I think this is the beginnings of an economy based on perpetual growth and fossil fuel energy running headlong into geological energy constraints. Basically I see an undulatory downward path for the rest of my life. From here out, I think any rallies in our economic condition are going to be met with spiking commodity prices that knock us right back down.
Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 5:51 am Post subject: Re: Question/suggestion Re: CoC
Big Bro is Watching You... _________________ "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F Roberts.
More likely a case of killing time while avoiding work. I bet adding internet connections to the offices of the world had a major effect on cutting down coffee break time. People don't take as many breaks from play.
Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 12:55 pm Post subject: Re: Question/suggestion Re: CoC
After reviewing my post from last night, with the mental clarity brought by sleep, I wish to revise some of the thoughts I expressed.
First on the issue of Monica Lewinksy possibly being Jewish, I am sure her ethnicity is not at issue. No doubt Bill Clinton, being a politically correct animal, clipped the tip of his cigar before he used it.
I am still waiting to hear advice from Jimmy Swaggart, but I suspect he will not have the time to reply so let me strike out on my own with this humorous story, to soothe any feathers I may have ruffled.
A Priest, Minister, and Rabbi go into a bar. The Priest orders....
What? I can't tell that story? But what humor does not involve sex or poke fun at someone or something?
More likely a case of killing time while avoiding work. I bet adding internet connections to the offices of the world had a major effect on cutting down coffee break time. People don't take as many breaks from play.
Not likely,
We at the USGS have no sense of humor we are aware of.
Seriously though... a few I'd believe are goofing off.
But hundreds & thousands?
2,300 separate IP's from the Air Force alone.
I for one welcome our new military overlords.
Wait... what? _________________ "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F Roberts.
Joined: Oct 16, 2004 Posts: 1485 Location: Appalachian Foothills of Virginia
Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 4:03 pm Post subject: Re: Question/suggestion Re: CoC
Incivility detracts from the veracity of the PO community. Obnoxious and disparaging remarks usually mean that the author cannot respond intelligently in a debate or refused to take a few seconds to provide supporting references.
Wikipedia has an effective civility policy that we could consider as food for thought, summarized below;
Quote:
Civility is a code for the conduct of editing and writing edit summaries, comments, and talk page discussions on all Wikipedias. Whereas incivility is roughly defined as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress, our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another.
Our Wikipedia community has by experience developed an informal hierarchy of core principles — the most important being that articles be written with a neutral point of view. After that we request a reasonable degree of civility towards others. "Civility" is the only principle that we can apply to online conduct, and it's the only reasonable way to delimit acceptable conduct from the unacceptable. We cannot always expect people to love, honor, obey, or even respect one another. But we have every right to demand civility.
Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 2:35 pm Post subject: Re: Question/suggestion Re: CoC
Hello,
The CoC includes normative statements about the kind of
community we wish to be, what is encouraged/discouraged,
etc. Such normative statements, including the one indicating
posters should "avoid flaming and ad hominem attacks" have
been useful.
They are also a completely separate issue from the issue of
"how (and when) to enforce the CoC", as I pointed out in
response to your first post, Aaron (on the latter issue I
might be more "anti big brother" than most on this board).
I'm glad to see skyemoor's post. Despite the hysterics on
the part of some, it appears that the basic point is clear
to at least some.
(It's already come up that no one needs any special status
-- it should be clear from the fact that I didn't need
special status as an Asian (I am not of Asian ethnicity) to
respond to the "I want the asians all dead. Period. They are
a vile race...[they are] Nasty germ like bacteria. The
poster child for humanoid parasites"
(http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic25228-0-asc-45.html))
It is interesting to note that none of the apoplectic posts
screaming hysterically about 'censorship' have given one,
single reasoned explanation as to how (on the one hand)
adding a normative statement to CoC 'tells people what to
write/say/think' while (on the other hand) the existing
normative statements somehow, magically, do not tell people
what to write/say/think.
I wish I saved the link but in the last week or so I
found a web page with stories and user comments
that might touch upon the "slashdot type rankings?" discussion
I think was elsewhere on this PO policy/suggestion forum.
Users could label posts by others as one of 7 or so labels,
one of them was "hate speech" by the way. (Oh, but wait,
maybe we should be big brother and tell users they are not
allowed to think another person's post is ad hominem, hateful, flame etc ;-)
But back to the topic at hand:
Let A stand for "adding to the existing normative statements
about avoiding flames and avoiding ad hominem attacks"
additional ones based on one or more or of the suggestions
above (or others).
This could include "hate speech" and/or "hateful speech"
and/or modifying the (already existing) "ad hominem" to "ad
hominem towards individuals or groups" and/or skymoor's
"civility policy" suggestion, which I think is also
excellent.
Let B stand for the separate issue of "when do we enforce,
and how do we enforce the CoC" (and let C stand for "Let's
have Big Brother dictatorship" etc).
Of course the paranoid can assume that anyone callling for A
must secretly want B discussed or even wants C (that's ok,
since some of us ALSO have our own "paranoia" ..namely that
those who scream most loudly against Big Brother would love
a world Fascist Dictatorship and have infinitely more in
common with scoundrels like Bush and Sharon than they
think..but no matter).
But it doesn't matter whether you think someone else wants B
or C, simply because anyone can state they are against B
changes but for proposal A (or else have fun trying to
explain why they are against A's normative statement but
they are for the existing CoC's normative statements)
I am suggesting A. Towards that end I support the language
skyemoor is suggesting.
I think skyemoor's suggestion is among the types of
normative statements that would take us forward with
positive, affirming statements about what kind of community
we are (and I'm not too particular on the exact language of
such statements) "in order to form a more perfect CoC" and
improve on its current, existing normative statements
(discouraging both "flames" and "ad hominem") about the kind
of community we wish to be.
Joined: May 15, 2005 Posts: 4142 Location: THE MATRIX
Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 3:21 pm Post subject: Re: Question/suggestion Re: CoC
could I be banned for "like" one day just to see what it feels like?
Demand neutrality from your MSM!!!
Demand civility from your government!!!
Hope for both from your fellow peakers and let the mod's take care of the rest! AMEN...
I dont mind a "crack" every now and then and frankly I think it takes a bit of intelligence and imagination to really open up a can of whoop ass on someone
If you desire for everyone to take everything completely serious because we are in a PO forum then shut down the open forum and anything that doesnt closely relate to PO as all else is folly AND when you do that its time for me to leave.
As far as hate goes - bring it on - get it all out of your system - its good for you
Kam is my new Hero!
Hell!! some of you "fags" are calling me an anti semite because I posted a thread entitled the protocols of the learned elders of zion..... Freaks!! _________________ It is easier to enslave a people that wish to remain free then it is to free a people who wish to remain enslaved.
Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 3:44 pm Post subject: Re: Question/suggestion Re: CoC
NEOPO wrote:
... can of whoop ass on someone
Is that a vegetable?
As to edpeak,
I have the feeling that the computer room is opened at the state mental hospital. To me this diatribe just has that quality of insanity.
Of course some of you will accuse me of an ad hominem attack, but sincerely it is not. This is my honest assessment, and normally I would not say so, were this not part of the issue in this thread. Should we be silent when we perceive that some thinking has just gone so far out of bounds that no normal mind would function thusly. I just think that after numerous serious posts and various responses, some hopefully humorous, that the position of the originator of this thread has become so bizarre as to be noticed and mentioned.
Joined: Oct 16, 2004 Posts: 1485 Location: Appalachian Foothills of Virginia
Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 8:30 pm Post subject: Re: Question/suggestion Re: CoC
Quote:
there is no per se restraint on the expression of thougts that are offensive to some, but not all.
So if someone makes a post that is offensive to everyone but the members of a white supremacist group, then you believe that's ok here? Sorry, you seem to be making up your own rules. Read the CoC again, both in terms of 'off-topic' posts (this is a peak-oil forum) and in terms of the moderators right to delete any post they feel is inappropriate. If you want to complain about a government (i.e, US, Israel, Tongo, San Marino, etc) and the bad policies they have with regard to oil policy, then we're all ears. But attacks against ethnic and other groups is clearly off-topic and stepping over the line. We don't catch every off-topic violation (just like police don't catch all speeders) so don't be surprised when such a post is edited and you get a PM.
That's not thought control, because you are free to think what you like, free to visit other forums, and free to start your own forum. Don't assume that the ability to make caustic remarks that are par for the course on some forums simply extends to all. We strive to make this forum as open as possible, but intentional abuse of that openness will be addressed. _________________ http://www.carfree.com http://ecoplan.org/carshare/cs_index.htm http://www.velomobile.de/GB/Advantages/advantages.html
Chance favors the prepared mind. -- Louis Pasteur
He that lives upon hope will die fasting. --Benjamin Franklin
Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 10:40 pm Post subject: Re: Question/suggestion Re: CoC
skyemoor,
I am responding to you so this thread continues to be
about suggested improvements to the CoC rather than a
debate about political opinions (I'm happy to do that
in other PO forums, although it may be pointless to do
so with people who, apparently, think I have a time
machine)
Thank you first of all for clarifying a basic
distinction:
Quote:
If you want to complain about a government (i.e, US,
Israel, Tongo, San Marino, etc) and the bad policies
they have with regard to oil policy, then we're all
ears. But attacks against ethnic and other groups is
clearly off-topic and stepping over the line.
Exactly. There are plenty of excellent articles
critical of the state of Israel (and the U.S. and
others) one can find by Chomsky, on Democracy Now, or Z
magazine (I'll leave it to readers to figure out what
else Z magazine co-founder Michael Albert, and Chomsky,
and Democracy Now's host Amy Goodman all have in
common, in addition to their being among the top most
voices critical of Israel in the U.S.) and would be
excellent for inclusion in political discussion in
PO.com
That is very different from "attacks against ethnic and
other groups" as you put it. And yes, those could be
called into question as being "off-topic" as you noted,
but as you also pointed out, they are "stepping over
the line"
How to enforce the CoC is one question -- and not the
question I'm raising here, while "What should go into
the CoC?" is another. And, let's not forget that
"enforcement" by moderators is not the only factor that
comes into play, and often, it's not even the dominant
one. The norms, values, and mores of the participants
are key here -- peers can in polite ways remind their
peers of the kind of place PO.com forums are meant to
be.
I would be very surprised for example, if there weren't
examples out there where one poster reminded another
about ad hominem attacks being discouraged, and where
that reminder had the desirable effect, but without a
moderator ever having to actually remove a post.
That's because the normative statements in the CoC
about the kind of place we want PO.com forums to be can
be used in this way by users.
Would a reminder about civility and avoiding "ad
hominem again individuals or groups" be useful? It
seems to be the answer is pretty clear and the evidence
is only mounting, that a reminder in the CoC would be
very helpful. Such language in the revised CoC could
then be used by readers/posters to remind our fellow
readers/posters, when appropriate) Although I've been
using the internet for over 20 years, it hasn't taken
me a very long time reading PO.com forums to find many
examples suggesting that adding a few words to the CoC
about attacks against ethnic groups, or ad hominem
against groups, etc, do not belong in PO forums.
The number of examples is mounting, over a very short
period of time:
1. Even though a link wasn't provided to confirm it,
we're told about a post "describ[ing] the people of the
Congo as 'talking animals' with 70 IQs"
2. We have seen the post on Nov 24 '06 stating that "I
want the asians all dead. Period. They are a vile
race...[they are] Nasty germ like bacteria. The poster
child for humanoid parasites"
(http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic25228-0-asc-45.html
(whose racism I criticized on Nov 25)
3. There was the post removed from
http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic26021-0-asc-0.html
around Jan 3 2007 where one poster said they aren't
sure if NEOPO is Jewish, Nazi, or American and
therefore doesn't know whether "to throw you in the gas
chamber or [actions towards Nazis and Americans]"
To find more than one example per month while reading
less than 5% of PO.com's forums gives us an idea of
just how prevalent such hate speech is on PO.com
Just in the course of this discussion we see that there
are PO.com users who think that statements like:
4. "It is my opinion that Jews, as a group, are more
amoral than Muslims, as a group." or to give a
parallel, "It is my opinion that Blacks, as a group,
are more lazy than Whites, as a groups"
are completely reasonable posts according to such
users' views.
Isn't there already more than enough evidence of the
wisdom of amending the normative statements in the CoC
would be a good idea, a good reminder to PO.com users?
I think the case is very strong and very
clear. Although I won't be checking in every single
day, I will check back periodically to find out what
PO.com's administrators ultimately decide, saving local
copies of this thread. Whatever PO.com does will affect
how others look at PO.
If there is, on the one hand, heavy-handed deleting of
posts that is arbitrary, that would make PO.com look
bad, and rightly so. If, on the other hand, and despite
plenty of evidence suggesting the wisdom of affirming
something more positive than ethnic hatred, PO.com
can't be bothered to make a short but critical
amendment to its CoC to discourage such ethnic hatred,
that too would make PO.com look bad..and also rightly
so.
But there is another way -- a path of, on the one hand,
avoiding post deletion unless it can be strongly
justified, while, at the same time, including
clarification into the language of the CoC that affirms
what PO.com is about and which makes it clearer to all
users that ethnic hatred is NOT what PO.com is about,
would bring PO.com more respect, and deservedly so.
It's not about how this or that user judges PO.com,
it's about how readers in the future reading your
decisions today judge them when they read archives
on the internet.
Being management/moderators is not an easy task. I
hope PO.com chooses the wise path..
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3Next
Page 2 of 3
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
