BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Racism? - now-locked legacy thread

 
  

Page: 12345(6)7

 
 
Sniv
15:21 / 14.09.06
I don't see what the fuss is really, nobody but you hardcore nutters are posting in this thread anyway. I think if it's moved to convo, we'll get a few piss-taking posts (dibs on that, btw, I've been really holding back on this one) and then this thread will die, because if you're not directly involved in it, it's frickin' boring, and only particularly funny in fits and spurts (like Nina and PW's debate on the previous page, that was classy). And it's not even got that much to do with racism for the past few pages.

As an aside though (because I can't wait for this thread tomove to convo before I ask), what were all of you up to so late last night? Don't any of you have work in the morning?!
 
 
A Haus of Minions
15:36 / 14.09.06
When I printed out this post and showed it to my mother, she had no idea why I had bothered to make it either.
 
 
Sniv
15:55 / 14.09.06
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!11!

AHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!123!

Heh.

You've already done that gag once in the last month, Hausy old boy. Time to get some new material, this one has got some holes in it.
 
 
Sniv
15:58 / 14.09.06
And anyway, that still doesn't explain what you're doing debating with PW at 3.00am on a weeknight, does it. I told your mum about that, she says that's why you can never get up for school in the mornings. <- TRUE
 
 
FINKLESTEIN!
15:59 / 14.09.06
John - Please stop. The "fuss", as I'm understanding it, is that we currently have a Policy thread titled 'Racism' that, initially, was a discussion on what to do about posts that are or could be taken as racist. It is, sadly, no longer about that at all. Hence the move to move (or lock and ghost or move and lock, etc. etc.). Can't say I see the humor in any of it and, as a softcore nutter (have been passively following along till now), I honestly think this needs to be resolved somehow. I myself would prefer that it be booted to Convo, locked, and allowed to sink only to be unlocked when it leaves the first page, if ever unlocked at all. It could maybe use a summary change* as well, but I'm not sure on that.

If there is an argument for keeping it in Policy other than one poster being fearful about what kind of response this will generate in Convo, I'd love to hear it. In plain language. With a minimum of teh snark.


*Something along the lines of "A serious discussion goes off the rails. Confusion ensues." maybe. Again, not 100% behind the idea, but there you go.
 
 
Stoat-ROW ROW FIGHT THE POWAH
16:11 / 14.09.06
I don't really see the big deal about moving it to Convo, tbh- (but then I'm not a Policy mod, so it's someone else's decision). It's what we traditionally do when threads in other fora get way off topic, isn't it? Why should this one be an exception?

Apart from anything else, we probably could do with a racism thread in Policy. This hasn't been it for an awfully long time now.
 
 
pointless & uncalled for
16:14 / 14.09.06
If you're going to lock it until it sinks then there really isn't any point in moving it to the Conversation. Locking it until it sinks really implies that no further discussion is invited, in which case, as the discussion took place in Policy, it should lock and sink in Policy as a matter of archive.

If moved to the Conversation and unlocked when it reached the second page, all it would take in the conversation is one act of pernicious posting to return it to the top and it immediately becomes open for the form of posting that is originally intended to be avoided. It's a redundant move.
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
16:19 / 14.09.06
[threadrot]

Just popping in this thread to say thanks to the mod' who vetoed the move, and to briefly explain what I intend to do later this evening to help resolve this "fuss":



1) I am going to work on an opening post for a thread in Books (maybe Headshop?) called 'Intent + Text + Context = Meaning' A theory I've been trying to crystalise in many ways lately, and which I hope you can all help me with.

2) I'm going to find an example of prejudiced language on Barbelith, stick it here, and ask for a theoretical / Policy orientated discussion of it. To get this thread back on-Policy-topic.

3) I'm going to start a Conversation thread called "Relationships between moderators and members; how this might affect bias?"

4) I'm going to start a thread in Policy called 'When, where, and why to propose a move or a deletion in a fair way?" However, if need be, I will come back here and argue my right to have this left in Policy until WE have decided to move it or not and the reasons are clear for everyone.

5) I may also contribute to other related threads if it proves they are already better suited to any or all of this.



That is my plan. Is that acceptable? If I do not receive PM's supporting or not supporting my plan and/or (hopefully) read no more posts about all this here, in this thread, I will continue as planned.

Hope that sounds serious and reasonable.


[/threadrot]
 
 
A Haus of Minions
16:25 / 14.09.06
What I would really, really like, PW, is for you to explain what your argument for keeping this thread in Policy is, here or in an alternate venue of your choice. That is all that has been asked of you.
 
 
A Haus of Minions
16:43 / 14.09.06
At the moment, the arguments against moving it to Convo are:

1) For reasons that remain opaque, Paranoidwriter does not want it moved. Certainly, he has contributed a large amount of text to this thread, and perhaps as such we should recognise his investment in its future.

2) If we move it, John the Exploding Boy will take the opportunity to tell us all about Political Correctness Gone Mad.

3) The Conversation has done nothing to deserve this.

After four solid pages of threadrot, I think the case for locking it and letting it sink is probably stronger than the case for moving it. However, I'm open to discussion. So far PW wants it to stay here, Nina, Monk and Stoat seem to think that some variation of moving it to the Conversation would be appropriate. Monk also thinks it should be locked, with unlocking to be discussed at a later point. Nina thinks this may also work. Bed Head has suggested something similar - that it be left to sink and _then_ moved to the Conversation, although ignominious has pointed out that if it is unlocked it can (and probably will, realistically, as it is such a heck of a search term) be bumped to the top of the lists very quickly. Alex has proposed it be locked. So far, the only person who is for keeping it in the Policy and unlocked is Paranoidwriter, and presumably the moderator who voted against the move - whose input would be welcome. I hadn't realised that moderators were mere conduits for the will of the people, but at the moment, since the will of the people is to moderate this thread, if we _are_ then we are not doing a very good job of it.

toksik, Nina, Alex, Monk and I have all asked PW to explain why he wants the thread to remain unlocked and in Polcy, so far without success.
 
 
Grandma loves children
(prev. Old dear. Gin. Problems)
17:00 / 14.09.06
[threadrot]

Just popping in this thread to say thanks to the mod' who vetoed the move, and to briefly explain what I intend to do later this evening to help resolve this "fuss":



1) I am going to work on an opening post for a thread in Books (maybe Headshop?) called 'Intent + Text + Context = Meaning' A theory I've been trying to crystalise in many ways lately, and which I hope you can all help me with.

2) I'm going to find an example of prejudiced language on Barbelith, stick it here, and ask for a theoretical / Policy orientated discussion of it. To get this thread back on-Policy-topic.

3) I'm going to start a Conversation thread called "Relationships between moderators and members; how this might affect bias?"

4) I'm going to start a thread in Policy called 'When, where, and why to propose a move or a deletion in a fair way?" However, if need be, I will come back here and argue my right to have this left in Policy until WE have decided to move it or not and the reasons are clear for everyone.

5) I may also contribute to other related threads if it proves they are already better suited to any or all of this.



That is my plan. Is that acceptable? If I do not receive PM's supporting or not supporting my plan and/or (hopefully) read no more posts about all this here, in this thread, I will continue as planned.

Hope that sounds serious and reasonable.


[/threadrot]


Who was it who said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, or something similar?
 
 
Smoothly
17:09 / 14.09.06
For the record, I favour locking and leaving it here.
I think that moving a thread is justified if doing so would benefit the thread or the forum to or from which it is moved. As it stands, I don’t see either this discussion or the Conversation getting better for it being moved there; it’s clearly no longer working as a Policy thread. No one, not even PW, wants this thread to continue on its current bearing. So, I reason, lock it.
 
 
A Haus of Minions
17:10 / 14.09.06
Samuel Johnson, although he actually said that Hell itself was paved with good intentions, not the road thereto. However, he was appparently just quoting a popular saying of the time - also not mentioning roads - which is ultimately probably derived from St. Bernard of Clairvaux's statement that Hell was full of good intentions.

Pub quiz, anyone?
 
 
Stoat-ROW ROW FIGHT THE POWAH
17:28 / 14.09.06
Gah, no thanks, I still have the hangover from the one I went to TWO FUCKING DAYS AGO.

For the record- I think the ideal solution would be for this thread to fuck off and leave us all alone (but, like a particularly juicy scab, it's hard not to pick at it). The reason I'm in favour of a move to Convo, however, is as a least worst option. I'm not a fan of locking and deleting (unless we're talking Holocaust denial or something) except as a last resort. If Policy mods feel we have reached that point, then I'm not gonna complain too much, really.

This certainly isn't a Policy thread, the way I see it (which, as I'm not a Policy mod, is of dubious provenance). Not any more.
 
 
Smoothly
17:33 / 14.09.06
Gah, no thanks, I still have the hangover from the one I went to

To say less of the time we get beaten by a team who only entered so they could get table.
 
 
A Haus of Minions
17:38 / 14.09.06
Yeah, but if there'd been a "trying to do a pub quiz while beiing ripped to the tits" round, we would have... well, lost to Stoatie, as it turns out.

OK, so Stoatie would prefer a move to the Conversation to locking and deleting (can I assume also to locking _or_ deleting, Stoats?), but believes that the thread should not remain in its current form - open and in the Policy. Cool.
 
 
Stoat-ROW ROW FIGHT THE POWAH
18:17 / 14.09.06
Yeah, "or" as well as "and". As I say, I wouldn't be heartbroken were that to happen- it just wouldn't be my first choice.
 
 
Olulabelle
18:31 / 14.09.06
I think this thread should be locked and remain in the policy, but I think it's name should be changed.

That way Nina's concern regarding having two racism threads running here at any point will be addressed, but so will PW's concern regarding moving it, the reason for which, frankly completely escapes me.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
18:37 / 14.09.06
PW, have you got any serious objection to this thread being locked?
 
 
A Haus of Minions
18:42 / 14.09.06
And renamed, if we're keeping it in Policy, I'd suggest. "Racism - locked legacy thread", or something to that effect. That way confusion will be minimised.
 
 
FINKLESTEIN!
18:45 / 14.09.06
I like that.
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
19:00 / 14.09.06
PW, have you got any serious objection to this thread being locked?

Nope. Please do.

But I'd like it left in Policy, still.

I will explain in another thread (hopefully) later this evening.

Cool?
 
 
grant
19:12 / 14.09.06
For the record, I didn't disagree anything -- I posted what I posted last night, went to bed, then came back here today to find -- whoah! -- another page of discussion.

I think locking is a sensible choice, yes.

Grant: you may be able to help, here. What's the object lesson you think the last pages provide?

Mmm -- ways the board responds to concerns about racism, good, bad and confusing. I mean, it's an example of that process. I'm not sure how constructive an example it is, but it's certainly an example.
 
 
A Haus of Minions
19:19 / 14.09.06
Suspenseful! However, giving your reasons when you were repeatedly asked for your reasons, rather than getting shouty, might have served the whole enterprise better, to be honest.

Locking and renaming seems sensible. As a last count, though - would anyone like to see the thread moved to the Conversation, either now or when it has slipped off the front page? Personallly, I'm happy with a lock and a title/summary change - it's more work for the mods, but that's what the sensitivity training was for.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
19:25 / 14.09.06
I would prefer it to be moved to conversation for the original reasons but am also perfectly fine with a lock and title change.
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
19:25 / 14.09.06
Suspenseful! However, giving your reasons when you were repeatedly asked for your reasons, rather than getting shouty, might have served the whole enterprise better, to be honest.

Careful, Haus. That's another can of worms I don't want anyone to open.

Have some respect. I respect you and I think that's enough for reciprocation.

And yes, I am entitled to say that when your posts are nothing but feeble and (it feels) patronising mockery and have no clear intent.

So, would you like to tell me what you actually intended with your last post, Haus? Are you trying to stir or help? Or both? Or none of the above?

(I'll get round to the other threads in a few hours, after my next health-walk and errand run. Until the, please lay off the jibes, yeah?)
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
19:27 / 14.09.06
(Bad HTML above and an error. Have asked for moderation. Gotta go now. Bye.)
 
 
A Haus of Minions
19:51 / 14.09.06
So, would you like to tell me what you actually intended with your last post, Haus?

Absolutely. I intended to try to make you aware that I and many, many others have been asking you for the simple courtesy of some sort of explanation for your behaviour in this thread - specifically, two behaviours - your refusal actually to explain why you adopted a patois, choosing instead to insult people, followed by your rather breathtaking cheek in demanding that we alter the entire moderation system unless and until conditions existed whereby you got what you want in a thread you did not start and which you had been largely responsible for rotting into meaninglessness - for quite some time, and your ongoing refusal to do so has felt like a slap in the face to the Policy, to the principles of Barbelith and to the hard work put in by a large number of people trying to treat you as if you were a valuable poster to Barbelith in the teeth of your recent behaviour, behaviour now compounded by the accusation of making "jibes" from a man who last night was accusing me of - I'm not sure what, to be honest - totalitarianism? Abuse of power? Anti-democratic sentiment?

Now, I accord you the respect intrinsically due to any human being. However, I do not respect your antics in this thread, because I believe that they have been disrespectful to other people and to the intentions of the Policy. My intention was to make it clear that I do not believe that you have acted commendably in this thread, a belief that appears to be shared by many others here, and thus to inspire you, hopefully, to look at how your conflict resolution plans are going.

That's pretty much my intent. I hope it's clear now. As such, my intent was to help you, but primarily to help Barbelith, as is my usual and general intent.
 
  

Page: 12345(6)7

 
  
Add Your Reply