From: Jake Sapiens (every1hz@earthlink.net)
Date: Mon Oct 06 2003 - 03:41:17 MDT
I haven't read every message in this thread, but generally I find Mermaid
and Hermit arguing about the degree of control we wish to exert over the
things people say and the ways they act to each other in CoV. I would
point out that continually referring to this as a "disciplinary process"
comes across as needlessly condescending and to me implies an excess in
attempting to control others. I would rather refer to it as simply a
"moderation process". Discipline certainly stands out as something that we
can and would value for the sake of self improvement, but once we have
passed childhood we humans generally don't seem to respond very positively
to external attempts to impose discipline. We do tend to become more
disciplined as individuals when we find a purpose to do so, and tend remain
truer to the disciplines we have nurtured ourselves rather than those we
have adopted to oblige others. I guess I could be wrong about that, but
that seems to reflect my experiences anyway.
I don't find as imperative as Hermit seems to imply that we really get down
and start parsing out all "rudeness" however subtle from our posts or else
face the discipline of the community. I don't say this as any defense of
rudeness, but just as a reasonable acknowledgement of both the unnecessity
and the impracticality of such an undertaking. That said, I think we can
definitely address some of the lower, dumber, more obviously explicit,
schoolyard/bathroom cases of insult and ad hominem. I guess the idea for
me simplifies down to a couple of principles #1) that if you intend to
insult someone, that you should at least expend the effort to wrap it up
intelligently enough so it doesn't seem so obvious to the casual browser
even if it translates into a really nasty blow for those paying close
enough attention to the exchange. If one must flame, flame like and adult,
don't insult like a child. #2) That if you follow #1) it will result in
your insulting people less in the first place since to do so takes a lot
more mental effort than simply calling someone an asshole, dipshit, idiot,
etc. . . That way, even when you do turn up the flames, it won't come off
as offensively to those more casual browsers who may have just walked in
the door so to speak, and may not yet share what ever righteous indignation
you may have developed through the history of your exchange.
In a sentence: if you must get ugly, just make sure at the beginning, at
the middle, as well as at the end of the day that you at least maintain a
minimal appearance of maturity through it.
We have people wandering in all the time so it helps to keep this "in the
middle of things" perspective in mind. When you do so, you need not do so
not out of any kindness for your enemy, as you really do this out
consideration for everyone else who has to share the same cyberspace with
both of you. I don't think that trying to enforce discipline will get us
where we need to go. In fact I could see how obsessing about this too much
can have a chilling effect, where in our zeal to become pleasant we
collapse into triviality as more interesting and important discussions
simply become too dangerous and prone to occasional bouts of "rudeness".
We can collectively deal with the more obviously disruptive behaviors (like
flooding and/or spamming-types of activities), and the more childish
insults without having to indulge ourselves in some extreme community
regimen of thought and attitude policing.
Just my few thoughts on it.
Love,
-Jake
> [Original Message]
> From: Mermaid <hidden@lucifer.com>
> To: <virus@lucifer.com>
> Date: 10/05/2003 5:20:32 PM
> Subject: virus: Re:The Disciplinary Process of the Church of Virus
>
>
> [Hermit] Despite your brave defense of rudeness,
>
> [Mermaid]I am not defending rudeness anymore than I would defend freedom
of expression.
>
> [Hermit]...it does not make for an attractive environment or pleasant
reading.
>
> [Mermaid]Are we going for attractive environment or pleasant reading as
our 'common goal'?
>
> [Hermit]It also leads to rapid escalation. The difficulty of defining
subjective issues is precisely why we don't have "laws" but instead rely on
"reconciliation committees" to determine whether people have crossed the
borderlines.
>
> [Mermaid]Sure. But its a tad too much when it comes to dictating on how
people should talk. People's words and actions speak for themselves. They
will be judged accordingly by the members of the community. Their
reputation will be directly affected by their actions and words.
>
> [Hermit]The primary intent of the Disciplinary Process being to ensure
that the CoV is an attractive and pleasant environment. People who wish to
be "creatively rude" to others, need to seek other places to do it.
>
> [Mermaid]So, the DiP is to make CoV look 'clean'. Only those who can
adhere and conform to 'desirable and accepted behaviour' need apply to CoV?
And you imagine that this will attract valuable membership? Those who are
willing to conform to 'desired and acceptable behaviour' dictated by
DiP...not to mention willing to sign a written apology to be accepted in
the group after someone high up finds the person 'rude' and subjects them
to DiP proceedings?..Really..cant you see the blind stupidity of a concept
like DiP? Its glaringly obvious why its a bad idea....
>
> btw...regarding you misquoting me...effective, but transparent tactic to
lure me back into this discussion...
>
> ----
> This message was posted by Mermaid to the Virus 2003 board on Church of
Virus BBS.
>
<http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=294
37>
> ---
> To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
--- Jake Sapiens
--- every1hz@earthlink.net
--- EarthLink: The #1 provider of the Real Internet.
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Oct 06 2003 - 01:28:38 MDT