|
Grex > Coop8 > #138: An item on conferencing ethics | |
|
| Author |
Message |
kerouac
|
|
An item on conferencing ethics
| 
Nov 4 22:40 UTC 1996 |
The previous item is designed for flaming because of its title. The real
issue is user etiquette and I'd like to go into that here. No conf
can succeed unless there is a certain demeanor and respect to the
responses. If the idea of the coop conference is to encourage
user interaction with the staff and board of grex, this becomes doubly
important. Noone should be called names, and noone should feel as
if they cant post suggestions because they will be called stupid. No
idea is stupid as long as it is well intentioned. Also, noone should
be criticized for having their own style. We are all individuals
and we all have our own way of making our points. I am one of the few who
is at a disadvantage here because I dont know any of you personally so
I have less of an idea of whether suggestions are honestly received or
ignored. There is a cliqueishness here which is at the same time part
of this conf, and this board's strength, and also a great weakness. As
long as the same dozen or two dozen ann arbor area people are around to
support grex and can do so within their limits, this place can be cliquish
as hell and it wouldnt matter. Its worked for five years.
But Grex is reaching the point where it cannot survive without more
users, members certainly but also input (ideas) I am just an outsider.
I dont live in Ann Arbor. Yet I actively participate in coop because
I value grex and want it to succeed.
In an earlier item, a non-member user tried to nominate herself to run for
the Board. I pointed out that the bylaws are worded badly and that if she
had read the bylaws, she could easily have misconstrued that she could
nominate herself even though she is not a member. When youhave
misunderstandings you lose users and potential members. For her part,
robh called her an idiot and this person has probably left coop.
For my part, I got flamed by John Remmers, who says my posts have no value
and that I should be ignored. Such attitudes really make coop look bad.
It makes it look like a place where users cant come to participate in the
debate, where board members like Remmers dont want input from non-members
and others like robh dont want virtual strangers running for the board.
If we dont respect each other's ideas and respect every other user as a
person, than nothing can reallybe accomplished here online. Offline,
where you guys know each other personally, maybe so, but here it takes
extra effort.
We are all guilty of losing our tempers from time to time, but if you
really have the urge to flame someone, do it in email. I know that I can
be too argumentative in my posts, but I would say strongly that posts like
Remmers and Janc put up today that served no purpose but to flame another
user are just as bad, if not worse for Grex. Marlo, the non-member user
referred to earlier, says she is leaving coop. And not because of me, but
because of Remmers and Janc, who flamed someone for trying to make a point
in her behalf.
I just think we can all be more civil. All I and anyone else wants to do
is participate. In our own way. We dont need our motives presupposed by
board or staff because they think our ideas are stupid or that we are
belaboring a point.
If you dont want to drive users away, flaming ANYONE (even a smartass like
me) is simply not a good practice. It is obvious which posts are more
damaging.
|
| 92 responses total. |
scott
|
|
response 1 of 92:
|
Nov 4 22:54 UTC 1996 |
Kerouac, we really don't flame that much. You are witnessing people reaching
the end of their limits with respect to your style of discussion.
I do appreciate your concerns about Grex, but you really need to understand
better that Grex isn't about going to collapse if you stop finding things to
to disc
Grex does sort of have an "inner circle" of people who know each other face to
face, but there are a *lot* of people who I've never met, and who have earned
a lot of respect here in Coop despite being "out of the loop". You can help,
and generate some useful and interesting ideas, but you seem to have trouble
letting ideas go. I think you mentioned once that if you get a quick answer,
you suspect that you were misinterpreted and therefore should put up the idea
again, with much more detil. That can happen, but more often than not, it's
along the lines of:
Kerouac: "Grex should..., because..."
Coop: "No, that wouldn't work, because..."
Kerouac: "But Grex will inevitably fail because of this i..."
The participants in Coop are not hard of hearing or suffering impaired
thingking. There's a *lot* of history here, and a lot of solid experience
running systems like Grex, and systems unlike Grex for contrast. It's the
quality of discussion, not quantity that wins arguments.
|
brighn
|
|
response 2 of 92:
|
Nov 4 23:09 UTC 1996 |
Fuck you, Kerouac. You have about as much respect as Newt Gingrich at a Gay
Rights rally, and you have the gall to come in here and start in item because
the previous item flamed you.
You say you've never name-called. Sorry, bucko, you've name-called me plenty
in the past. You acted with so much disrespect in the Sexuality/After Dark
fiasco that you helped to kill the conference. And you sit here dawling your
eyes out about disrespect. We keep asking you not to Spam, and what the fuck
is this item? How many screens? How much respect is that, oh Holier than
I?
(Yes, I know i said in the last item to just ignore him, but, hey, I changed
my mind when he managed to piss me off again.... sorry folx.)
|
robh
|
|
response 3 of 92:
|
Nov 4 23:21 UTC 1996 |
Excsue me, but exactly WHERE did I call marlo an idiot, kerouac?
Quote it. Tell me the item and response number where I called
her an idiot. Put up or shut up.
|
krj
|
|
response 4 of 92:
|
Nov 4 23:42 UTC 1996 |
"Weeble weeble weeble. Weeble weeble weeble weeble." -- kerouac.
Over in the BoD nomination item, kerouac writes:
>#84 of 84: by Richard Wallner (kerouac) on Mon, Nov 4, 1996 (17:42):
> #131...no you're not...read #138...noone deserves to be singled out
> for different treatment. This conferencing enviroment will never
> be healthy unless everyone is treated the same.
This is an equality-of-opportunity vs. equality-of-result argument.
Kerouac, like any other new user, comes to us with a clean slate --
he has an equal opportunity to influence Grex policy.
But actions leave impressions in the minds of others; kerouac
seems to be arguing that it's our fault for evaluating his writing
and concluding that it is a waste of our time and energy to
deal with his arguments.
|
ajax
|
|
response 5 of 92:
|
Nov 4 23:44 UTC 1996 |
Boy, tempers are getting hot! To address part of Richard's thesis:
> Also, noone should be criticized for having their own style.
First, an irony alert: isn't it criticizing other people's style to
say "nobody should criticize other people's style?"
At any rate, I disagree with this. People are free to have their own
style, but if people find it disruptive or annoying, people absolutely
should be able to criticize it. I prefer a tactful approach, but to
each their own. In the past, I've offered what I consider constructive
criticism about how people might more effectively participate in co-op.
I didn't use mail, because the ideas are generally applicable, and to
subject my own opinions to discussion. But whatever the type of
criticism, it should be allowed. If the criticism itself seems
inappropriate (like, say, response #2 ;-), it too will be criticized.
|
pfv
|
|
response 6 of 92:
|
Nov 5 00:40 UTC 1996 |
Yer still too verbose and argumentative, kerouac.
Further, if the "members" (aka "users") wanna' contribute, they
can freely comment or _join_ and vote.. Start a membership drive,
you may get a power-base and you will certainly get some funds.
Frankly, you ain't gonna' get that powerbase, nor are those
"users" going to convert their rupee's <shrug>.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 7 of 92:
|
Nov 5 01:49 UTC 1996 |
rob,m since you apologiezed to her for it in an earlier post (
(commendable by the way) I dont know why you'd deny it now.
Brighn's post speaks for itself...I preach tact and behaviuour and
he goes "fuck you"
|
robh
|
|
response 8 of 92:
|
Nov 5 02:03 UTC 1996 |
I apologized for her interpreting it as an insult. The response
she was referring to (item 131):
>#71 Rob Henderson(robh) on Mon Nov 4 10:41:21 1996:
> Re 68 - Hey, I'm not even running this time! >8) Besides, I've
> only been on the Board for less than a year, and I actually lost
> the first election I was in. (5th out of 7 candidates.) I'm curious
> why I'm perceived as the guy who's been on the Board forever...
And her response:
>#81 Kimberly Perkins(marlo) on Mon Nov 4 15:34:46 1996:
> I feel that you guys are wrong and should not just attach no one with out
just > cause he was just voicing his opinion. And a opinion never hurt
anything Grex > is going to lose membership if you keep up this nonsense. And
as far as you > go robh I said no offense I just used you as an example because
every where > I go I see your name in Grex. You did not have to say that
stuff. Also I > really don't appreciate this type of argueing over a simple
issue as either > change the rules or tell me no. Thank you and no I will not
join Grex and > I will discourage my friends at Mckendree college to join
either.
Huh? What stuff? What did I say that would offend anyone? My response:
>#82 Rob Henderson(robh) on Mon Nov 4 15:52:57 1996:
> I think you may be taking my comments personally, marlo. I didn't
> say, "marlo is an idiot because she asked that", because I don't
> feel that way. But I'm still sorry if I offended you.
Note the word DIDN'T in that last response. So I repeat, kerouac, please
cite the item and response where I called marlo an idiot.
|
brighn
|
|
response 9 of 92:
|
Nov 5 02:41 UTC 1996 |
My point, richard, is that you *preach* tact and you don't *practice* it.
At least I don't even bother to preach it (and, I daresay, people for the most
part probably think I practice it a damn sight more often than you do).
But tact is only appropriate when the audience deserves it.
Dipshit.
|
scg
|
|
response 10 of 92:
|
Nov 5 05:27 UTC 1996 |
I may be wrong, but I didn't think that was the response that marlo was
getting upset about. There was a response where Rob said some not too nice,
but certainly applicable, things to kerouac, without being overly clear on
who he was talking to. I can see how that response could have been
interpreted as being directed towards marlo.
In other words, Richard, Rob didn't call marlo an idiot. He called you an
idiot.
|
srw
|
|
response 11 of 92:
|
Nov 5 08:15 UTC 1996 |
And he's entitled to his opinion. And Grex won't die if it
offends you, Richard.
Despite what some people think, Grex is not founded on the idea
of being nice at all times. I think it is fine to be tactful,
and I highly recommend it, but when tact doesn't accomplish
anything, it is time to speak plainly.
Richard, you wrote:
>For my part, I got flamed by John Remmers, who says my posts
>have no value and that I should be ignored. Such attitudes
>really make coop look bad. It makes it look like a place where
>users cant come to participate in the debate, where board
>members like Remmers dont want input from non-members and
>others like robh dont want virtual strangers running for the
>board.
If your posts have no value and should be ignored, then it is
OK for John to speak plainly, for the time for using tact has
long passed.
It doesn't make coop look bad at all, because we respond to
just about everybody's ideas. It is not just Remmers who is
tired of reading your posts, it is almost everyone else as
well. Sense the trend.
I'll bet Robh is not afraid of strangers getting involved on
the board. He was only quoting the rules, which require
membership. I doubt he was thinking anything else when he
reminded Marlo that she was out of order.
I really am impressed with how much you care for Grex. You have
taken a great deal of abuse in coop, and you keep on coming
back. This is admirable, Richard. I really don't want you to go
away. But I feel that you do need to change your style or
something to avoid pissing everyone else off, because that is
what is happening, whether either of us like it or not.
You wrote:
>If we dont respect each other's ideas and respect every other
>user as a person, than nothing can really be accomplished here
>online.
Not so. We don't start out disrespecting people's opinions, but
we can be trained. We are now trained not to think much of
yours, I'm afraid. We will still accomplish plenty, but it may
blind us to the occasional good idea you propose.
|
robh
|
|
response 12 of 92:
|
Nov 5 10:01 UTC 1996 |
Hey, I have no objection to virtual (odd choice of word, eh?)
strangers being on the Board, as long as it's in accordance
with our bylaws. If we throw away the bylaws just because it
offends someone to follow them, then what good are they? And
what good are we?
|
remmers
|
|
response 13 of 92:
|
Nov 5 11:30 UTC 1996 |
<remmers hopes that something good will come of all this,
and in the meantime will continue to follow his own advice>
|
davel
|
|
response 14 of 92:
|
Nov 5 12:30 UTC 1996 |
<SIGH>
|
kerouac
|
|
response 15 of 92:
|
Nov 5 18:29 UTC 1996 |
If you folks who put so much time into building this Grex, want
it to succeed as a conferencing tool, you have to lead by example.
When I asked Remmers to apologize, it was not to apologize
to me but to the Coop readership because he jumped out of the ocntext of
er..context of an item to flame another user. He is on staff
and should no better. If those ofyou on staff and board
cant show the example of how to dconference correctly, then you
are doing a disservice to this system. If John Remmers professes
to ignore me or any other user who takes the time to make suggestions and
contirbute, then he has no place on the board or staff of grex.
I ama user like any other user, and if as he claims, he is willing
or wilfully ignoring a user trying to contribute, then he should resign.
This is th same principle as if a staffer said they wont read coop.
This is about taking responsibility.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 16 of 92:
|
Nov 5 19:00 UTC 1996 |
It is the responsibility of staff and board to react and
thoughtfully consider the views of the other users. Remmers
has said he wont do this where auser is concerned... he should resign
|
birdlady
|
|
response 17 of 92:
|
Nov 5 19:13 UTC 1996 |
Richard, your perpetual whining and complaining about this is only going
against what your three-screen item header preached. You immediately
mentioned John and Jan and Rob, and proceeded to tell what they were doing
wrong. So what if they voice their opinions on what a jackass you can be
sometimes? You do it right back at them, so quit being so damn hypocritical.
I feel like I'm dealing with children here, and it makes me sick. Gods...I
could just scream sometimes. I would like to get more verbal, but I believe
Brighn's doing a fine job. =)
|
scg
|
|
response 18 of 92:
|
Nov 5 19:21 UTC 1996 |
Ok, so John and all the staffers who agree with him should resign? Who
is going to do the system administration around here, then?
|
janc
|
|
response 19 of 92:
|
Nov 5 19:23 UTC 1996 |
We spent a whole item discussing your contention that staff and board should
be separate. Read that item again. We weren't talking to the users. There
was only one user who thought it was a problem. We spent dozens of responses
giving every imaginable reason why your little notion was a poor one. Sure,
it is important to consider the views of the users. But how much time are
we supposed to spend considering the views of just one isolated user? At any
given time, about a third of the items in this conference consist of everyone
considering an idea of Kerouac's that nobody else supports.
When the coop conference spends this much time considering the ideas of any
one user, then we have a serious problem. If we didn't enter items to
explicitly discuss that user and his impact on the process that is going on
here then we would be burying our heads in the sand. We spend half our time
in this conference talking about Kerouac's ideas. Kerouac is not every-user,
he's not John Q. Public. It's past time we talked more directly about
Kerouac and his role here.
|
robh
|
|
response 20 of 92:
|
Nov 5 19:49 UTC 1996 |
<robh notes that kerouac still hasn't cited the item and response
where robh called marlo an idiot>
|
krj
|
|
response 21 of 92:
|
Nov 5 20:52 UTC 1996 |
kerouac calls on remmers to resign because remmers has said that
he doesn't pay much attention to kerouac's input.
kerouac probably feels that remmers is prejudiced against him.
Nope! You're not being PRE-judged, kerouac: you're being judged on
your own writings and behavior.
remmers, janc and popcorn are three of the most accepting,
most open-minded, most even-tempered people I've known in ten years
of computer conferencing. kerouac, you've managed to ignite
withering flames from all three of them. This is quite an accomplishment!
A governing body is entitled to remove people who are being disruptive.
A governing body is not obligated to listen to endless whining;
there *has* to be closure. We need a closure mechanism for
kerouac's arguments. Failing that, board and staff need to be free
to filter out his responses. Grex's staff is its most precious
asset, and kerouac is proving to be too much of a psychic drain on
this asset.
I propose that kerouac agree to drop an argument after a threshhold
number of board and staff members have said "enough."
|
remmers
|
|
response 22 of 92:
|
Nov 5 21:25 UTC 1996 |
I think I'll repost the second paragraph of the response I
entered that seems to have touched all this off. People might
not agree with it, but I don't want it to get lost in the
shuffle. It was not Richard's behavior, but other people's
manner of reacting to his behavior, that moved me to post
this:
Folks who are bothered by his behavior might take comfort
in the fact that he has had virtually zero success in
obtaining support for any of his positions from anyone --
board, staff, members, users, you name it. Although it
would be disastrous to adopt his ideas, there is no chance
that this will happen, and therefore he is not dangerous. I
classify him as an eccentric with an irritating manner
but no power, and therefore harmless. I'd suggest to
participants in this conference that the next time they are
tempted to put time and energy into responding to Richard,
they ask themselves whether that time and energy might not
be channeled more productively in some other direction.)
Yes, I agree that there have been numerous unproductive discussions
consisting largely of people arguing at length with one user
advocating an idea that nobody supports and nobody is likely to
support. I think it is worth noting that in these discussions,
most of the people talking are NOT Richard, and nobody is forcing
them to respond as they do, or to respond at all. It's entirely
voluntary. If there is a problem in this conference relating to
one user's behavior, it is not entirely that one user's fault.
What is the point of arguing with someone with whom nobody
agrees and who has no power to force a course of action upon
anyone?
If we're going to be an open system, we can't force people to
leave, and we can't control their behavior either. It would be
nice if everyone in the world conformed to one's own personal
model of reasonableness and responded in ways one deems desirable
to what we perceive as reasonable argument. But not everyone does,
and then what do you do? The only behavior you can control is your
own.
In any item you're reading, a "Respond or pass" prompt pops up
after the last response and you have a choice. I would suggest
to everybody that the atmosphere in this conference would be
materially improved if, when you find yourself tempted to enter
a response in anger or frustration to someone who has lost the
argument anyway, that you consider choosing "Pass".
|
kerouac
|
|
response 23 of 92:
|
Nov 5 21:27 UTC 1996 |
I want the board and staff to accord the same respect to every user
of this sysstem. All I have ever tried to do is contribute and
there is no rule stated at the entrance to coop or elsewhere, of
what methods or what levels of contributions are acceptable.
So I want John Remmers to agree that I am a user of Grex and that as
an official of GREx, if he cannot treat me the same as anyone 4else, he
should resign.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 24 of 92:
|
Nov 5 23:02 UTC 1996 |
Okay, whose the wise guy who wiped out my participationfile
for this conf? That was a pretty low thing to do and it
isnt helping anything.
I'd like for whoever did it to admit it
|