Was wondering what forum participants thought of the idea of voting to have certain annoying, heckling trolls just receive a standard "DELETE" on this forum?

Like...

"Super Polly" and all it's iterations (a DeBunker troll).

...especially when he/she/it/they contribute NOTHING of even marginal Y2K interest here.

It's not "censorship" which is what they'll yell to the rooftops... it's a simple matter of taking out the trash to the dumpster.

Diane

One Of Many Forum Moderators

And comments? Votes?

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), June 21, 1999

Answers

Well I for one and against any lists. But I guess I wouldn't be losing any sleep if some of thee threads were deleted. And it's not that I want to see them go because I disagree with the posters. But like this Super Polly idiot who does nothing but gets Andy all riled up is just wasting space. And whoever that Al-d imposter is can take a slow boat to "delete-land" as well.

I think the current feeling is that when someone goes out of their way to maintain a BB then it's that person's (people's) privledge of deciding what stays and what goes. I know one thing, if one of these idiot Pollys or a whiny Doomer ever came into my house and started spewing this childish nonesense I would be quick to land them on the front porch squarley on their bum.

I say go ahead and moderate the forum so it can go back to having a modicum of dignity I so enjoyed over the last six months (the last three weeks not included).

-- (tedjennings(aka p-t lurker)@business.net), June 21, 1999.

Count me in on deleting Super Polly and Y2K Pro, I have been waiting for a long time to see something of relevance from either of them. Keep getting let down...

-- BiGG (supersite@acronet.net), June 21, 1999.

On the infinitesimally minute chance that one of them might someday GI, maybe next March? we think deletions should occur on a per-post basis according to precise criteria.

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), June 21, 1999.

Rather than a simple auto-Delete list, can we try for a content test? If it ain't there it ain't here?

Sort of a "Initiate a thread and contribute something relevant (within the admittedly BROAD def'n of the term used here) and the thread stays. Nothing relevant, and it vanishes quietly" policy????

Chuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), June 21, 1999.

And ther is CERTAINLY a difference between TROLL Al-D and Al-D.

C

(kind of grows on one, like moss. or DeITer)

C

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), June 21, 1999.

Like cancer.....

-- 46em (soon@we.hope), June 21, 1999.

Isn't it funny how some posters just tick us off so bad, even those that are SOMETIMES posting something relevant. And then there is DiETeR. Dieter never contributes anything but we all love him. And where the hell is he? I miss DieTeR. He makes me laff and for that reason earns his respect and love on this forum. DiEtER We miss you, and we sure could use some laffs.

Taz

-- Taz (Tassie @aol.com), June 21, 1999.

LOL Chuck.

Yes, there is the "real" al-d and his/her/its copycats. Dieter praise indeed!

So Leska & Ashton... what should the delete criteria be?

(Agree it needs to be on a thread-by-thread basis... sometimes obvious, sometimes marginal).

Love the vote DELETE on a marginal thread that a participant once suggested. That seems to work.

Sometime's it's a clear-cut thing, other's not.

Diane

1) Gutter language gets my vote... especially aimed at ladies
2) Posting unauthorized personal data
3) Stealing someone's handle or name
4) Truly mindless heckling... a' la Super Polly and Buddy... in all their guises

More?

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), June 21, 1999.

>4) Truly mindless heckling... a' la Super Polly and Buddy... in all >their guises

Don't forget the Flint baiters ...Andy, Will Continue etc.

-- chris (christopher@philosopher.net), June 21, 1999.

Sounds good.
5) Groundless vicious vulgar personal attacks lacking merit or logic.

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), June 21, 1999.

Hi Diane,

We've discussed this before, and now I'd like to weigh in publicly. Personally, I do not think it's a good idea, for a number of reasons. The most practical reason is that once the forum starts deleting posts by a person using a certain name, two things may happen: first that person will keep posting under that name to every thread every five minutes, just to keep the "censors" busy. It'll be a frustrating job cleaning up that mess. And/Or the second thing is that they'll simply wait a short time for the "censors" to relax, and start slipping things in using different names.

What we have here is a microcosmic open society. The only price of admission is participation. That participation can even be just to watch. I don't know how many "lurkers" there are who don't say a peep, but I suspect it's many. The heckling trolls are relatively few, and we all know pretty much what they have to say. Frankly, the bulk of them are a big yawn. I'm operating under the assumption that most of the participants in this forum are intelligent enough to understand that heckling is heckling, and that we all have a right to simply ignore the heckles.

As far as voting on this is concerned -- While that's certainly a right democratic approach, I believe that this is going to be trading one set of problems for another set. Who REALLY wants to be in charge of making sure that this works equitably and fairly, and that everone gets their say? Will it be fair? Will the forum then be sucked into yet another round of useless "censorship" debate? (BTW - I don't think it's "censorship", rather "moderation.")

Finally, in my humble opinion, the most important reason for leaving things alone -- I think in any situation, it's best to have a clear, unadulterated view of reality. If the reality of the situation is that a certain percentage of people in the world or on the forum act like heckling two-year olds, I think it's best to know this. If one of the things that people making preparations for Y2K are going to have to deal with is fact that there are folks out there that think they are fools, they need to know this. If our culture has devolved to a point where debate has taken the form a screaming matches where participants have nothing more enlightened to say than "Zombie!" "Butthead!" I think it's best to know this, and let participants attempt to bring the conversation around to a point where there's more relevance. If that doesn't get done, this is also useful information.

There's a wide range of perspective out there, and I personally, want a view of that entire range. I want to know what the "Debunkers" think, and how they communicate it. I think it's pretty obvious that there's not much meat to their argument, and I think that watching and dealing with the heckling is important. It's been said a million times before; *IF* Y2K turns out to be bad, we'll all have to deal with things a lot worse than being called names, and for some, dealing with that now will toughen their skins. If some people are turned off by it here, so be it. How will they deal with the possibility of much worse in "the real world"?

While trash certainly belongs in the dumpster, I think it's best to assign that chore to the kids, rather than Mom and Dad having to do all the work. By this, I mean that all participants on the forum (and in "the real world") need to be responsible for the little bit of trash in their own corner. If some people are responsible for it by ignoring it, that's good to know. If others respond to it gracefully, that's good. If some respond to it by biting back, that's also good to know.

My vote, is to leave it alone, and only delete posts containing unauthorized personal information. And MAYBE, CAREFULLY posts that are so way out of line, that they'll be so obvious, that even the "Debunkers" would probably vote to delete them. (I'm thinking about the "Jerry/Chittum" posts from around New Year's)

I forget who said it, but "the most important thing in a Democracy is not the wishes of the majority, but those of the minority." (Heinlein, maybe?) I'm not sure how that's relevant, as this is not a Democracy, but if we want to play this like a Democracy, it's best to keep that in mind.

I personally want a clear, unadulterated view of this little microcosm of reality...

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), June 21, 1999.

Agreed. This IS *JUNE 1999*, after all. Play times over.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 21, 1999.

OK pshannon....you have a very valid point there. I must admit, they haven't thrown anything my direction that couldn't be dealt with. I'm open.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 21, 1999.

I don't know pshannon, that resembles political correctness, which personally I hate. If you let idiots have their say then new people to this forum will think that it is a safe haven for idiots and they won't want to come back and see the nonesense.

If someone spray painted the word "nigger" on an overpass somewhere around your house I think the general feeling would be to paint over it and get rid of the idiocy.

In my humble opinion, if you start messing around with the laws of natural selection then you reap what you sow. A nation (forum) filled with idiots. I say delete every last one of them because I already know what kind of stupidity exists in the world. I don't need to come to this forum and be reminded of that.

-- (I hate@ PC. com), June 21, 1999.

Good points pshannon, as always.

But the difficulty I keep having is with the avowed disruptors. Spent some time yesterday really sorting through the De Bunker site, since Ed left... (gag).

At any rate *some* not all, of those extremeists have made it their little life's pathetic mission to keep attacking this forum.

*Sigh*

A real pain in the ASCII!

In making a study of most forums out there in internet land... most have simple posting guidelines. Why not here, as well? And I do mean SIMPLE... that everyone (minus trolls) can agree on.

Another option being discussed, by many, is to open a second Forum that's heavily moderated, by those that want the task, for Prep-Only information, especially since there are 5 and 1/2 months to go.

We need to ask... WHAT IS Y2K IMPORTANT?

Choices... choices.

Diane

BTW, For those you want to look... wear hip boots!

Debunking Y2k webboard

http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboard/ mbs.cgi?acct=mb237006&TL=928977528

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), June 21, 1999.

tribulation---worketh---patience. patience--produces--character. BE HAPPY-----DON,T-WORRY

-- al-d. (catt@zianet.com), June 21, 1999.

I tend to agree with pshannon. While our two Cascadians make a point in that perhaps someone 'sitting on the fence' might be swayed by what a troller wrote, in my book, chances are pretty good that they would be swayed - no matter what. If someone is looking for information about this subject, and is 'kinda' leaning toward doing some preparation, sees a troll post and is disuaded, then, IMHO, that person really *wasn't* a GI candidate, after all.

"Getting it" requires critical and logical thinking; an ability to DISCERN and sift through the mountains of information, process it, and come up with your own viewpoint. Anyone who can accomplish this (in anything, not just *this* issue), realizes and understands that there will be dis-information along the way.

When I personally find someone who so obviously wants to discredit someone else, or an issue, and continues to persist in the face of real, creditable, legitimate evidence to the contrary, I find that doing so exposes them to me to be unreliable, dubious, specious, generally someone I distrust. I'd rather be able to *see* and *hear* those whom I find untrustworthy, rather than to wonder as to their whereabouts, and question what they are doing. Even when it's a pain to do so. Sifting wheat from chaff, and all that.....

Someone said, "Keep your friends close; your enemies even closer."

-- What (are@you.hiding), June 21, 1999.

'Someone said, "Keep your friends close; your enemies even closer."'

No freakin' kidding.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), June 21, 1999.

Oh, and great to hear from you again, P..........

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), June 21, 1999.

Freedom of speech, a forum's cry. Sensor only those words that the courts would sensor. You cannot keep people from contributing to the forum or no one would show up. Ed didn't delete, even when someone posted a posters address. Stop trying to play god; you're a poor substitute.

Also, you would have to delete messages from the doomers (as well as pollys) who don't contribute, Andy and King of Spain come to mind.

-- Hearye Hearye (no@executive.orders), June 21, 1999.

oops wrong sensor, try censure.

-- Hearye Hearye (no@executive.orders), June 21, 1999.

I hate political correctness also. REALLY hate it. That's why I think the vast majority of stuff should not be deleted. Because, then the "PC" police will decide what's politically correct for the forum, and that's all that will be allowed. If the forum is to NOT be a safe haven for idiots, it should be up to the participants in the forum to engage the conversation and the idiots in a way as to keep things relevant. (IMHO)

Then, you bring up a good example of how perspective can be a shifting, amorphous sort of thing. In my neighborhood, there are, in fact, overpasses with the word "Niggas" spraypainted on the concrete. It was the "Niggas" who did the spraypainting. They wear the word like a badge of honor. Who decides what is idiocy and what is not? When does the "Idiots List" come to include people who really believe that their perspective is relevant and correct? Who decides what the laws of natural selection are to be? If the nation, or forum is "filled with idiots," who decides who's an idiot, and in a nation, what does "deleting every last one of them" mean?

Diane, if there are people who have avowed to disrupt the forum, isn't *letting* them disrupt the forum by getting freaked out by and removing their disruptions exactly what they want? They want to freak you out! They want to upset you! Don't we all have a choice as to how we respond to things? It's every individual's choice. Isn't a better way to counter the disruption to engage the conversation with relevance and facts?

I think that a second, heavily moderated forum is in fact a good idea. That way, participants are accepting the responsibility, knowing what they are getting into. This forum has evolved into a unique entity, and I personally think there's value in it as an experiment in community. Yes, even with the "Idiots." On both "sides"...

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), June 21, 1999.

Granted and yet... "trash stinks" generally speaking. Would you choose to clutter clear it or live with it?

You said...

"When I personally find someone who so obviously wants to discredit someone else, or an issue, and continues to persist in the face of real, creditable, legitimate evidence to the contrary, I find that doing so exposes them to me to be unreliable, dubious, specious, generally someone I distrust. I'd rather be able to *see* and *hear* those whom I find untrustworthy, rather than to wonder as to their whereabouts, and question what they are doing. Even when it's a pain to do so."

There's a difference between "exposing" and just piling siftable garbage. Unfortunately it's getting piled higher and deeper.

;-(

Maybe the best choice is 2 forums.

One for those who prefer to prepare and want timely advice. The other, this, the "Forum Classic" where Y2K, falling stars, uh comets, and the GI butt heads with the DGI's and trolls. Somehow I think this place would suffer for it, however in the short run, because TIME IS SHORT, perhaps that IS the best choice.

Diane

Preparation Only Forum anyone?

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), June 21, 1999.

"Ed didn't delete, even when someone posted a posters address. Stop trying to play god; you're a poor substitute." -- Hearye Hearye

WRONG! Ed deleted many things. Especially when asked to. In fact, after he "left" he even flaged the Moderators to delete something. "Also, you would have to delete messages from the doomers (as well as pollys) who don't contribute, Andy and King of Spain come to mind." -- Hearye Hearye

Reread the ABOUT statement little troll.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), June 21, 1999.

You're right pshannon, some daze they DO get to me...

...Just like a team of taggers would in my local neighborhood. And I know, the "neighbors" would all pitch in some Saturday morning and have a painting over the garbage party. It's just that kind of place.

Guess two forums make the best "prep" sense.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), June 21, 1999.

So I'm a troll! I guess you would delete my post then huh? Ed would not delete the posts that you are suggesting we delete. How about this, a forum to discuss possible Y2K events?

-- Hearye Hearye (no@executive.orders), June 21, 1999.

Yeah... your right... Hearye Hearye.

Personally, I'd delete you. But it's not my call. We *try* for team- work here.

*Sigh*

(It's like hearding cats, as someone once said).

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), June 21, 1999.

DIE ane,

Are you bored? Why do you keep revisiting this crap? I've been following Ed's messge forum since day one! What makes you so high and mighty? If you don't like the trolls, IGNORE THEM!!!!!!!

-- Wish Ed was back :( (JustAnother@troll.com), June 21, 1999.

Censorship is censorship. You don't know what idea will be useful to someone or who will express it. Unless there is a "clear and present danger" from the expression of the idea, it ought to be allowed. The value of keeping the Internet open to free, grassroots expression should outweigh any personal annoyance you experience when you see a post you don't like. You can't censor the world. There will be a lot you don't like.

-- Mara Wayne (MaraWayne@aol.com), June 21, 1999.

deLeTE THis thREad!!!!!!!!!! iT Is jaBBerWOCkY!!!!!!!!! DELeTE iT OF thE MOMenT IMmEDIaTE!!!!!!!! paGES aNd paGEs oF JAckaSSELrY!!!!!!! hOW DOeS THis tHREaD COntrIBUtE TO Y2k prEPS??????? wHAT wILL NEwBIeS THinK WHen tHEY REaD THis BIckERIng??????? wELL???? speAK Up!!!!

diETEr loVEs thE IdeA Of twO FOruMS, doES He noT??????? hUh??????? of coURsE!!!! bUT Why STOp thERe??????????? hUh???????? wHY???? eaCH poSTEr shOUlD HAve His, OR heR, Or it's OWn forUM!!!!!!!!!! thEN evERy INFidEL buNGHoLE WouLd oNLy heAR IDeaS wiTH whICh tHEY AGrEE!!!!!!!! a ciRCLe jeRK wiTH ONlY ONe paRTICIpaNT!!!!!!!!!!

outsTANdING IDeA!!!!!!!! ouTSTandING In ThE RaiN!!!!!!!! yeS???????? TheN ALL of tHE TEndeR, FRagILe, EAsiLy CruSHeD liTTLe neWBIeS coULD BE dirECTeD To tHE BESt fORUM fOR THeM!!!!!!!!!!

Oh....YoU Are WANtiNG OF The COnspIRACy THeoRieS And FeeL THe whOLe woRLd iS AGAinsT YoU???????????? SEe tHE jaCKAL anDy'S foRUM!!!!!!!!!!

hUh???? yOU Are fixATEd uPOn deATH aND DYinG?????????? gO THee To leSKa'S!!!!!!!!

WHat'S THaT yoU SAy???????? yOU neED aN EYe teST????????? sEE THe bLeeDINg eYeS FORum oF DIeteR!!!!!!!!!

whAT?!?!?!?!!! yOU aRE eNJOYInG Of THe PusHINg tHE SUbmIT BUttON??????????? diANe j. sqUIrE HaS a FOrUM fOR YoU!!!!!!!!!!!

sEE?????????? hOW MucH BEttER It wouLD BE if ALL hyENaS HaD A PlacE TO caLL hoME??????????

goOD moRNiNG!!!!!

-- Dieter (questions@toask.com), June 21, 1999.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh...the calming voice of DiETeR always speaks of common sense. Thank you Dieter for getting us back on track. We love you!!

Taz...who dearly loves DiEtER !!!!!!!

-- Taz (Tassie @aol.com), June 21, 1999.

Trollish reminder? (Never you Dieter. Nope. Not ever. We LOVE you. Most daze).

See also...

OT: When You Work With A Jerk (Humor--Long)

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 000yza

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), June 21, 1999.

Also... an aside note... (timely)....

Cyberattacks spur talk of 3rd DOD network

JUNE 21, 1999

As part of a strategy to defend its unclassified networks against relentless cyberattacks, the Pentagon may establish a new network to handle electronic commerce and other interactions with the public while cutting off all other existing connections to the Internet. ...

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 000z03

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), June 21, 1999.

FWIW,

I agree with Patrick. His views are politically correct, just in the real meaning of the words, not the currently in vogue connotation of the term.

What is the big deal here? Are some of you storing every word on your local hard disk and re-reading them constantly? Do you stare at real world graffiti for long periods? How about just blowing off that which you find offensive or not relevant?

As for a "second" forum, let's be clear here. Another forum would not even be close to "second"--or third or fourth, etc. There are already so many "preparation" forums on the net that one more wouldn't make much difference to anything except that it might deprive this forum of some of its value. I believe that we already have enough of a detraction problem.

I'd also like to reiterate my position on rules. We already have enough rules. Not only are the rules of our society already in place, known to all (at least in theory) and generally accepted, they only work with "law abiding" folks, which by my definition, trolls are not.

My thoughts, Diane, on your "list", are as follows:

1) Gutter language gets my vote... especially aimed at ladies "gutter language" belongs in the gutter. Or on the shop floor. Or in the barracks. Who it may be aimed at is not relevant. But, as Hank Hill said of those who pierce their bodies in various places and wear various items in said piercings, "I like it! It warns me that there is something seriously wrong with that person." Sticks and stones, etc.

2) Posting unauthorized personal data There is no question that this violates the victim's right to privacy. In real life, such behavior warrants criminal punishment as well as civil sanction.

3) Stealing someone's handle or name This too, is adjudged as wrong in real life. The penalties vary according to who one has impersonated, the circumstances and the results. In the cyberspace version, there are certain problems in ascertaining who the perpetrator may be, so it would appear that an annotation by the sysop to the effect that this is a bogus post (in that the author is not the stated one) would be the best that could be done.

4) Truly mindless heckling... a' la Super Polly and Buddy... in all their guises In this I agree with Patrick. An attempt to pass judgment on each of the questionable posts would likely overwhelm the "moderator(s)" with an endless and thankless task. I believe that it would surely destroy the forum.

BTW, Buddy has a lot more faith in "the system" than most, but I can't recall any of his posts being offensive. I think you're pointing out some of the difficulties in dealing with "handle thieves".

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 21, 1999.

I'm glad you don't like me Diane. You prove the double standard on this forum better than anyone.

Name ONE THING You have added to this discussion as "outingsR"? any of the others who post with that handle?

I would LOVE to see this type of censoring begin. It would PROVE once and for all the bias of the shitheads that run this place. Andy will never be censored. Or Will, Invar, a, milne, or any other of the dickheads who CONSTANTLY use abusive language and NEVER HEAR ONE WORD FROM THE MODERATORS.

-- Super Troll (Fu_Q_y2kfreaks@hotmail.com), June 21, 1999.

Super Troll... I'm NOT OutingsR... which you know.

Are you "cpr" by any chance?

"Interesting" little discussion...

http:// www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboard/mbs.cgi?acct=mb237006&MyNum= 928083777&P=No&TL=928083777

Ending with "cpr" claiming... "I'm will not longer respond to questions from the ANONYMOUS posters."

http:// www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboard/mbs.cgi?acct=mb237006&MyNum= 928118700&P=Yes&TL=928083777

*Sigh*

pot

kettle

black

See that one?

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), June 21, 1999.

Hardliner,

Let me share something Ed Yourdon recently shared with me, as one of the Moderators, when I asked how did he deal with the trolls, etc. (dont think hed mind)...

Re herding cats: actually, when I was doing it, it was more like being a kindergarten teacher during recess, with a hundred kids all running around in the playground and getting themselves in various sorts of minor trouble. It's not possible to supervise anyone, and it's not even worth the trouble from keeping the kids (mostly the boys) from getting into little scuffles with one another. It's only when they get really vulgar with one another -- e.g., pulling their pants down to expose themselves -- that you have to step in and take control. Then they all howl and call you names for a few minutes before returning to their play ...

The other thing to keep in mind is that "recess" will be over 197 days from now, and then it won't matter very much what they were doing...

Ed

###

Nuff said.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), June 21, 1999.

I think we're all supposed to be impressed cause Diane gets mail from Ed. Doing the wave.

-- SuperGI (NotaModerator@Ed.com), June 21, 1999.

Personally, I am offended by Super Polly's fake email address (Fu_Q_y2kfreaks). I feel that anything like that should be IMMEDIATELY removed without comment. Stuff like that has no reason other than to inflame and insult people.

I think SP is probably quite young, and still suffers from early-post- pubescent nastiness (the kind we all ran into in high school, remember?)

I hope this can remain an "adult" forum... (??)

-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), June 21, 1999.

This means we should ban Milne posts.

-- Diane (isthe@Y2K.Goddess), June 21, 1999.

I basically just skip certain posts since i know there is nothing to read on them- I just resent the space that these posts take up and how they move other valuable ones to the archives to make room for them.

-- farmer (hillsidefarm@drbs.net), June 21, 1999.

Nope, don't think so. Milne is interested in saving people's lives and will very likely tone down his language to suit. The trolls are interested in destroying this forum and will be deprived of one aspect if they have to quit using inflammatory language. Fu Q Y2kFreaks is inflammatory and demeaning to the "like-minded people" who post on this forum. F--k the psychopathic trolls, on the other hand, counts as mental and comic relief to those who believe in the aims of this forum as envisioned by Ed Yourdon. Not a double standard, simply the common-sense rules of a forum dedicated to the likelihood of severe disruptions due to Y2K.

-- tired (of@the.trolls), June 21, 1999.

Well, here it is. The first flagrant proposition to censor individual voices, even after dozens of thoughtful people argued reasonably and passionately to keep the debate whole, free, and inclusive. The arrogance, the narrow compulsion to keep tinkering, is truly breathtaking.

If they elect to divide the forum, the "moderators" will surely conquer their own irrational fear of discordant opinion. They will also effectively destroy the organic integrity of the wider discourse.

I have one simple suggestion: Respect the readers of this forum enough to allow them to choose freely the posts they wish to read and the conclusions they wish to draw.

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), June 21, 1999.

Take a look at this statement: "Milne is interested in saving people's lives and will very likely tone down his language to suit". Where have you been living? Milne tone down???? Wow, now I know for a fact your living in another world.

-- Y2K Goddess (tired@isa.moronidiot), June 21, 1999.

shut your piehole and pay attention,you might learn something,:<}

-- Daryll (twinck@wfeca.net), June 21, 1999.

As a Sysop on 2 other forums (several years experience) I'd like to go ahead and throw in my 2 cents worth. Basically Hardliner said it best and is absolutely correct. Keep your rules simple, not only for the participants, but for your own benefit as well. Delete posts that contribute nothing but vulgarity. Delete posts that reveal private personal information. All other censorship is unnecessary and will lead to VERY big problems (can give you list of them), the forum community will monitor itself and teaches new posters the rules of the community in regards to what is on or off topic, etc.

Couple of more rules that help govern the forums that I run (1) no one is allowed to use an obscene "handle". (2) Deliberately breaking any of the above rules regarding vulgarity or privacy 3 times results in a 2 week lockout. Then they are given one more chance, if they break the rules again, they are permanently locked out of the forum. Btw, they are privately notified by e-mail by a SYSOP of which rule they broke, and how this will endanger their status as a member of the forum.

Next.....and this is the hardest part. You have to be completely impartial to all members regardless of whether their beliefs coincide with yours or not. You must also apply the rules without bias as to who the poster is or your stint as a moderator will have a very short and ineffective life and can do major damage to the forum.

Oh, btw....Dieter was correct too. (G)

-- Cary Mc from Tx (Caretha@compuserve.com), June 21, 1999.

I agree with Celia Thaxter, p shannon, Mara and others who continue to try to support freedom of speech. We are adults, there is little we haven't heard, whether we wanted to or not, in the course of our lives. I too, at one time wanted to hear it all, but not anymore, I'm sick to death of hearing *censor* and *delete*. There's all kinds of crap on TV I would never watch, but I damn sure don't expect it to be censored on account of me, or kiddies, or grandma, or nuns etc., It seems that "censor this" and "delete that" just keeps cropping up.

Diane, you, the other moderators, and those in the inner circle have your own little chat group where you can conduct you conversations on a more esoteric level, so enjoy yourselves, and cut this one a little slack for the ordinary mortals. Those who are offended don't have to read the posts, and sometiimes those who are offended, offend me, but I don't want them to be deleted.

Now if you're really into delete and censor, why don't you begin with your buddies who post under multiple names? Don't want ot step on their toes, right? Mutha knows who I mean, and so do you. And next you could delete those using other poster's name's. And next those who use "gutter languate," and those who "post unauthorized data," and those who indulge in "mindless heckling," and those who make "OT" posts, and those contribute "nothing relevant to y2k," and of course, "pollys" and "trolls" and naturally those who post "religion and God" posts, and those who "object" to those posts, and by all means, delete those who disagree that y2k "will be bad," and don't let anyone post "good news." Did I forget anything.

Diane you don't know much about cats and less about kids. If you want a kid to do something, all you have to do is say, "Don't you do xxxxxxx," and you can rest assured the more you make a fuss over it the more they will do it or die trying. And you just keep making a fuss over delete and censor, got it?

I don't like this forum anymore. I'm deleting it from my list of favorites. Better yet, you can delete my name from the automatice address, and enjoy some instant satisfaction.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), June 21, 1999.

This is a personal and public thank you to Dieter for adding a new term to my vocabulary.

That term is, "JAckaSSELrY" (jack-ass-elry), which I take to be a name for the activities of a jackass (although in my own future usage, I intend to apply it as well to the doings of jennys).

Thank you, Dieter, both for the new word and for the bright spot that you frequently inject into my life.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 21, 1999.

Celia- Do you like to mudwrestle?

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), June 21, 1999.

I have not posted here for several weeks now but have followed many of the threads. Despite Diane's assertion, deleting threads or posts a priori based solely on the poster's handle IS censorship. Unless the other moderators are willing to unmask themselves (at least by giving their handle(s) they post under), post an unambiguous list of criteria for deletion, and apply it to polly and doomer equally, any deletion or editting will reflect only the biases of the deletors. The voting idea is nothing more than mob rule where a few vocal posters will have the power to remove any threads they dislike. Would the same thing happen if Flint, Decker, and Mutha all said 'DELETE' to a doomer thread? I think not.

And by the way, Diane, with power comes responsibility. There has been a noticeable change in the tone of many of your posts recently, frequently condescending, often insulting, occassionally dictatorial. Just because Ed has annointed you, don't let the power go to your head and use your position to make veiled (and not so veiled) threats of deletion to those you disagree with.

RMS

-- RMS (rms_200@hotmail.com), June 21, 1999.

Super Polly's "e" is not fake. He told Lisa that on another thread. I mailed it, and it didn't bounce back.

A Lurker who wonders why Diane thinks she in charge all of a sudden

-- lurk (lurk@lurk.lurk), June 21, 1999.

Calling people bad names is not debate. It's not even argument.

Talking dirty is not debate. Some seem to think it reinforces their position. It doesn't. It only demonstrates incompetence.

This is not Hyde Park in London. Gresham's Law is immutable. Bad money drives out good. Pointles, vulgar, derogatory posts contribute nothing useful and take up time that might be better occupied.

Don't cover yourself in the flag to justify sticking your finger in the other guy's eye.

We're all at liberty to be mistaken. We all have been, we all will be again, sometime or other. Simply being wrong is no reason for a post to be deleted.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), June 21, 1999.

Diane, Leave it as it is, the good, the bad, the ugly. Everyone has the responsibility to discriminate for themselves.

-- Barb (awaltrip@telepath.com), June 21, 1999.

Diane,

I have offended a few people on this forum by complaining of the amount of (in my opinion) useless squabbling. I have not seen any improvements.

I know that,to many of you, I am a dreade "newbie", and for that reason, some of you don't give my word much credence. But I think that cutting off the words of people who some of us don't want to hear, for almost any reason, is a mistake.

I perceive that there are quite a few people on this forum that think anyone who believes that y2k will cause anything less than a "10" have no right to express themselves, because they are "obviously" stupid, uninformed, or misguided. But really, there are very few controversial subjects where people at one end of the spectrum or the other don't think those with another interpretation of the facts are fools.

The only way we can all make sense out of this, and other potential crises in our lives is to listen to all sides. Obviously, if you have heard the opinion of certain people enough to conclude that they are speaking out of ignorance, you should quit reading their posts, unless you have nothing better to do than argue with them day in and day out.

But personally, I think that there are too many facets to the y2k phenomenon to make any cast in concrete conclusions. I've heard it said, for instance, that various dates which have already passed, were going to be "very very bad". I haven't experienced any "very very bad days" caused by y2k. That does not mean I think everything is going to be hunky dory--far from it! But events are constantly changing; many strides are being made to fight this thing. Many attempts to patch up failing computers and imbedded chips have succeeded, I'm told, and many others have failed.

The one really great thing about this electronic forum as compared to a live meeting, is NO ONE can disrupt the meeting by being aggressive and loud. If this were a public meeting, I would agree that we need more guidelines.

In the county where I live, in Oregon, we had an individual who repeatedly came to meetings who had a particular agenda he was trying to force the county commissioners to instigated. It doesn't matter what the issue was; the fact is that he was very disruptive to the process of county government. We had a policy that at each commissioner's meeting, anyone who wanted to could stand up and state his peace. But after this gentleman had done so, and refused to step down after a reasonable amount of time, often getting loud and obnoxious, the commissioners cancelled this opportunity for public input. It was a terrible thing! Fortunately, this individual has moved to another state, and the Commissioners have reinstated our open forum status again. But for a while, one pushy person was able to disrupt the process of making informed decisions.

To make a long story longer, no one can stand up and start shouting in this forum, and thereby prevent everyone else from speaking. If your don't like something someone says, don't read it.

My earlier complaints about the squabbling were an attempt to get people to VOLUNTARILY stick to meaningful dialog.

I don't know,really, how this forum works, or who runs it. But overall, I think it's a fine place to share information and opinions. Keep it up. Don't strangle it by preventing people with unpopular views from airing them

-- malcolm drake (jumpoff@echoweb.net), June 21, 1999.

Diane ---- I love the Pollies, the Polly trolls are even better. They help you form your next assesment, they put some grit into your next arguement, and they are really great for a laugh. LOL I hate censorship, I like the idea of desiding who I,m going to read, who I'm going to skim, and who I'm not going to read at all. I suggested a few weeks ago of having the posters name at the top of the post. That would make it easier for me to do my own censoring. Don't like censorship at all. My old post was something like " Please Mr. Greenspun".

-- thinkIcan (thinkIcan@make.it), June 21, 1999.

Diane,

>Was wondering what forum participants thought of the idea of voting to have certain annoying, heckling trolls just receive a standard "DELETE" on this forum?

No. No automatic deletion based on poster identity.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), June 21, 1999.

I support the proposal.

I also support the deletion of people who use phony names to insult another poster; i.e., Ih@teflint.com.

-- GA Russell (ga.russell@usa.net), June 21, 1999.

NO NO NO to more than one forum. No to deleting posts based solely on poster's ID.

Since there's no place else to register a "whine", I'm gonna do it here: I am SICK of Al-D starting pointless threads. Yes, I do usually skip his threads---but, starting THREE religious threads in one day, while other important topics get shuffled off the board, well...it really pisses me off. AAAAACK!!!

-- RUOK (RUOK@yesiam.com), June 21, 1999.

Delete the extremely vulgar personal attacks. They add NOTHING to this forum. Don't ask us anymore - just do it. If, after a a few weeks of getting some WORK done here we miss the jerks, we'll be sure and let you know. Don't be so democratic, for god's sake.

I don't believe that was really Dieter, folks.

-- Tired (ofthis@debate.com), June 21, 1999.

Whole, complete and inclusive is the only way to go, ignoring poor behaviour is the best way to get rid of it. Profanity with zero content can go as it falls into the category of graffiti.

-- Will (sibola@hotmail.com), June 21, 1999.

Tired, yes it really WAS DiETeR! :-)

-- Gayla Dunbar (privacy@please.com), June 21, 1999.

ummmmm,,,,,,,,thought police,,,,,,,my agenda,,,,,,,good for society,,,,,,,,"bad" word,,,,,,,,"good" word,,,,,,,,,cannot envision the relevance,,,,,,,,,offensive,,,,,,,,believer,,,,,,,troll,,,,,,,get it,,,,,,,polly,,,,,,,,,doomer,,,,,,,,censorship,,,,,,,,,,assimilation, ,,,,,,,,,conformity,,,,,,,,,,,ignorance,,,,,,,,,,,,,debunky,,,,,,,,,,, ,swamp pit,,,,,,,,,,,,,moderation,,,,,,,,,,CONTROL

-- R. Wright (blaklodg@hotmail.com), June 21, 1999.

one more good people

DUH!

-- R. Wright (blaklodg@hotmail.com), June 21, 1999.

No to control. The delete vote works well.

I do agree that there should be some guiding hand at the tiller but the major problem is keeping that guiding hand from being too harsh. Yes, there are people that I believe do not belong on this forum...but then again, there are people I do not believe belong on this planet. Both sides of the arguement get aggrevating. I get just as tired of al-d and his religous posts as I do of Super Polly and Buddy. Decker is just as big a polly but his posts are usually quite reasoned and entertaining. If you paint with too big a brush, all detail is lost (and the devil is in the details, you know).

Again, let the participants in this forum vote for deletion. First, it gets the moderators off the hook and defuses the pollies. Second, it makes some people feel happy to know their vote counts (unlike the elections) on something they feel is important.

One thing. If a poster (of whatever persuasion) continually uses profanity of a high nature (F, MF, etc.) he/she should be warned by the moderator twice...third time expell him from the forum. Any poster that publishes someones personal information should be warned--once!

-- Lobo (atthelair@yahoo.com), June 21, 1999.

Hallyx (Hallyx@aol.com) 6-21-1999

One small technical improvement might obviate all this discussion of censorship and deleting, allowing us to get back to the important issues for which this forum was formed. I've suggested it before, as have others. It's simple.

Present the name of the poster at the beginning of the article (as I have above), similar to the way the TB2K mail synopsis is formatted. This allows the reader the option of reading a post or ignoring it without time-consuming scrolling, which is especially onerous on long threads. It certainly would save me a lot of time and aggravation.

Ask Mr. Greenspun if this is conveniently practicable. Does anyone else think this might be a reasonable compromise?

Hallyx

"Invest yourself in the quality of the discourse, but not the outcome."---Richard Reese

-- Hallyx (Hallyx@aol.com), June 22, 1999.

hmm...while I personally would have little problem with elimination of all troll posts, period, that probably wont fly in this forum...given that fact I'd say Hallyx has come up with the next most obvious fix - having the poster's ID at the top of the post...I'll second that motion.

Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), June 22, 1999.

The Water Dragon lady has my vote. ;) Thumbs down on anti-preparation trolls. Thumbs down on evil trolls as well.

-- Feller (feller@wanna.help), June 22, 1999.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 22, 1999.

If this format (with the name at the top) is what you are talking about, I "third" it. Currently, I sometimes scroll to the bottom of a post just to see who wrote it. This format has the added advantage of affording greater choice, rather than less, without any arbitrary actions.

END OF SAMPLE POST

-- Not here (it's@the.top), June 22, 1999.

I believe Super Polly was the first to post the latest NERC numbers here, and I do consider that valuable information. I figured Dan the power man would have jumped on it, and I do check the NERC site every few days, so I would have found it sooner or later. But what makes this site so great is how fast Y2K information gets posted here. While I didn't agree with Norm's view of the problem, I did appreciate his posts.

I am not in favor deleting a post based on the poster. In fact I don't like the idea of censorship at all, except for the very obvious cases. Let the pollys have their say. We can handle it, in more ways than one. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), June 22, 1999.

Sysman,

I agree. I don't have time to ferret the amount of info I can and do get from this board. I have to commend all the searcher/posters who do find and post links to information I can peruse in my relentless search for,,,,,more.

Hallyx,

Very good idea. If that doesn't satisfy the moderators opinion, than use isp #'s. I am not afraid of being targeted or traced, and in fact suspect that has allready happened.

I still can't understand why I was deleted from a Korean news thread posted by the cascadians I believe. My line was relevent to the conversation, (wich was actually just cut and paste) and believe the deleter (moderator) did not have a clue to what I had reffered to.

Who can possibly be the know all see all that can do the job of deleting select words? Ed did it best.(IMHO) Let the words stand on there own and the light of truth shines through.

-- R. Wright (blaklodg@hotmail.com), June 22, 1999.

Diane,

Just leave it be. It ain't perfect, but it's better than all of us fighting over which messages/posters get kicked out. It would just mean MORE distractions when we really need less. Leave it be.

-TECH32-

-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.COM), June 22, 1999.

I believe you can attribute the quote about holding your enemies closer to Vito Corleone, 'the Godfather' [Mario Puzo]

-- flora (***@__._), June 22, 1999.

Just a reminder...

Calling All Forum Moderators

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 000wtF

What a difference a week makes.

Sheesh!

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), June 22, 1999.

I've said before that I think the forum works fairly well as is. People learn quickly who posts facts, who posts critique, who posts humour, and who posts junk. I rarely go to threads where a polly has posted, not because the polly's post bugs me, but because there are usually twenty or more posts berating the polly! Quit feeding the trolls (of *all* varieties) and the problem will likely go away. My own net time is limited enough that I choose which threads I read fairly carefully and which ones I answer even more carefully (with homour excepted - I need to stay at least as sane as DiEtER :-). If the trolls bother you so much that you want to start a second forum, that's okay with me. But please leave this pretty much as is. (BTW, the first three of your delete rules are fine - for the fourth, DON'T FEED the TROLLS!)

-- Tricia the Canuck (tricia_canuck@hotmail.com), June 22, 1999.