncomfortable with the first topic you introduced was when members started to talk seriously about changing our name to please hypothetical TORCers. That surpasses my tolerance for self-flagellation.

And you took it up with those posters, quite rightly. Yet you obliquely blame me for even broaching the topic, it seems.

Quote:

My tolerance for the "who me?" response has also been surpassed here and in several other places so I am taking your advise and ignoring this thread.

Forgive me for asking you to back up your accusations against me. I cannot help (and do not know) what has happened in other places, I only see that you are refusing to address the points in this thread.

wilko, I know Jny can speak for herself much better, but I should like to point out that you are responding to a post which she has already qualified in a later post, in which she regretted her harshness.

Quote:

truehobbit wrote:

You are simply saying that everybody contributes something in the broadest possible sense - i.e. they post, and don't try to bring down the board with it.

"Not bringing the board down" is not the same as "contributing" .

I'm sorry, but I think in your own definition of "contribute" it is.

Quote:

Quote:

If you contribute something which makes the board better, then stopping doing that, makes it worse.

Not necessarily, it may leave it unchanged.

No, the opposite of "better" is "worse".
If the circuit is closed, and this corresponds to the electricity going through, then if it is opened, this can't correspond to "unchanged", it will correspond to the opposite.

Quote:

Quote:

If not posting can't make a board worse, posting can't make it better.

I don't see how that follows.

It's the same as the above, just the other way round.

I'm really only talking of logic here, I don't for one minute believe that logic has anything to do with how human relationships work - and human relationships are what a messageboard is.

Quote:

Quote:

I used myself as example: if I stopped posting, I would be affected, my friends would (hopefully) be affected - but there would be enough people who wouldn't even notice.

"Enough" for what?

Enough for an outsider to say "the board wasn't affected".

Quote:

One person doesn't notice (or rather, forgets) that one other person has been absent for a lot longer than they thought. That doesn't mean the board didn't feel their loss.

It doesn't meant that it did feel it either.
But these were only examples - I can't tell how many people notice or don't notice someone's absence. I used these examples to show that no matter how essential someone's presence feels to their friends, it is always possible that an outsider sees "the board" as unaffected by their absence.

I guess that's because there's no such thing as "the board".

Quote:

Yes, it's all a question of degree. I've never tried to argue that any particular loss will cause a certain level of angst. There are cuts and nicks, and there are gashes and amputations. They all hurt though, on some level. And leave scars which may or may not heal, and also may teach lessons, which may or may not be heeded.

That's good to hear, and I agree.

Quote:

Private conversations are one thing. If this were one, I wouldn't keep on replying to Jnyusa once she made it clear she finds it unhelpful. However, this is a public discussion, which others are carrying on by jumping in here. At which point should I leave questions unanswered, and points I disagree with unchallenged?

I don't know - at what point do you normally decide to leave off?
As I said previously, personally I don't find this discussion unsettling, and the fact that a big discussion has arisen from a quite minor point you raised in an aside-fashion shows that people are interested in discussing this, so I really appreciate you coming back to the discussion, but I also notice that this is quite unusual for you, even in messageboard discussions.
(However, you could, for example, have accepted Jny's later, and freely given, qualifications of the post you have replied to as sufficient reason not to challenge her again on things she had already taken back. )

I'm sorry, there are one or two questions missing I need yet to reply to, but it's late and I can't look up the stuff I'd need to answer them.

I feel that I'm hearing you loud and clear.

Somewhere between the 100% that you think you are hearing and the 0% that I think you are hearing the truth can probably be found.

It really is better for me to just leave this conversation alone from here on out. We have gone too far off-topic.

Jn

Ax wrote:

Quote:

Who here was even offering any ADDITIONAL criticism on that point?

I choose my words poorly. What I should have said was, "anyone still offering criticism related to the narrow point." And everything I've seen is still related to the fact that a couple of people got offended when we actually acted in a fashion desgined NOT to offend them, and how somehow this is OUR collective fault for not being sufficiently nice to folks some of us were still pissed at SIX FUCKING MONTHS AGO.

THIS IS A WASTE OF TIME AND BOARD SPACE. IF IT COMES UP AGAIN AFTER THE BINDING VOTE I WILL IMMEDIATELY ASK THAT THE OFFENDING POST AND THE POSTER BE MOVED TO THE BIKE RACKS.

And I will ask what part of the Charter, quoted below, would serve as a basis for such action? I don't see it -- or at least I don't see how anything said in this thread is sufficiently close to the circumstances covered by the Charter to have triggered such a remark, for IMHO everything in this thread and the split portion moved to Bike Racks already [other than perhaps some spamming unrelated to what we're talking about] falls well within the penumbra of issues that might reasonably be anticipated to arise in a discussion of bridge-building between B77 and TORC.

I don't see how these pretty much on-topic (although arguably repetitive and unpopular and possibly of questionable motives [I'm not saying they're questionable, but I think some have raised this inference]) can objectively be considered "off-topic discussions that are derailing a thread but do not warrant a thread of their own" -- and, btw, by moving the discussion, hasn't there in fact been created a thread in which the "offending" views will continue to be discussed? Sorry, TH, but although I don't attribute an intent on your's or Rowanberry's part to do this by moving that discussion to Bike Racks, it really does give the impression that the discussion/views moved are being ghetto-ized.

In addition, I don't see how these admittedly somewhat quarrelsome or conceivably disruptive posts "threaten to impinge on member rights."

I think some people are just tired of the discussions, which you have every right to be. However, please do not use the newly created mechanisms of power to achieve a goal for which they were not intended to be used. I would hate to see this logic applied to the many many many riotous beatings of dead horses that have occurred over the years on LOTR discussions, I just don't see why the fact that the topic is different should make the results different.

IMO, one very unfortunate off-shoot of creating intricate mechanisms of governance is that, consciously or subconsciously, people tend to be drawn toward using them simply because they exist.

Quote:

Article 5: Dispute Resolution in the Outside Forum
Ratified June 20, 2005

¶1: The Bike Racks Forum
The Bike Racks Forum is a read and write forum available to all members. It is used for:
• resolving disputes between individual members when these disputes do not involve a violation of board rules;
• off-topic discussions that are derailing a thread but do not warrant a thread of their own;
• restricting posters who have provided invalid email addresses.

Members may start a thread in that forum to resolve a personal dispute.

Rangers at their discretion may split quarrelsome or disruptive posts and move them to the Bike Racks if they threaten to impinge on member rights.

EDITED TO FIX SOME FUNKY FORMATTING.

I don't know whether the split was done precisely right or not—it's done, and I don't want to second-guess the decision. Whether it was done perfectly or not, no serious harm was done. It's not like a locking or editing or deletion.

That said, I agree with TORN that the BikeRacks as an externally imposed solution need to be applied with extreme care. In this case the fact that some unrelated posts were swept up in the move could give the impression that a particular discussion was being discouraged by official action. (I do not at all believe that this was the case. But's it's an impression we should do our best to avoid giving.)

That said, I also want to point out that what Ax was saying (with great gusto) was only that he would ask that the discussion be moved, which is any member's right at any time. Particular conditions don't have to be in place for the request to be made, just for the action to be taken.

Primmy wrote:

I also want to point out that what Ax was saying (with great gusto) was only that he would ask that the discussion be moved, which is any member's right.

Understood, to which I replied "And I will ask what part of the Charter . . . would serve as a basis for such action?", where "action" was intended to refer to "moving to the bike rack", not "asking that it be moved to the bike rack" (although, admittedly, I did type a few more words after that)

[EDITED TO ADD A CLARIFICATION]

I think this is the part of the charter Ax is using:

Quote:

To address personal disputes in the Bike Racks forum, and in other forums to post free of disruptions caused by the personal disputes of others.

I do agree we need to be careful about moving posts to the bikeracks. I think it needs to be pretty serious otherwise it will look bad.