he (paw) has been doing just fine. why now more or different rules ?
...there are rules? ...who knew? ...did anyone else know there were rules? ...I guess I better go read 'em! ...maybe I'll wait for the new ones instead!
But will we get badges? biglaugh.gif
As has been pointed out (by Groucho, I believe), this is not a public site. It's owned by Pawtucket, and if he wants rules, there will be rules. Yes, there are already rules. There are apparently going to me new rules. Perhaps he will "boot the Wierwille apologists" as Groucho votes. Perhaps he's smarter than that. We'll see.
Badges? We don't need no steeking badges!
edit: the Rules are posted under "Rules" in the top bar of this web page.
As has been pointed out (by Groucho, I believe), this is not a public site. It's owned by Pawtucket, and if he wants rules, there will be rules. Yes, there are already rules. There are apparently going to me new rules. Perhaps he will "boot the Wierwille apologists" as Groucho votes. Perhaps he's smarter than that. We'll see.
Badges? We don't need no steeking badges!
edit: the Rules are posted under "Rules" in the top bar of this web page.
As has been pointed out (by Groucho, I believe), this is not a public site. It's owned by Pawtucket, and if he wants rules, there will be rules. Yes, there are already rules. There are apparently going to me new rules. Perhaps he will "boot the Wierwille apologists" as Groucho votes. Perhaps he's smarter than that. We'll see.
Badges? We don't need no steeking badges!
edit: the Rules are posted under "Rules" in the top bar of this web page.
Is it against the current rules for me to suggest that AnotherDan lighten up a bit? ...have a sense of humor?
obviously there are rules. think about people who get suspened or banned. some good some bad (meaning from my point of view). but new rules scare me lol
I don't even know the old rules ... there are plenty of rules ... it is how they get applied that matters.
If someone posts something in response to another post ... then that post is deleted, and a responder to that post is called a liar because that post now never existed ... that is getting slimy. Then if the responder's rebuttal is deleted, but the king allows his false accusation to stand ... it gets real ugly ... and all respect is lost.
If flaming is allowed by a favored few, but an excuse is looked for, to ban those that post comments that don't support "the mission" .. that is slimy ...
If enough slime happens .. there will be a small gang of people remaining that agree with each other and use the site to rejoice at how superior they are ... but they will find ways to attack each other, with everyone else gone .. and the site dies.
That is not all that different than sites that don't allow outside commentary .. it might actually be worse, because there would be a pretense of openness ...
Ideally there is a purpose here, but there is no need to control the direction of commentary. Maybe get two people before banning anyone ... so personal grudges don't control those type actions ... it is easy to destroy a place when fairness is tossed out, and the eject button is used as a power trip tool.
Yes I agree ... why don't some good folks post here any more ?
I wish (for one) that it doesn't have to be that way, but given the backhanded way some here are attacking,
name calling, and generally denigrating another's testimony (while claiming they've done *nothing wrong by the rules*), perhaps it's time.
I know what you mean it seems to happen many times when someone posts anything positive about their Way experience. It's annoying I agree David when they do that ,but I wouldn't ask for new rules just for that. It's a tradition since day one, nothing new
Just as an aside, I find it amusing I've never been moderated (at least, not to my knowledge, though there was that one probably deserved dressing down in the chat room many moons ago ). I suspect my reputation is that of the big (true), bad (debatable) unbeliever (also debatable).
I guess my point is (other than the one on top of my head), Paw will have to decide what kind of site this is going to be, whether a pro (not likely) anti (also not likely) or somewhere in between Way site. The last one is the most difficult, since each type of community has its overt and 'understood' rules.
If it is decided what type this is going to be, those who are not in the 'favored' camp (this is organizational behavior, and is true of ANY group of people) may have to find or start another site for those whose opinions differ from the stated objective of the site.
That being said, I don't envy your job, Paw. I trust you will do what's best for you first, and the community at large, second.
I guess my point is (other than the one on top of my head), Paw will have to decide what kind of site this is going to be, whether a pro (not likely) anti (also not likely) or somewhere in between Way site. The last one is the most difficult, since each type of community has its overt and 'understood' rules.
I'm not sure that deciding "what kind of site this is going to be" is an issue at all...THAT was decided at the inception of the GSC...as it was with Waydale before that. The mission is clearly stated...now it's simply a matter of setting parameters for how people interact on the various threads...
I know what you mean it seems to happen many times when someone posts anything positive about their Way experience. It's annoying I agree David when they do that ,but I wouldn't ask for new rules just for that. It's a tradition since day one, nothing new
It's sorta like reading posts about the positve times as a member of the third reich...at a holocost survivor website...
I wish (for one) that it doesn't have to be that way, but given the backhanded way some here are attacking,
name calling, and generally denigrating another's testimony (while claiming they've done *nothing wrong by the rules*), perhaps it's time.
I know what you mean it seems to happen many times when someone posts anything positive about their Way experience. It's annoying I agree David when they do that ,but I wouldn't ask for new rules just for that. It's a tradition since day one, nothing new
I seriously doubt that dmiller is talking about the same thing that you are WD; but then you knew that, didn't you?
It's a bit lengthy so I've only copied the introduction.
Sarah Fitz-Claridge
home | polls | search
Meta-discussion: an explanation
Sarah Fitz-Claridge
What is meta-discussion?
You eagerly start reading a discussion supposedly about a subject of great interest to you, only to find that instead of being about the named subject, the discussion is full of posts arguing about how to discuss, what posts should be allowed on the forum, the attributes of a particular poster, complaints about others' posts and complaints about the discussion. Your heart sinks. You search in vain for any on-topic posts, then give up and never bother returning to that forum or discussion again. That is meta-discussion, and it ruins many a good discussion. For that reason, more and more discussion forum owners are asking posters to avoid meta-discussion. Let me explain why:
Meta-discussion is second-order discussion: discussion about the discussion – for instance, about its style, its participants, the forum in which it takes place, and so on – instead of about on-topic matters.
Imagine a discussion forum whose subject is the book Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand. Here are the possible kinds of discussion:
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
14
11
11
11
Popular Days
Aug 2
13
Aug 9
12
Jul 29
8
Aug 4
8
Top Posters In This Topic
excathedra 14 posts
WhiteDove 11 posts
doojable 11 posts
anotherDan 11 posts
Popular Days
Aug 2 2008
13 posts
Aug 9 2008
12 posts
Jul 29 2008
8 posts
Aug 4 2008
8 posts
anotherDan
As has been pointed out (by Groucho, I believe), this is not a public site. It's owned by Pawtucket, and if he wants rules, there will be rules. Yes, there are already rules. There are apparently going to me new rules. Perhaps he will "boot the Wierwille apologists" as Groucho votes. Perhaps he's smarter than that. We'll see.
Badges? We don't need no steeking badges!
edit: the Rules are posted under "Rules" in the top bar of this web page.
Edited by anotherDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Methinks our stRange friend knew already... :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Is it against the current rules for me to suggest that AnotherDan lighten up a bit? ...have a sense of humor?
My gawd peepull!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Probably not... that's something you're good at. I'd hate to see you get in trouble for it. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
stop picking on me Tom! lighten up!
:P
Paw! Tom's pickin' on me!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Everybody Picks On Me!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Sister Mary Elephant is busy on another thread...
Don't make me call her!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
obviously there are rules. think about people who get suspened or banned. some good some bad (meaning from my point of view). but new rules scare me lol
that's just me
and committees scare me even more
somehow i don't think
oh never mind
good luck
--
i might even be pleasantly surprised
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
or not
lol
i REALLY REALLY miss some people -- people who just thought outside of the greasepot mindset
sniff
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
I don't even know the old rules ... there are plenty of rules ... it is how they get applied that matters.
If someone posts something in response to another post ... then that post is deleted, and a responder to that post is called a liar because that post now never existed ... that is getting slimy. Then if the responder's rebuttal is deleted, but the king allows his false accusation to stand ... it gets real ugly ... and all respect is lost.
If flaming is allowed by a favored few, but an excuse is looked for, to ban those that post comments that don't support "the mission" .. that is slimy ...
If enough slime happens .. there will be a small gang of people remaining that agree with each other and use the site to rejoice at how superior they are ... but they will find ways to attack each other, with everyone else gone .. and the site dies.
That is not all that different than sites that don't allow outside commentary .. it might actually be worse, because there would be a pretense of openness ...
Ideally there is a purpose here, but there is no need to control the direction of commentary. Maybe get two people before banning anyone ... so personal grudges don't control those type actions ... it is easy to destroy a place when fairness is tossed out, and the eject button is used as a power trip tool.
Yes I agree ... why don't some good folks post here any more ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
uh duh i think you answered your own question lol
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
Here it is-- The Long awaited announcement of the new rules:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qff098NCNDE
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i have no problem here except the swedish part
thank you
are we going to vote ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
If we vote do the so called Wierwille apologists get to vote several times like they do in Florida since there are so few left here?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
...Actually....no.
I think that Wierwille apologists should have no vote whatsoever...and should be consigned to the dunking booth for approptiate treatment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
If new rules are in the works, great.
I wish (for one) that it doesn't have to be that way, but given the backhanded way some here are attacking,
name calling, and generally denigrating another's testimony (while claiming they've done *nothing wrong by the rules*), perhaps it's time.
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
krys
Can I change my screen name?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
I know what you mean it seems to happen many times when someone posts anything positive about their Way experience. It's annoying I agree David when they do that ,but I wouldn't ask for new rules just for that. It's a tradition since day one, nothing new
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sushi
Just as an aside, I find it amusing I've never been moderated (at least, not to my knowledge, though there was that one probably deserved dressing down in the chat room many moons ago
). I suspect my reputation is that of the big (true), bad (debatable) unbeliever (also debatable).
I guess my point is (other than the one on top of my head), Paw will have to decide what kind of site this is going to be, whether a pro (not likely) anti (also not likely) or somewhere in between Way site. The last one is the most difficult, since each type of community has its overt and 'understood' rules.
If it is decided what type this is going to be, those who are not in the 'favored' camp (this is organizational behavior, and is true of ANY group of people) may have to find or start another site for those whose opinions differ from the stated objective of the site.
That being said, I don't envy your job, Paw. I trust you will do what's best for you first, and the community at large, second.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
I'm not sure that deciding "what kind of site this is going to be" is an issue at all...THAT was decided at the inception of the GSC...as it was with Waydale before that. The mission is clearly stated...now it's simply a matter of setting parameters for how people interact on the various threads...
It's sorta like reading posts about the positve times as a member of the third reich...at a holocost survivor website...
...doncha think?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i don't know. if it gets to "we all think the same way" i'll be so sad.
well i mean, if it gets to where "we all have to think the same way"
i don't know how to start a forum nor do i want to start one or leave here
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Here's an article on "meta-discussions" that I stumbled upon on another site I visit.
It seems to have some relevance to the subject of "rules".
http://www.fitz-claridge.com/node/18
It's a bit lengthy so I've only copied the introduction.
Sarah Fitz-Claridge
home | polls | search
Meta-discussion: an explanation
Sarah Fitz-Claridge
What is meta-discussion?
You eagerly start reading a discussion supposedly about a subject of great interest to you, only to find that instead of being about the named subject, the discussion is full of posts arguing about how to discuss, what posts should be allowed on the forum, the attributes of a particular poster, complaints about others' posts and complaints about the discussion. Your heart sinks. You search in vain for any on-topic posts, then give up and never bother returning to that forum or discussion again. That is meta-discussion, and it ruins many a good discussion. For that reason, more and more discussion forum owners are asking posters to avoid meta-discussion. Let me explain why:
Meta-discussion is second-order discussion: discussion about the discussion – for instance, about its style, its participants, the forum in which it takes place, and so on – instead of about on-topic matters.
Imagine a discussion forum whose subject is the book Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand. Here are the possible kinds of discussion:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
The point being the ones that complain the loudest generally start the ball roling doing the exact thing they complain about.
Don't worry Exie I'll never think the same way
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.