guyser Posted May 6, 2014 Report Posted May 6, 2014 Pointed out, not called out. I only wanted to show the incongruous application of the rules,and did again a couple of posts up.
Charles Anthony Posted May 6, 2014 Report Posted May 6, 2014 I only wanted to show ....Your query is peculiar. We were talking about cross-posting and copy-pasta stuff. We were not talking about original ideas, rules nor philosophical differences in opinion on the topic du jour. MH admitted he does it.I do not see it as a problem nor as a pattern. If you disagree, report it. Nothing is original.Neither are the rules and guidelines of this forum. However, you would be amazed! Patterns of behavior can be very original here at MLW particularly when there is a clear intention to circumvent the rules and guidelines of the forum. Regardless, I see very little of that nowadays. You are right, very few ideas are original in any objective sense. Alas, disagreement seems to arise incessantly on nearly everything here! How so? Now what?The same as before: moderator discretion leaving you all a wide range of flexibility. I am confident in my abilities to discern when Sam I Am is cross-posting from when he is posting original content. If you do not trust my discretion, fine. If you see cross-posting as a problem here in the forum, point it out. We do not have time for a meeting of the flat earth society. << Où sont mes amis ? Ils sont ici, ils sont ici... >>
Michael Hardner Posted May 6, 2014 Report Posted May 6, 2014 It makes your position tough, Not if I just keep quiet about it. Trying to codify these things to too fine a degree is a trap IMO. Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
guyser Posted May 6, 2014 Report Posted May 6, 2014 Your query is peculiar.There was no query, so no idea how it could be peculiar since it was non existent. We were talking about cross-posting and copy-pasta stuff. We were not talking about original ideas, rules nor philosophical differences in opinion on the topic du jour. I do not see it as a problem nor as a pattern. If you disagree, report it. You said 'I do not see it as a problem here because nobody does that!' and in fact just prior to this MH said he cross posts but changes some things to hide that fact. If no white cars allowed, we can bring red cars in. Good to know. I dont see it as a problem, then now nor in the future. I see it as silly and not worth the effort, if a good idea is a good idea, it magically makes it better cuz it s here? . Alas, disagreement seems to arise incessantly on nearly everything here! How so?the rules? Lack of clarity? Silliness? Who could ever know since, and it has been pointed out incessantly but without action, everything happening in silence. If you see cross-posting as a problem here in the forum, point it out.Its not a problem at all, the spam et al are gone pretty quick, but someone with something to say changes a few words here and there and re posts is? Wow.
Charles Anthony Posted May 6, 2014 Report Posted May 6, 2014 Its not a problem at all, the spam et al are gone pretty quick, but someone with something to say changes a few words here and there and re posts is?No. We do not have time for a meeting of the flat earth society. << Où sont mes amis ? Ils sont ici, ils sont ici... >>
Argus Posted May 6, 2014 Author Report Posted May 6, 2014 I think some people are using a more confrontational style in these discussions than is likely to gain any positive attention... "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted May 6, 2014 Author Report Posted May 6, 2014 . Charles doesn't need to even try to convince you of anything in particular. You, on the other hand, would like to persuade Charles to your point of view if you have any interest in affecting change. Confrontation just ain't gonna do that. "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
OftenWrong Posted May 7, 2014 Report Posted May 7, 2014 There is no problem, so nothing needs to be changed.
jbg Posted May 7, 2014 Report Posted May 7, 2014 First, no. That post is not cross-postable. You should not be cross-posting with your MLW threads. Nothing is cross-postable here. Second, the personal or impersonal nature of the post is irrelevent to the issue of cross-posting. In my opinion the nature of the post should make a difference. To use my example, there was nothing about that post that had the goal of trying to provoke dissention. The way "cross-posting" is usually caught is if some poster goes to the trouble of googling an exact quote to see if it comes up on other forums. The person pursuing the cross-poster is the one who is usually trying to create a problem. The purpose of the post I used as the example was to disabuse people of the notion that NYC was always a cold, inhospitable or unfriendly place. I should not have to write one version of that post for MLW and another one for other fora I frequent. Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
betsy Posted May 7, 2014 Report Posted May 7, 2014 (edited) Not if they let it go and it hits me in the face halfway through the doorway... ...or, if they pick my pocket while they're doing it. By what MH says, Starbucks shouldn't begrudge or complain about volunteer employees even when they're rude and driving away customers, and freely giving away coffee to their friends.....since they're doing the noble work of volunteering. Nothing is consciously given away freely without having something in return. It doesn't have to be monetary returns, or anything tangible either. It's cynical....but that's the bottom line. The volunteer, upon close and honest reflection, knows what he gets out of it. Edited May 7, 2014 by betsy
betsy Posted May 7, 2014 Report Posted May 7, 2014 (edited) No - I was called out by a poster because my explanation didn't gibe with something Charles had said, exactly. I don't want to contradict Charles' intentions here so I'll just opt out of explaining the rules, as long as I remember to stay away from that topic. I agree with Gosthacked that you're just as confused as us. At least, that's what comes to my mind reading your response. I have nothing against your moderation MH. I want to be clear on this. In fact, your style - usually posting a general simple reminder in the thread if things are starting to violate rules - is the kind that's usually used by successful forums. It's most effective too I find, since a lot of regular active long-time members are respectful of the rules. It's just so easy to get carried away in a heated debate sometimes. Another factor too is that we've grown so familiar with one another (having been long-time members and combatants).... A simple reminder to all usually, is enough. And I don't think you ever were condescending or spoke like you're on a power trip, or insulting and rude to us when you posted reminders. I appreciate your kind of moderation. The mistake that MLF does is when they suddenly suspend someone, or worse, lock the thread. The passion of discussion is lost. No matter how you try to get back into it a month later - the momentum is already gone. Not only for the one who's suspended....but also for the other participants who were enjoying the debate. Even if there are no major issues that refrain me from participating in discussions - I don't think I'm interested to re-open the discussion with Earth: A Cockamamie Story. I apologise to Jbg for not responding to his seeming noble effort to re-ignite that thread back to life. The interest, and the ardour that goes with that subject, is not the same now as it was when I just first wrote it. The passion behind discussions are mostly what gives color to a forum. When I got a month-long suspension, I followed the thread I was passionately involved with at the time, and I wrote down my replies or comment like as if I was posting them real time. I didn't want to cool down my ardour. So when I got back from my suspension, I just promptly copy/pasted my written replies onto the thread. I didn't want to leave the forum without having given my responses. Edited May 7, 2014 by betsy
betsy Posted May 7, 2014 Report Posted May 7, 2014 (edited) The way "cross-posting" is usually caught is if some poster goes to the trouble of googling an exact quote to see if it comes up on other forums. The person pursuing the cross-poster is the one who is usually trying to create a problem. Good point. Edited May 7, 2014 by betsy
Michael Hardner Posted May 7, 2014 Report Posted May 7, 2014 I agree with Gosthacked that you're just as confused as us. I don't think so. I got something wrong about cross-posting and now people are picking at me, that's how it feels. I don't think that equates to me being as confused as the average poster. I have nothing against your moderation MH. I want to be clear on this. ... I appreciate your kind of moderation. Well, are you aware that I am not a moderator ? That I have no authority in punishments, that I'm not called on to issue warnings or suspensions at all ? I clean up spam, I delete hacker posts, and request superfluous images, I try to keep the conversation going and remind people of the rules where I see them being clearly broken. The passion behind discussions are mostly what gives color to a forum. Ok - I think that's why there will always be emotions, disappointment and even anger over disagreements. There's no getting away from it. Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
betsy Posted May 7, 2014 Report Posted May 7, 2014 (edited) Well, are you aware that I am not a moderator ? That I have no authority in punishments, that I'm not called on to issue warnings or suspensions at all ? I clean up spam, I delete hacker posts, and request superfluous images, I try to keep the conversation going and remind people of the rules where I see them being clearly broken.. There's no getting away from it. Therefore, we don't really need a moderator at all! IMHO. All we need is someone to do the kind of work you do! It's also good that you are allowed to participate in discussions. Mods in the other forums I belong to, do. Those who ignore your reminders should be sent private warnings that REMINDS them of possible suspensions. Suspensions should be the last resort. The length of suspensions should fit the "crime." One doesn't have to be suspended from the entire forum, either. The other forum usually suspends someone from a particular thread - and for certain numbers of days or weeks, depending on the infraction. Edited May 7, 2014 by betsy
cybercoma Posted May 7, 2014 Report Posted May 7, 2014 I don't think so. I got something wrong about cross-posting and now people are picking at me, that's how it feels. I don't think that equates to me being as confused as the average poster. No one's picking at you. I think people are pointing out that you've reasonably misinterpreted a rule, which undermines the argument that "people should know better" that we constantly get from CA and Greg.
betsy Posted May 7, 2014 Report Posted May 7, 2014 (edited) Correct. You should not be doing that with your MLW threads. I realize this opens up an arbitrary wedge because next week, the question will be "Well, what if I post the same thing next month? or next year?" or "What if Sock Puppet posts my material? does that mean I am breaking the cross-posting rule?" and any other permutation. In other words, MLF wants to have those original posts as its property - in exchange for letting them be posted on this site. Thus, if I'm going to give away my rights to my property - I better make darn sure I give it away to whom I think the most deserving of it, ......ie, where it'll give ME the most satisfaction. Like I said - for me, viewer/guest count will take priority! I'll give away my rights to my original topics - especially, TOPICS - where it gets the most audience - and therefore the most likelihood of more responses, and the best likelihood of a better discussion. TOPICS are the biggest commodity in a forum. They are the main events! Without them, there's nothing to ignite the interest to want to participate. There's nothing to discuss. Thus I questioned the practicality of limiting a forum site - especially one that is struggling with traffic - from getting as much discussion materials as possible, and getting the board topic titles moving. Edited May 7, 2014 by betsy
Michael Hardner Posted May 7, 2014 Report Posted May 7, 2014 No one's picking at you. I think people are pointing out that you've reasonably misinterpreted a rule, which undermines the argument that "people should know better" that we constantly get from CA and Greg. It actually does feel that way, whether you perceive it that way or not. Even if I was wrong, violating this rule would be such an 'edge case'. We hardly ever cite people for cross-posting, and when we do it's usually an outsider with an agenda, who mass posts all over the place. For somebody to point at me and say "see, he has it wrong" is embarrassing to me - it implies that I don't know what I'm doing, and that there is some canon of case law that we should all be consulting. It's overkill. I think the mods should consult, but discussing these things like they're legal cases doesn't seem to serve any purpose. Do you feel that it does ? Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Charles Anthony Posted May 7, 2014 Report Posted May 7, 2014 I don't think so. I got something wrong about cross-posting and now people are picking at me, that's how it feels. I don't think that equates to me being as confused as the average poster.You did not get anything wrong ---- quite the opposite. What you described is exemplary. How you deal with your own blog and your participation is a perfect example of how to respect the cross-posting rule here on MLW. You were tricked with sly thread drift to manipulate a debate. Do not feel bad about it --- that happens here all of the time. The only thing that you conceivably did "wrong" would be to have let yourself get trolled in this thread. you will need to contribute original material; not something you've posted elsewhere.So you get away with breaking the rules huh?No. What MH described of his actions is EXACTLY what Betsy (or anybody else with the same intentions) are expected to do. We do not have time for a meeting of the flat earth society. << Où sont mes amis ? Ils sont ici, ils sont ici... >>
betsy Posted May 7, 2014 Report Posted May 7, 2014 (edited) You did not get anything wrong ---- quite the opposite. What you described is exemplary. How you deal with your own blog and your participation is a perfect example of how to respect the cross-posting rule here on MLW. You were tricked with sly thread drift to manipulate a debate. Do not feel bad about it --- that happens here all of the time. The only thing that you conceivably did "wrong" would be to have let yourself get trolled in this thread. "Tricked?" "Sly?" That implies malicious intention on the part of whomever did the alleged, "sly tricking." How did you come to that conclusion that there was any trickery and slyness involved? Members are talking about confusions! Why can't it be given the benefit of the doubt that some members are indeed confused? I must've missed something.... Michael Hardner, on 07 May 2014 - 07:32 AM, said: I don't think so. I got something wrong about cross-posting and now people are picking at me, that's how it feels. Charles A You did not get anything wrong ---- quite the opposite. For you to negate his claim that he "got something wrong" (which means, he got it all wrong AGAIN ) - and that you have to come out, and correct him about that, speaks clearly for itself, huh? You made him out as we perceived him to have been: confused. EXACTLY. Charles, kindly read this part from MH: For somebody to point at me and say "see, he has it wrong" is embarrassing to me - it implies that I don't know what I'm doing, Omigosh! That implies not only did MH got himself tricked....but that he didn't even realize it as it happened. Publicly negating AND correcting him thus - and coming from you as his peer and as the Moderator to boot - is what I'd consider, truly embarrassing. Really, really....where is diplomacy? Edited May 7, 2014 by betsy
betsy Posted May 7, 2014 Report Posted May 7, 2014 (edited) Speaking of diplomacy.....let me just say, that's one of your strong points whenever you intervene in a thread that's going downhill, Michael! Edited May 7, 2014 by betsy
jbg Posted May 7, 2014 Report Posted May 7, 2014 The way "cross-posting" is usually caught is if some poster goes to the trouble of googling an exact quote to see if it comes up on other forums. The person pursuing the cross-poster is the one who is usually trying to create a problem.Good point.There were two (2) posters, one totally gone from the forum, and another sporadically present who did this constantly. One even went to the trouble of opening an account on dailykos, a left-wing site (more in line with my politics) to track me and complain about cross-posts. I am pretty sure that we are the only two posters with dailykos accounts since it is a progressive site concentrating on U.S. politics. Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
GostHacked Posted May 7, 2014 Report Posted May 7, 2014 You were tricked with sly thread drift to manipulate a debate. Do not feel bad about it --- that happens here all of the time. The only thing that you conceivably did "wrong" would be to have let yourself get trolled in this thread. No one is trolling MH. Care to back up your assertion?
cybercoma Posted May 7, 2014 Report Posted May 7, 2014 It actually does feel that way, whether you perceive it that way or not. Even if I was wrong, violating this rule would be such an 'edge case'. We hardly ever cite people for cross-posting, and when we do it's usually an outsider with an agenda, who mass posts all over the place. For somebody to point at me and say "see, he has it wrong" is embarrassing to me - it implies that I don't know what I'm doing, and that there is some canon of case law that we should all be consulting. It's overkill. I think the mods should consult, but discussing these things like they're legal cases doesn't seem to serve any purpose. Do you feel that it does ? I know you feel that way and I respect that, but I'm telling you that everyone here respects you, as far as I know. So it's from that point of view that this is coming. When someone the posters respects, who tends to be level-headed and fair, gets the rule wrong, it suggests that it's not you that's the problem but the rule itself. Granted, I don't ever expect you to admit that given your role here. You'll undoubtedly side with the moderators every time. However, all I'm trying to illustrate is that the rules are not as cut and dry as they might seem and some things like the original content rule (or the third party insult rule as Argus pointed out) could use a thoughtful review. It may be worthwhile looking at the purposes of the rules and trying to come up with a better way of explaining them, especially if going forward Greg wants to try to drive more traffic to this place.
Recommended Posts