Promised to ask this question around a decade ago... though this is a bit esoteric.

[HeartShadow]

I would think that a banned poster disclosing relevant information to a discussion that other people are putting their also valuable time and effort into would be a top priority. Something along the lines of "Hey, this banned poster just spoke to a few people in chat, and the integrity of this discussion has been compromised for everyone. Thread is now locked." I don't know, that just seems like a more fair and reasonable response then the one used here of just allowing some people to feel like fools and others to be validated.

 
We don't lock threads casually.  Pretty much there has to be ongoing rules violations or legal issues for us to lock threads.  Not a chat conversation that involves it.

And .. I'm still really confused what you want from staff.  To report chat conversations if they relate to a thread?  People talk about various things on the board in chat ALL THE TIME.  It would be impossible to know what someone would consider relevant or not at the time.

I don't think anyone's HAPPY that this person turned out to be a troll.  I'm sorry you're hurt by this, but .. the guilty party is the troll.  I think we can all agree that trolls are bad and we wish they'd all go away.  Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a way to MAKE them go away, other than one at a time when we catch them.

I'd also like to point out that TC is fairly low on staff compared to the amount of posting that happens here, and we're all volunteer.  High expectations of us run into things like day jobs, families, distraction ... If you expect us to be perfect, there WILL be disappointment.  And honestly, that's how these threads seem to go to me.  "Why aren't you BETTER at this?  Go be BETTER."

We can't.

[Darkhawk]

I would think that a banned poster disclosing relevant information to a discussion that other people are putting their also valuable time and effort into would be a top priority.

I, on the other hand, do not consider breaching confidentiality of board members - even former board members - to be a top priority.  Chat conversations, like private messages, are not public information.  Period.

We do not lock threads here, as I think you might well have noticed by now.  Of course, if we did lock threads here, we would have done so when the poster was banned for being an asshole and none of your comments on the thread would have ever been written.

However, since asking Randall to explicitly draw people's attention to the fact that the poster had been banned for unacceptable behaviour did not stop people from defending that behaviour, and further it was dragging more people into the "mean to newbies" strawman, I violated my own ethical standards in order to give you and others information that would otherwise have been limited to staff and those people who were immediately present in that private conversation.

Personally, I'm taking this as a reminder that bending my honour is basically never worth the resulting pain.

[Juniperberry]

We don't lock threads casually.  Pretty much there has to be ongoing rules violations or legal issues for us to lock threads.  Not a chat conversation that involves it.

Locking the thread was not my relevant point.

And .. I'm still really confused what you want from staff.  To report chat conversations if they relate to a thread?  People talk about various things on the board in chat ALL THE TIME.  It would be impossible to know what someone would consider relevant or not at the time.

This isn't about ME wanting to pick and chose what is relevant in chat. Darkhawk made that decision. It had some unpleasant consequences. I would like staff to take responsibility in informing me what is going to be the acceptable protocol in situations like this.

If there's no change, no protocol, then I either have to respect that or leave.

I'm sorry you're hurt by this.

Thank you.

I'd also like to point out that TC is fairly low on staff compared to the amount of posting that happens here, and we're all volunteer.  High expectations of us run into things like day jobs, families, distraction ... If you expect us to be perfect, there WILL be disappointment.  And honestly, that's how these threads seem to go to me.  "Why aren't you BETTER at this?  Go be BETTER."

We can't.

I'm sorry you feel criticized. I've tried to word this as nicely as possible but... that's just part of the job isn't it?  You're supposed to deal with board issues, trolls, squeaky wheels, etc. We can't feel bad for wanting you to perform the job you volunteered for.

However, I should be more considerate of the fact that when I'm criticizing/questioning board policy, that I'm also criticizing/questioning the people behind it.

[RandallS]

I would think that a banned poster disclosing relevant information to a discussion that other people are putting their also valuable time and effort into would be a top priority. Something along the lines of "Hey, this banned poster just spoke to a few people in chat, and the integrity of this discussion has been compromised for everyone. Thread is now locked." I don't know, that just seems like a more fair and reasonable response then the one used here of just allowing some people to feel like fools and others to be validated.

[mod=HOST HAT ON]

1) We don't lock threads except in extreme cases. You know this, or should as it has been said many times since you became a member. Someone talking about a thread in chat certainly does not justify locking the thread.

2) Chat is fairly independent of the message board here and is definitely secondary to the board. The hosts have no interest in chat (no time on Lyric's part and neither time nor ability on my part) so we pretty much ignore it. Not knowing what was said in chat has seldom (if ever) really interfered with our ability to use the message board. If someone doesn't care enough to say it on the board, I just assume it is something I don't need to know to participate in the discussion.  Chat will never be made primary enough the people have to report what was said in chat about a thread topic in the topic unless they wish to -- at least not so long as Lyric and I are running the board.

Which brings us to....

You are welcome to start your own web site with its own message board and chat area and run it however you think it should be run. I, however, don't care how you think this site should be run. If you want to tell me how to run it, you are free to buy it from me for one million US dollars (after all my taxes, fees, legal fees, etc. are paid -- translation, I clear at least one million US dollars after all that crap have been covered). If you can not or will not buy this site, please don't tell me how to run it. Thank you.[/mod]

[Darkhawk]

This isn't about ME wanting to pick and chose what is relevant in chat. Darkhawk made that decision.

Yes.  I DECIDED TO TRY BEING NICE TO NAY AND TO YOU even though it was against my ethics and general policy.

And this is what I get for it.  Being bitched out for not doing something on the margins of ethical behaviour sooner.

I'm sorry I'm not willing to break my moral code for you with the efficiency you like, JB.

I'm sorry you feel criticized. I've tried to word this as nicely as possible but... that's just part of the job isn't it?  You're supposed to deal with board issues, trolls, squeaky wheels, etc. We can't feel bad for wanting you to perform the job you volunteered for.

Damned if we do, damned if we don't, huh?  Because right after we banned the guy we got told that "this is why newbies don't stick around the board" by, oh, someone.

[RandallS]

Damned if we do, damned if we don't, huh?  Because right after we banned the guy we got told that "this is why newbies don't stick around the board" by, oh, someone.

IMHO, "think of the newbies" is usually used in the same silly way "think of the children" is -- as an attempt to "blackmail" people into supporting whatever action someone wants -- because no one wants to be seen as being against children (or newbies) so it is a great pressure tactic. Yes, sometimes children or newbies are legit concerns, but "think of the children/newbies" is also trotted out whenever someone needs to justify some action they want taken that can't think of better way to justify.

[Juniperberry]

Yes.  I DECIDED TO TRY BEING NICE TO NAY AND TO YOU even though it was against my ethics and general policy.

And this is what I get for it.  Being bitched out for not doing something on the margins of ethical behaviour sooner.

I'm sorry I'm not willing to break my moral code for you with the efficiency you like, JB.



Damned if we do, damned if we don't, huh?  Because right after we banned the guy we got told that "this is why newbies don't stick around the board" by, oh, someone.

 
You're right. My concerns were misguided in this thread and for that I apologize.

[Sophia C]

IMHO, "think of the newbies" is usually used in the same silly way "think of the children" is -- as an attempt to "blackmail" people into supporting whatever action someone wants -- because no one wants to be seen as being against children (or newbies) so it is a great pressure tactic. Yes, sometimes children or newbies are legit concerns, but "think of the children/newbies" is also trotted out whenever someone needs to justify some action they want taken that can't think of better way to justify.

 
I accept that this is some people's opinion. However, it's really upsetting to hear my words used in this way. I was acting along the lines of my own ethics (much like Kiya was), and was absolutely not trying to blackmail anyone into anything - I'm appalled and disturbed that my actions can be seen in this way. Clearly I need to consider everything I say much more carefully from the perspective of others. I'll take this on board. But I'm distressed that this is how I was interpreted. I don't know how to interpret what went on in this thread, basically. It's making no sense to me that apparently I'm blackmailing people?

As a person with Asperger's (yes, I'm going to trot that one out), I live my life trying to guess how my every word will be interpreted. And I'm not very good at it. If people could just be aware that, when they ascribe motive to me, they're working within my attempts to figure out what the hell everyone is doing and thinking and how I'm supposed to respond, that would be really nice.

And that's the main reason why I tend to feel a lot of empathy for people I perceive as misunderstood, or as not having had the time to absorb board culture and therefore posting in ways that aren't well-received here. The rules are only so useful to some people. There are many more expectations of behaviour here than the rules encompass. It was hard for me to absorb the unspoken rules of board culture, and I still get it wrong much of the time. This is the reason I worry about new people. Not because I'm trying to blackmail people into doing something. Simply because I feel for people. Yes, in this case I got it wrong, and I'm sorry about that. But the reaction I've got is... confusing.

This is not directed at any one person, but at everything that's been said to me in a thread that has deeply upset and confused me. All I can say in my defense is, my motives were not what people are saying they were. But I will do my best to reconsider my behaviour, as I said above.

[savveir]

I accept that this is some people's opinion. However, it's really upsetting to hear my words used in this way. I was acting along the lines of my own ethics (much like Kiya was), and was absolutely not trying to blackmail anyone into anything - I'm appalled and disturbed that my actions can be seen in this way. Clearly I need to consider everything I say much more carefully from the perspective of others. I'll take this on board. But I'm distressed that this is how I was interpreted. I don't know how to interpret what went on in this thread, basically. It's making no sense to me that apparently I'm blackmailing people?

...

 
This is a really good point, and a good example of what happens when people presume that someone is acting in bad faith. To guess at someone's motives and to come up with blackmail is a large leap in my opinion. This is a text based forum, it is difficult to divine motives from words on a page, particularly when it is a polarizing topic. The nature of the topic will mean that people are going to have their opinions on other's response tinted by their stance on the topic at hand. This is why it is important to remember to try and read responses in good faith, assume the best until you are proven otherwise.

Is it good faith to suggest that a long term member in good standing such as Naomi is attempting to blackmail other members? No, it clearly isn't. Such a presumption sounds like a knee jerk reaction due to differing opinions.
This isn't just for long time members though, Newbies should get the same consideration. Unless they are clearly proving otherwise, assume that they are posting in good faith, that they mean well, and they just might not be good at explanations.

Honestly this isn't a new concept, it also does mean people can avoid rule breaches.
As I said, assume the best until the prove (not when you assume) otherwise.

[Faemon]

basically he had made up significant portions of the story in order to provoke a reaction, but had not imagined that throwing in the aspect of sexual predation might upset people so his "experiment" was ruined.

As I've heard, no matter how hard a person tries...a disguise always turns into a self-portrait. (I've been catfished enough to remember it's still a bad thing, though.)

I violated my own ethical standards in order to give you and others information that would otherwise have been limited to staff and those people who were immediately present in that private conversation.

Personally, I'm taking this as a reminder that bending my honour is basically never worth the resulting pain.

I'm curious about the purpose and design of this experiment, though, if AAQuest happened to mention it. Was it a social experiment to demonstrate how gullible pagans will take a vague suggestion in convoluted prose to fantastical conclusions? Because this is definitely the wrong community for that, if I may say so myself. Unless it was something else? (Although I totally understand if y'all want this line of enquiry shut down. I was just curious!)

[RandallS]

I accept that this is some people's opinion. However, it's really upsetting to hear my words used in this way. I was acting along the lines of my own ethics (much like Kiya was), and was absolutely not trying to blackmail anyone into anything - I'm appalled and disturbed that my actions can be seen in this way. Clearly I need to consider everything I say much more carefully from the perspective of others. I'll take this on board. But I'm distressed that this is how I was interpreted. I don't know how to interpret what went on in this thread, basically. It's making no sense to me that apparently I'm blackmailing people?

It wasn't how your statements specifically were taken, but how I take the entire general attitude. I see "think of the children" used all the time in the US by pressure groups trying to get all sorts of restrictions placed on adults because they feel a child somewhere somehow might be harmed (which often includes "be exposed to views/lifestyles we oppose" ). I'm all for protecting children from real harm provided it is done in a way that does not limit non-children any more than absolutely necessary to actually protect the average child from harm. I have no interest in protecting children from imaginary or unlikely harm (let alone from exposure to ideas some oppose) by restricting what adults can do which is what a lot of "protect the children" cries in the US are really about: not protecting children but stopping adults from doing things the pressure groups crying "protect the children" don't want them doing.

Most of the  "protect the newbies" things I've seen on TC over the 17-18 years of its existence are really about trying to turn TC into less of a debate and discussion board and into a board where people's feelings are considered more important than debate and discussion. TC isn't a board everyone will enjoy -- I have always known that. Therefore we aim to please that segment of the community that either does not mind the type of relatively "unfriendly" debate and discussion TC has or is willing to put up with it because they fine the discussions useful/informative enough though they personally would not enjoy taking part in them. TC does have large social areas that are much more friendly to people unwilling to put up with our debates and discussions, but even those are going to be less "friendly/safe" than many other boards on the Internet.

Treating newbies with very soft kid gloves would either give them a false impression of what TC is like or slowly change the board into yet another Pagan board that discourages discussions that might upset people and goes for fellowship over debate and discussion -- in other words, into a board I'd rather not participate in, let alone devote time and effort into running. My apologies to those who feel differently.

[Darkhawk]

I'm curious about the purpose and design of this experiment, though, if AAQuest happened to mention it. Was it a social experiment to demonstrate how gullible pagans will take a vague suggestion in convoluted prose to fantastical conclusions? Because this is definitely the wrong community for that, if I may say so myself. Unless it was something else? (Although I totally understand if y'all want this line of enquiry shut down. I was just curious!)

 
Honestly, it was not clearer than it was in the nigh-incomprehensible flounce post for which he was banned.

For anyone who is unclear on why he was banned:  when someone posts a giant flounce post that makes it clear that a) he has been misrepresenting at best why he was asking questions (which I think is fairly clear he was from that post, given that the ranting about "ix" and whatever that was had absolutely no relationship to the discussion), b) his purposes on being here were some kind of test or social experiment that he feels the need to inform us that we have failed, we are highly disinclined to say "Oh, we know you said you were leaving forever, but you're welcome to come back and take advantage of our members' goodwill some more when you get bored with having departed."  The rape apologia were frosting on the cake.

In cases where someone makes it absolutely clear that they are, having gotten their funsies by posting in bad faith and abusing our members, going to now depart, we are instead going to say "Don't let the door hit you in the arse on the way out."

The fact he came into chat afterwards and reiterated that it had been some kind of nonconsensual test or experiment, as well as giving us the additional information that the initial scenario had been at least partly fabricated (which I chose to disclose), has no bearing on the fact that he had already been banned for, among other things, the bad behaviour that he admitted to.

I do not know why there was no explicit ban posted at the time.  I suspect Randall expected that once the poster in question was prevented from ending his self-imposed exile to stir the pot some more, the thread would die; that is, historically, what tends to happen with flouncers who make clear they have been misleading people.

[carillion]

Most of the  "protect the newbies" things I've seen on TC over the 17-18 years of its existence are really about trying to turn TC into less of a debate and discussion board and into a board where people's feelings are considered more important than debate and discussion. .

(bolding mine)

This. The internet is probably the worst form of communication for dealing with 'feelings'. Also, robust debate should, IMO, seek to avoid using feelings as a discussion point. There's a reason there is a fallacy named after it.
I think this board is more than fair in giving people, new or old, consideration of their ideas. It's a compliment that even if someone is not as erudite as could be wished try to express an idea, people take them seriously. Boards that lean towards shoring up emotion at the expense of ideas very quickly turn into the the kind of forum with cliques and biases that kill good debate.

So I see the responses in this thread to be the exact *opposite* of dismissive. After all, when I read the first post it struck me that the person was either up to a bit of fiction ( I even googled around looking for the same story in books, video games and 'zines) or had some serious cognitive issues. My way of giving benefit of the doubt was to ask about whether English was their first language because if it wasn't, then this person had *some* kind of 'issues' and I would stay well away.

And let's be frank. There are some people who for various reasons will find particiption in this kind of board difficult. That's not discrimination against newbies or anyone else. After all, there are people here that have cognitive issues who have managed to overcome whatever their problems are and still participate.

There is nothing wrong with having expectations in *any* sphere of life. If someone claims the can play the cello and wants to join your chamber ensemble, they'd best know how to play. If someone wants to debate philosophic constructs of any kind, the should have the words to do so or at least try. Plain words ( which after all, is the coin of the internet) may not be used elegantly but most anyone can get their point across. Also, just because a person may have issues doesn't mean they are so vulnerable that others have to walk softly around them lest they inadvertantly hurt their feelings.


And this board accomodates many people who may not have the words, but can get across their ideas. A good example is a recent thread I think of as 'Thank Satan for little girls". I really thought that poster was a hoaxer but he hung in there which showed that even if he had 'issues', he could still take the rough and tumble of debate.

One thing I have learned about the board here in general is that if I have a 'hinky' feeling about some post, others have it as well. That is something I have come to trust. And the best way to engage with that is *honestly: to find out more, to question. Isn't this board first and foremost about questioning? I for one would like it to remain that way .

And it still comes down to that first principle everyone knows well : answer to the post, not the person. That's the only way to keep things sane and safe for everyone. When I first came here, I had my feelings hurt. But then I remembered that people were responding my *words*, they weren't in my living room talking to me. Which is a good thing 'cause judging by the way people love their food and drink  around here ( a healthy thing) , forget hurt: I'd be bankrupt:)

[Juniperberry]

This is a really good point, and a good example of what happens when people presume that someone is acting in bad faith. To guess at someone's motives and to come up with blackmail is a large leap in my opinion. This is a text based forum, it is difficult to divine motives from words on a page, particularly when it is a polarizing topic. The nature of the topic will mean that people are going to have their opinions on other's response tinted by their stance on the topic at hand. This is why it is important to remember to try and read responses in good faith, assume the best until you are proven otherwise.

Is it good faith to suggest that a long term member in good standing such as Naomi is attempting to blackmail other members? No, it clearly isn't. Such a presumption sounds like a knee jerk reaction due to differing opinions.
This isn't just for long time members though, Newbies should get the same consideration. Unless they are clearly proving otherwise, assume that they are posting in good faith, that they mean well, and they just might not be good at explanations.

Honestly this isn't a new concept, it also does mean people can avoid rule breaches.
As I said, assume the best until the prove (not when you assume) otherwise.

 
I've recently discovered that I'm dyslexic. (Which isn't that uncommon in adulthood.) Dyslexia isn't just transposing or reversing letters, that's a byproduct. Dyslexia is how the brain processes info; normal brains are language based and dyslexics are visual-spatial based.

It's often difficult for me to write in words the extent of what I'm visualizing. Also, since I read in real images and not abstract symbols, I can get very literal (or nit-picky) about details. Wanting to give newbies the benefit of the doubt isn't some manipulative agenda, I just sometimes read the situation differently, and parse out different meaningful (to me), points in a text.

Anyway.

[Yei]

Perhaps I am being foolish wading into this debate...But I've been feeling restless so...

(bolding mine)
And let's be frank. There are some people who for various reasons will find particiption in this kind of board difficult. That's not discrimination against newbies or anyone else. After all, there are people here that have cognitive issues who have managed to overcome whatever their problems are and still participate.

There is nothing wrong with having expectations in *any* sphere of life. If someone claims the can play the cello and wants to join your chamber ensemble, they'd best know how to play. If someone wants to debate philosophic constructs of any kind, the should have the words to do so or at least try. Plain words ( which after all, is the coin of the internet) may not be used elegantly but most anyone can get their point across. Also, just because a person may have issues doesn't mean they are so vulnerable that others have to walk softly around them lest they inadvertantly hurt their feelings.

 
I would like to make comment on this whole 'newbies' thing, and I quoted this comment because it seemed relevant to my own thoughts. The Internet has come along way since the days when it was full of cowboys and arguments about Buffy. Nowadays most forums have at least some moderation. There is certainly a difference in detail, but some basic principles still apply. Personally, I find the idea that the Cauldron is a person's first forum to be highly unlikely, especially considering it's 'niche' appeal. By the time someone gets here, they should already be familiar with the basic principles of internet conduct.

Anyway, this is not about religion or beliefs, its about basic communication skills, such as not being rude and communicating clearly which appears to be the case here. We would not accept such things in everyday life so why should we accept them on the Internet? Its not as though these skills are hard to master. Obviously its different if English is not a person's first language but this does not appear to be the case here.

Communication requires an input on both sides. Simply being new here does not absolve a person of their part in communication.