I saw Fran's post below yours. But I restrained myself ( with some
effort, considering how delectable Fran's posts are ! ) from reading
it, and put in my response first :
01 Content is the holy cow, as it should be.
02 But the content and style, and the manner of posting, are also
aspects of behaviour, which is to be judged and acted upon if
necessary.
When behaviour ends up being destructive of the ' atmosphere ' in
here, when it stymies the cause of meaningful discussions here, the
very raison d'etre of Minds Eye, it is definitely time to take a call.
To get to the point of holding ' meaningful ' discussions is difficult
and infrequent enough. Therefore, for someone to make such discussions
impossible through disruptive behaviour should be considered
inexcusable. What to do, and How, is to be clarified among the
moderators, included among guidelines ( process like ) if possible,
and applied as rigorously as we could.
03 Tinker may have a thread dedicated to his ideas and beliefs, which
in any case is unidimensional. The guideline for him is not to post in
any other thread. Others interested, inquisitive, positive, or
negative, may visit his thread and add to it.
On Aug 11, 1:15 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote:
> Gruff, I don't have a blind spot to this. Hell, it's one of the hardest
> things I have to deal with in moderating. And I don't charge you for
> chastising...I step up when there is blatant ad hom. The problem comes down
> to what is inanity?
>
> I respect you, much as I respect all the members of the list, despite all of
> us having vastly different viewpoints, so instead of being frustrated at the
> levels of discombobulation we've had around here of late, let me take this
> in a different direction:
>
> Let's say we have a new member on board, ZenMaster, and this is the
> dialogue:
>
> ZM: I know of the universal truth.
> Me: And what is it?
> ZM: Nothing.
> Me: What?
> ZM: Yes.
> Me: Erm..the truth is what is nothing?
> ZM: Yes. And no.
> Me: That makes no sense at all.
> ZM: It makes absolutely perfect sense, once your mind is open to it.
> Everything is nothing. Nothing is everything. Within everything is the
> truth, and outside the truth is nothing.
> Me: What exactly are you blathering on about?
> ZM: You are not capable of understanding the all yet, but when you do, you
> will know the truth. You do not have to seek it. It will simply be. One
> cannot find the truth. One must simply know it.
> Me: What the hell is this idiot spouting off? Utter inanity?
>
> ...and yet, there are vast tomes of wisdom written with similar text. This
> is the key here. We cannot purport to be an open minded rational
> conversation list if we intend to start censoring for content because we
> don't like the sound of pseudo zen koans in response.
>
> It would be one thing if the posts were blatantly off topic, leading
> everyone to scratch their heads and think "what did that have to do with
> anything?" It didn't take long before there was a clear cut across the board
> consensus on that sort of general interjection. It would be another if the
> posts were simply cut and paste proselytization. We cover that in the
> guidelines, and don't allow it, as those posters rarely actually engage in
> discourse. What I'm seeing, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is an utter
> disdain for the lack of value of the contribution, despite it being
> generally within guidelines. To be perfectly honest, your reaction strikes
> me very similarly to that of an adult who is irritated when a child
> interrupts an important entomological conversation incessantly to note that
> butterflies do indeed have wings. I don't feel I could in good conscience
> apply any sort of moderation against that...that would be moderation of
> content, something we've consistently taken a hard line against.
>
> However, this is the reason I ask others to share this task with me, so that
> it's not all resting on my shoulders. I'm more than willing to open a
> moderation thread on it, and get some feedback from the others on their
> perspective.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 3:23 PM, gruff <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Chris, I've always found you to be a rational and level-headed person,
> > but in this matter it seems you have a blind spot to one of the
> > subjects most annoying and counter-productive tactics, which is to
> > butt in over and over again with inanities. In the year I've been
> > here with Mind's Eye, there have been a few annoying characters who
> > have popped in and out again and even one or two that have been banned
> > because they would not add to the mix but rather depleted it.
>
> > I contend that this is the issue here. The subject drops post after
> > inane post that have interrupted and in a case or two brought an end
> > to discussion through exasperation. According to popular opinion the
> > subject adds nothing to discussions but interrupts them incessantly
> > and takes away from them. And you charge us with violation of the
> > rules for chastising this person and yes, at times even an ad hom
> > attack ... which is put forth as within the realm of acceptability for
> > the reasons stated above.
>
> > So I put it to you, ignoring the subject is a worthless endeavor as
> > the subject continues on with obfuscation and unwarranted and inane
> > interruption, ad hom'ing him doesn't work, he just blithly ignores it
> > or comes back with more of his inanities, and you attack us for are
> > attacking the subject. This is getting to be a nasty little circle.
> > I would request that you (1) reconsider your charges against us and
> > (2) put the subject on notice against banishment.
>
> > "... On Aug 8, 4:24 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]>
> > wrote: ... "
>
> > > Ignoring posts that have little value to you is the ideal, Slip.
>
> > > In the years this list has been around, we've watched people come and go,
> > some more insightful than others. Each of us over time will find regular
> > posters whose contributions hold much value. Conversely, we'll find others
> > whose posts hold little for us.
>
> > > Engage with the ones whom you are able to construct positive discourse,
> > even if that discourse is argumentative. If you feel there's absolutely no
> > value to it, pass over it. Your posts are often of value to me, which is why
> > I've often engaged with you. However, don't presume that a post has no value
> > for anyone, and put that message out there on list.
>
> > > Despite the friction we've encountered this last week or so, I truly
> > believe that this list is unique on the web in the quality of discourse, and
> > its participants. You are truly the greatest group of conversationalists
> > I've had the pleasure of engaging with in this fashion. It can be
> > frustrating sometimes to have these communication issues, but only in
> > comparison to the heights of understanding I've seen achieved here.- Hide
> > quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
