Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktSo, now that this weekend’s brouhaha is largely past us and the postmortem recriminations have been played out, complete with after-the-fact play by play and color commentary, I thought I would add my own observations about something that has heretofore been unremarked upon, and that is how third parties react to a perceived instance of a breach in ATiM etiquette.
I for one am very reluctant to play moderator or referee in the midst of a heated conversation between two other people, particularly by calling someone out, and especially as a public matter. (Ignore, for now, the fact that I am usually a participant and rarely a third party observer in such conversations.) Both personal experience and observation suggests to me that it rarely ends up being helpful, and often makes things worse, embroiling yet more people in the heat rather than cooling things down as intended. Perhaps a private e-mail, or brief “Come on, people” from a third party might be useful. But if that doesn’t work, I think letting things play out and having a postmortem later is likely to be less damaging than trying to intervene by taking people to task on the board.
This is a self-moderated blog, and in the first instance it means exactly that- each of us is expected to moderate ourselves individually, according to the rules that we all know. And I can say from personal experience that, having determined to one’s own satisfaction that one hasn’t done anything wrong, to see the repeated insinuation from third parties that one is out of bounds can be extremely grating, even if, in retrospect, there may be a point. This simply dials up, rather than alleviates, the heat of the situation.
Letting an inflamed situation play out is not the end of the world. What makes our discussion standards notable here is what we are striving to achieve, not the fact that we always and everywhere achieve it. If, in a given instance, we fail, then we fail. On to the next one and try again. And an after-the-fact discussion about it may well prove more valuable, or at least less damaging, than a heat-of-the-battle attempt to stop it. Active third-party moderation is not always, and perhaps not even often, the best approach.
My two cents.
Filed under: Uncategorized |
All Things in Moderation 
On to the next one and try again
That’s a very good point. I’ve always kind of thought (though have not codified) that mistakes will happen, problems will crop up, and we have to expect ahead of time that we’re going to have to try to get it right on numerous things more than once . . . and this is a big committee, and those are always a mess. 😉
But hopefully and educational and sometimes edifying mess.
I still expect what others perceive, rightly or wrongly, to be personal attacks on another participant are going to get met with 3rd party critiques. So that’s also probably going to played out. 😉
I would also urge we institute newbies get one or two boneheaded moves free pass. I, for one, would not feel so bad about letting the fisticuffs play out if we gave newbies a Get Out of Jail Free card once or twice and on strike three it all went to hell. As a general policy approach. But, I may be full of spit and vinaigrette. 🙂
LikeLike
Speaking from very personal experience in nannying Scott in this blog’s infancy, I agree that we are better off letting things play out. In hindsight, I think I was just unfamiliar with Scott’s style of argument. Now that I am more familiar with Scott, his beliefs and his means of expressing them, I am having trouble thinking of a time where I have felt the need to nanny one of his posts. I think that goes for all the posters and it may explain why, when we have had trouble, it usually involves a new contributor. Which is why I echo Kevin’s last paragraph.
I also echo Scott’s suggestion that maybe trying to reach out via email to calm someone down is a good idea. If you do that via a comment, the person may feel as if they are being attacked from yet another side and get even more defensive. Thanks for a thoughtful post Scott.
LikeLike
I for one won’t be doing things this way again. I think there are probably better ways to interject yourself into the conversation to cool things down. Any attempt at remaining neutral seems fraught with danger to me as no one here really is neutral. So I think defining terms, asking for clarification and maybe the odd joke or two might work better. Not everyone will even agree of course that the conversation needs to be cooled down. So there’s that as well. Best/worst case scenario as Scott said, I guess just stay out of it. That’s what I intend to do.
In defense of the policemen (not sure I like that term), it’s tough to sit back and watch a couple of new guys who are unfamiliar with the surroundings and personalities flail around trying to defend themselves and redefine their statements to the satisfaction of all concerned. I think we need a little grace period for new people, especially ones we may have a history with, before we actually go into attack mode. I realize the word attack may be fraught with danger and I tried to find a more neutral one, but try to imagine yourself on the receiving end. I’m not trying to be critical here, just honest.
LikeLike
This had little or more accurately nothing to do with new guys defending themselves.
You are right that your use of “attack mode” that way is problematic, though.
But as I said yesterday, I will discuss privately by email. Right now, in my opinion, you are just giving more validation to the idea that it’s okay for someone to debut at ATiM by picking fights and making incendiary accusations. As long as they deny it later.
LikeLike
I don’t think that’s what anybody is saying. We can’t let someone new to the blog be a dick three times before letting them pick their fight, and going at them?
Also, denying it later is insufficient, for me. But once isn’t enough to convict, for me. Others may feel differently.
People who are used to other forums are probably going to, more often than not, debut with typical behavior that offends someone, and it’s probably not going to be general, it’s going to be specifically offensive to certain people. Maybe they are of bad intent and have nothing to contribute–I think three strikes and your out is reasonable, and probably better than 1 strike and your out. Heck, if it’s good enough for baseball . . .
And I’m looking toward the future, here. I expect to collect more contributors, some even worse at reading the rules, in the future. 😉
LikeLike
As I was typing my response, qb, I was thinking that there certainly may be cases where a pass is not appropriate. I’m not going to weigh in on whether I think you should have given mcurtis a pass. I am sure you have given me and others here a pass on numerous occasio and I will respect that you felt a pass was not appropriate given what was said.
As Scott said, we get this right more often than not, so I’m not going to dwell on it too much.
LikeLike
While I was typing I see both Kevin and Ash were thinking along the same lines re “newbies”.
LikeLike
I’d prefer we try to assimilate in something other than “trial by fire”. I think a few passes wouldn’t hurt anything. Even if the response is, “I really want to call you on what you’re saying, but the other dumbasses here say I’m not supposed to.” 🙂
LikeLike
Of course now that I’m rereading my comment and the responses I feel the need to clarify. We may not think we’re in attack mode, and I include myself in this, but it feels like an attack from another person and we all respond accordingly, some of us more logically than others. I fall into the illogical group.
LikeLike
lms:
not sure I like that term
The alternative was “nanny”, and I am sure you wouldn’t like that one. Not to mention the fact that, “Nannying the nannies” just doesn’t have the same ring to it.
LikeLike
Don’t worry, I’ve turned in both the badge and the ruler.
LikeLike
I’m just going to stay out of the conversation on this now. I’ve obviously made a huge mistake and doubt that anything I say will rectify it. All I can say is it certainly won’t happen again. I’ll leave it to the rest of you to figure out.
LikeLike
I’ve obviously made a huge mistake
I assume here that you’re talking about getting into the rental property business. I definitely gotta agree with you there. 😉
LikeLike
By huge mistake I mean interfering where I shouldn’t and doing it publicly. Okay?
LikeLike
I’m “listening” and learning here. And I second the comments about evaluating how we deal with “newbies.” This site has to be culture shock compared to other mixed political forums.
My biggest concern is that we not end up right back where we came from, with constant brouhahas. Such are not pleasant or informative discussions to those not involved and drive people away from otherwise discussing the point of the post. The brouhahas tend to take over the thread. (Not sayin’ we have degenerated to constant volatile discussions. Overall, I think we have done a good job of avoiding that.)
LikeLike
I think there is room for third party moderation. Certainly, attempting it through emails is likely to be more productive than jumping into the fray. However, the reality is that few of us are watching at any given time, and contretemps will play out before anyone has noticed, or will have escalated beyond recall before anyone intervenes.
Nevertheless, it is not irresponsible to ask for a cooling period when a flame war begins, or to ask each party to contact us privately through email.
Ashot’s point that once we know our correspondents we can have dialogues that do not suffer from repeated misunderstandings is well worth remembering. It dovetails with Kev’s point about newbies, and the assumptions they may bring, and the learning curve.
I had suggested elsewhere that we each list what we think are inflammatory suggestions so that we all know each other’s tripwires. This, not to stifle conversation or to make topics off limits, but to facilitate a broader understanding of each other and an ease of e-communication, which does not take into account facial expression, tone of voice, or the fact that with few, if any, exceptions, we have no personal experiences with each other.
A sidebar list of these expressions to which we take offense might prove amusing and informative, like MsJS’s “50 Qs” exercise.
– Mark
LikeLike
My sidebar issue would be reference to the Plumline and past grievances there. I have a lot of unresolved issues with the Plumline……lol
LikeLike
Let me also add that I think we can do with fewer smiley faces in the comment section.
LikeLike
🙂 😛 😉 😦
LikeLike
Are you attempting levity, ascot? 🙂
Actually, a semi-serious question, since I know smileys annoy some people.
LikeLike
BTW, I will refrain from smileys if that is the general consensus, as I am, no doubt, the worst offender in this regards. Sorry ’bout that.
LikeLike
To be honest, smiley faces sometimes annoy me. But I have been using them increasingly in an attempt to add some tone to comments that I fear may be misinterpreted. Perhaps rather than smileys, I should put more effort into writing better comments!
LikeLike
I was just adding levity and trying to pick a fight with Kevin. I think a fight between me and Kevin would be hilarious.
LikeLike
Heh, then you should have added a smiley to your comment. /jk
LikeLike
A smiley used properly works. Kinda like a good badda-boom!
A smiley put at the end of an unpleasant statement to imply I’m only kidding is irritating. Akin to saying if I didn’t like Kevin so much, I’d say he has serious control problems. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
BB
LikeLike
Why, I oughta . . . 🙂
LikeLike
There’s been one thing on my mind the last few days that I’ve been thinking of, I know I’m back but only briefly. A few months ago Kevin posted a piece from Lee Stranahan (sp?) that I didn’t think very highly of and I began to critique it pretty harshly. Unbeknownst to me, Lee himself was apparently lurking and he and I got into it pretty good and even though I thought I was being temperate, he left never to return. I’m not saying he necessarily left because of me, but I always wondered if maybe I should have tried a little harder to be welcoming. I thought it was a terrible example of journalism and we argued a little over it and poof! I found out later that he was rather highly regarded by some of my conservative friends who were excited that he’d shown up. Anyway, my attack mode was something I regretted afterward.
LikeLike
My guess is that he has a hit counter like we used to have (hey…we’re going to have to move that over here too) that indicates other sites that are linking to his. He probably followed it here to see who was linking to his site and what they were saying. The probability that he was ever going to stick around is pretty low, so unlikely that you drove him away.
LikeLike
At the very least though Scott, I felt I should have let you guys chat him up a little, instead of just being offended by his piece and taking up all the space in the discussion. I’m fairly certain his skin is much tougher than to quit because of anything I said although I am really good at this……..lol
LikeLike
As the one who quite obviously did the wrong thing, I’ll stay out of it. I will say, however, that I did contact one of the participants, early in the contretemps, privately by e-mail and asked that person to dial back a little and it didn’t do a thing.
LikeLike
I do plead guilty to not getting back to you with a more substantive response. But by the time I had posted calm and thoughtful responses to ruk and lms and had time to think about replying to you, I was being accused of being confrontational and unwilling to hear the truth, because I am, you know, like a history denier who can’t accept my own latent racism and bigotry and that of my party. Thus, I was apparently attacking people by being labeled racist in denial.
LikeLike
Please forgive an “outsider” or at minimum a newbie for entering this conversation. I’m not a moderator and so I realize it’s not in my purview and I respect all of the moderators here.
From the “newbie” perspective, and one who has a long history with the moderators here on another blog, can I just say I think you all are doing an excellent job! Considering that the “thread that shall not be named” was actually pretty moderate in comparison to other blogs, and that you all have reacted swiftly and done serious soul searching, says a lot about who you all are and the future of this blog.
Kevin has always been able to talk me down, even back in the days at the “other” blog. But Kevin left that blog and my behavior deteriorated. I’m glad to have you guys moderating me as sometimes I can be my own worst enemy, especially if there is a feeding frenzy going on.
“Now that I am more familiar with Scott, his beliefs and his means of expressing them,”
Sorry ashot..if you hadn’t called for no smiley faces…that line just makes me smile.
I absolutely appreciated Scott’s input on my ill fated post. Scott is direct, but he is always accurate and he has an uncanny ability to cut to the chase and focus discussions. From my perspective, Scott’s help in the “thread that shall not be named” was appreciated. I’ve always felt that Scott makes me a better poster, he doesn’t suffer fools very well and so I try to avoid looking foolish. Alas I’m not always successful at that, and Scott is precise in any criticism or challenges he offers.
If Scott wasn’t so busy, and I had enough money, I’d love to hire him as an editor for my fiction writing. Just an opinion…Kevin talks me down from the ledge, but Scott is the best “editor” on this blog.
LikeLike
NoVA:
Type an at the end.
I know, it isn’t terribly clear, and if Scott or Kevin can figure out a better way to insert it up there I’d be grateful.
LikeLike
And there it just edited my instructions right out. Sometimes code is too smart for my own good.
NoVA, the comment needs a left carat in front and a right carat at the end to work.
LikeLike
looks like if you just paste in the link without any carrats or whatever, the video will appear.
LikeLike
LikeLike
I’m posting this here for lms, Scott, and anyone else who might be trying to email me just to say there is something weird going on with my email, and I’m not sure where messages are going. I see messages pop up, and then they seem to disappear.
I am hopping with work and trying to juggle, but if I am not responding, it is just as likely that I can’t find your messages right now.
LikeLike
Food is higher on maslow’s hierarchy of needs, thus most people take care of themselves. Society does see a need to provide for those who don’t or can’t provide for themselves, thus gov’t often steps in as a food supplier of last resort.
Schooling is lower on the hierarchy. Many might skip it, if not compelled, or if they had to provide for themselves. Yet society benefits by having an educated populace & workforce. Thus society has an interest in providing a baseline education for all.
In other words, comparing publicly findrer education to publicly funded food is an imperfect.
LikeLike