Self-Policing

FlameBlade · Post by **FlameBlade** » Thu Mar 28, 2002 1:46 pm

<DV8> What I'm trying to say is; Flame and Eclipse should be treated similarly. Sadly we have no moderators any longer.
<[3278]> Right.
<Jestyr> That assumes we loved you in the first place, Bull.
<Adam> DV8: What would the moderators place in this be?
<[3278]> Oh, yeah. DV8's a socialist. I forget.
<Flame> communist-socialist-facist
<Flame> pig!
<The-Mighty-Buddha> Doesnt make his ideas any less valid
<Adam> I'm a socialist too, you new-nigger.
<Adam> err.. jew-nigger.
<Adam>
<Jestyr> Deev: I really can't see that'd help.
<[3278]> Yes it does, Buddha.
*** Cash-AFK is now known as ThatCash
<The-Mighty-Buddha> Racism =P
<Flame> new-nigger
<Flame> lol
<Flame> wigger!
*** Wildhuntsman has joined #bulldrek
<SludWork> Hiya TC
<Wildhuntsman> hi
<Adam> Bulldrek is more socialist in some ways than it used to be.
<DV8> No, there's no solution. But that doesn't mean it's ass. I don't like elitism.
<The-Mighty-Buddha> Or would that be governmentalist?
<ThatCash> Hola Wild
<Flame> antidisestablishmentarianismist!
* The-Mighty-Buddha agrees with Dennis
<The-Mighty-Buddha> Thats the one, gj flame
* DV8 starts his own clique with Buddha.
<Jestyr> Me either. But that's usually because I'm on the sharp end of the stick. If I was one of the Cool Kids(tm) I might feel differently
<[3278]> Well, then Deev and Buddha: DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!
* Wildhuntsman is getting ready for his job interview.. for a job he most likely will be unable to accept if he gets it
<ThatCash> What for?
<Flame> 3278 do has a point
<DV8> 32 :: There's nothing to be done. It's human nature, and in an unregulated place, things tend to be the way they are.
<Jestyr> Mm. OLP.
<The-Mighty-Buddha> Well theres very little I can do to change Dennis' countrys governmental system
<[3278]> Bullshit copout.
<Flame> Well...
<Flame> the purpose of Bulldrek
<Flame> is to self-police
<DV8> 32 :: Educate me O Wise One.
*** Morbid has joined #bulldrek
<Wildhuntsman> blow up the country and rebuild it in America's image
<Flame> If you are annoyed at something
<Flame> speak up
<ThatCash> *cough*Wild*cough* What job?
<DV8> Flame :: BS. Self policing doesn't exisit.
<ThatCash> Morbid!
<Morbid> Morning.
<Flame> wanna bet?
<[3278]> Hah!
<Wildhuntsman> TC: office codemonkey / intern
<DV8> Flame :: Yes, I'd like to take that bet.
<Flame> Well...I have seen several examples.
<Adam> Is #Bulldrek self-policing?
<Bull> The problem you're encountering isn't "Elitism". It's friendship.
<ThatCash> Deev:: It does only when something is at stake. Remember the last days of Bulldrek on DRF/DSF
<DV8> Adam :: No.
<Adam> Who polices it?
* Jestyr nods at Bull. O
<DV8> Adam :: I do.
<[3278]> Dennis, how much of the post-pumping you've seen relied on double-posting? Do you know why there's so little of it?
<DV8> Bull steps out of line and bores the living shit out of everyone with his fucking comics, I tell him to take a hike.
<DV8> It's either that or everyone leaves the channel to let bull talk to himself.
<Iron_Chef_Mooch> There's a commandment against it?
<[3278]> Yes.
<Flame> yes
<Adam> No offense, that's not because you have an @ symbol next to you. It's because everyone would leave the channel; it's a social factor.
<DV8> 32 :: What does that have to do with the price of tea in china?
<[3278]> Wow, you're being dense.
<DV8> Adam : Exactly. There _is_ policing. One way or the other.
<Jestyr> Hang on a sec.
<The-Mighty-Buddha> rawr
* SludWork wonders what I walked into...damn...
<Flame> I thought Bull stopped raving about comics
<[3278]> The reason people don't do it is because people don't like it.
<Adam> DV8: Then perhaps we're using different terms for "self policing".
<DV8> 32 :: Educate me, stop being obnoxious about it.
<Jestyr> Are we talking self-policing in the sense of /having no controls/, or in the sense of /not needing the controls that exist/?
<Flame> is about something...
<Flame> *shrug*
<Flame> forgot
<Bull> Flame: I did (And for the record, I wasn;t the only one in on those conversations )
<[3278]> I'm obnoxious? Sure.
<Adam> Controls will always exist, as a social factor, as I said. It's foolish to believe they won't go away.
<Flame> Ok...let's calm down and define "policing"
<DV8> 32 :: Seriously; if you think I'm dense, then take the time to educate me.
<Iron_Chef_Mooch> Control will always exist! Control is eterhal! All hail Control!
<Flame> Tell you what.
<Jestyr> #Shadowrun, for example, needs very little op activity. But it does have ops. Is it self-policing, or not?
<DV8> Flame :: There is some force that brings order to chaos.
<[3278]> Then shut up for a second, ask a question, and let me answer.
<Flame> Be thankful that Cipher isn't here.
<The-Mighty-Buddha> Weres CE when we need his annoyance.

Well...What do you think about self-policing. Does it actually happen?

DV8 · Post by **DV8** » Thu Mar 28, 2002 1:54 pm

Yes. Self policing is "majority rules." However, after a while, the majority base is so solid that it can be seen as a fundament, and this policing. There is no such thing as continued self-policing. There is no such thing as a free form society; all sociology theories point towards man's instinctive need for order and security. Therefor there will always come order from chaos.

Eliahad · Post by **Eliahad** » Thu Mar 28, 2002 2:06 pm

Are you sure self-policing doesn't continue? Tastes change over time and so too does the opinion of the majority. As new people appear, stating their opinions (especially those who are patient and work their way into the 'system') and things change. Now, I don't know how much Bulldrek has changed in the last three years, but I thought we've been self-policing since we hit v0.2, hell, there were enough of us to stand up and say "hey" while we were over on DRF, I don't know if it's any different now. I think the new board, new control staff, new look has changed perspectives, but on the whole, it's very much the same.

DV8 · Post by **DV8** » Thu Mar 28, 2002 2:46 pm

As I said, the regulars form a policing force all by themselves and leave the free form method of policing and turn to other methods. Bullying is a good one, it has worked in the past and it will continue in the future. Example: Gunwitch.

I know it's no Trias Politicas, but a way of policing is erected, and those who don't adhere get shit flung at them. As soon as you coerce others into adhering to certain rules, you forgo the concept of "policing oneself," in my opinion.

Perhaps someone would want to educate me on what "self policing" is defined as, before the nit-pickers get a hold of this thread and start arguing about details.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Thu Mar 28, 2002 3:29 pm

DV8 wrote: Perhaps someone would want to educate me on what "self policing" is defined as, before the nit-pickers get a hold of this thread and start arguing about details.

Too late; I'm here.

To define self-policing, you have to define policing, and you have to define it in the context of Bulldrek.

Policing is simply enforcement of law. But Bulldrek has no law.

So let's say it did; the law was, no posting on Mondays. If we had Moderator policing, then Moderators would delete all posts made on Monday, and ban those who did it. But we don't have that; what we would do instead is make the people who posted on Monday stop doing that. How? Well, that's up to the people who want to stop them.

So, in this case, self-policing is members of Bulldrek enforcing laws themselves, without administrative rights. And we do have laws; it's just that, due to the nature of the board, they're really only guidelines we have to enforce ourselves.

I like it this way. Obviously. Why? Because I feel the deus ex machina method of policing leads to a group who doesn't invest themselves in the community. Here, if you want to get something done, you have to work for it; you can't just wave your hands and make the "government" fix it.

Let's say this place weren't an online community, but rather a real-life town. Now, there's no government in Bulldrekkia, no one to build roads or make sewers work. So when someone needs a road built, what do they do? In the before time, in the long-long-ago, they would pray to the Dark Lord on High to gift them with a road, and a road they would have. But now there's no DLoH. There's just a bunch of people. Sure, there's this cold AI sitting under the surface of the town, making sure water comes out of the tap, but it doesn't do anything.

So we need a road. Main street's fucked, all potholes and overturned cobbles. What do we do? We make one. We walk around, talking to other people, until we've found enough people who want the road built. We beg, coerce, and convince them until they agree. Then we find someone who can build it, and we say, "Dude, I know you're a paving expert, and we really want a road. All of us do. Come on, please?" And you do this until it happens.

Then the whole town pitches in, all those people who wanted the road, and even some that didn't. And they help mix, and pour, and flatten. Until we've got a road. And it isn't a road we invoked by waving a hand or requesting on bended knee to some "higher power." We made it. And every time we see that road, we think, "That's our road."

One person can start this rolling. One person can stand up and say, "I want a road! Who's with me?" And yes, for one person to pull it off alone requires leadership and charisma, but if one person can find one other, and that person finds one other, eventually, you can convince the world of the necessity of action.

Or maybe you can't. And then you make your own road. Maybe it won't be a good one. But maybe other people will see that horrible abomination of a road you built and say, "You know, we need a new road just so I don't have to see that thing anymore." Whatever it takes.

It's personal responsibility. It's not relying on outside authority to do everything for you. I came from a town where, if someone needed a barn, they didn't call the government for a farm subsidy, they asked around town and found enough people to help with a barn raising. And I'll tell you, we all worshipped that barn. And if someone had come along and vandalized that barn, we'd have all gotten together and beat the crap out of them, because it was our barn, too.

Control asked for volunteers sometime last week to do a little gathering of suggestions for improvements on the board, things people wanted done; new roads, new houses, new sewers. Control asked, not for people to build roads, but just to go through and see what roads people wanted built where. And Control got one volunteer, who hasn't yet gathered all the suggestions. All those people who wanted things done, but none of them willing to do anything about getting them done. I'm not trying to be a jerk about that, or point fingers. I'm just pointing out the flaw in how we've all been acting.

We've all gotten so used to praying for roads that we forgot how to help build them. And I think that should change. I think we should all band together and get some things done if we want them done. I think we all need to shoulder some of the responsibility for our town.

Yes, personal enforcement leads to coalitions, and coalitions lead to cliques, and cliques lead to political parties. Division is part of life.

Yes, the dominance of certain cliques - particularly "incumbent" cliques - leads to elitism. But something history has taught us about society is that dominance is fluid and fragile. Most of the "regulars" here are not the same regulars from DRF, and they're not the same regulars from the early days of v0.2. There have been a lot of quiet revolutions, and some not-so-quiet ones. Dominance on this board is always in flux.

Not that dominance matters a whole lot. Not here.

Everyone here is equal. That's the goal. If your voice isn't being heard, for once in your life it's not because those in authority aren't letting you. Yes, maybe it's because the popular kids won't let you, but there's ways around that, aren't there? I know for a fact there are. You know why? Because once upon on time, an SST poster named abortion_engine walked into Bulldrek and started talking about lasers, and here I am today. You can go from no one to someone, but you have to do it yourself. You have to do it all yourself. That's what will make you powerful, what will make you someone, here, or anywhere. Personal strength, which is a direct result of personal responsibility.

No one's going to pull you up by your bootstraps here. No one's going to "officially" condemn bullying. If you don't like it, do something about it.

We used to pray, and we got - usually - what we wished for. But now our Dark Lord has descended to earth, and in his place we have a cold AI who only helps; he does not create, and he does not enforce. And I, for one, think that it's about damned time. Now the world is ours, for once; the power is ours. We are all, for once, gods.

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Thu Mar 28, 2002 3:47 pm

Idealistic anarchy is pretty.

Pistons · Post by **Pistons** » Thu Mar 28, 2002 6:25 pm

Yes it is, isn't it? But if that's a comment on what 32 is saying, I think that's inaccurate. Bulldrek isn't anarchic. Perhaps in the strict sense that there is no government, it is, but since there are people here and there - volunteers, regulars, whatever you want to call them - enforcing whatever rules or commandments have been made up (for example: double posting), no matter how loosely, then there isn't anarchy. There is order, however tough to discern that may be.

I would say what 32 is talking about doesn't happen 'in the real world', except it does. Just because a community is online doesn't make it any less real, and so far what he's said isn't far-fetched. It can, it does, it has and likely will happen. I've seen this happen outside of the microcosm of the Internet as well, and participated. Any time there are several people on equal footing with a common vision or goal and the gumption to get it going, it happens. It is feasible.

And I'm not even going to address the bit about elitism. It happens whether you want it to or not, whether you've got self-policiing or no policing at all.

FlameBlade · Post by **FlameBlade** » Thu Mar 28, 2002 6:30 pm

The reason why I posted this here is because I want people to take a step back, breathe for ten seconds, and start to discuss our definition of self-policing, and whether it will work or not. I'm loking what I'm seeing so far. Sometimes, a lengthy response is much more communicative than speedy responses on IRC.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Thu Mar 28, 2002 6:31 pm

Pistons wrote: Yes it is, isn't it? But if that's a comment on what 32 is saying, I think that's inaccurate. Bulldrek isn't anarchic. Perhaps in the strict sense that there is no government, it is, but since there are people here and there - volunteers, regulars, whatever you want to call them - enforcing whatever rules or commandments have been made up (for example: double posting), no matter how loosely, then there isn't anarchy. There is order, however tough to discern that may be.

Well, and I'm being predictably nitpicky right now, but Bulldrek is about as close to anarchy as we can feasibly make it. There is next to no government. That doesn't mean there's no order; anarchy isn't about order, necessarily. Well, here:

an·ar·chy
n. pl. an·ar·chies
1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

We have 1 and 2, and to some degree, 3. But absence of government doesn't have to mean chaos. Well, that, at least, is the theory on which Bulldrek v1.0 is based.

FlameBlade · Post by **FlameBlade** » Thu Mar 28, 2002 6:36 pm

So basically, you're telling me...

We're having semi-ordered anarchy.

I find one thing interesting: Bulldrek doesn't spill over into SST often. I very well believe that was the result of self-policing in a sense. If I'm correct...when we had first SST, and I thought it would be cool to bring some 'drek...only to be poohed poohed, and I learned fast because of the result of self-policing.

There were many examples of self-policing over the years.

Cash telling me to stop going too wild with lack of quality posts once in BD...because I was mimicking Bull's Drive-By. I promptly stopped.

Someone acting like a general asshole? We find a way to stop that guy.

SST example above.

And many more. I'm pretty sure that you will be able to find more examples.

Bethyaga · Post by **Bethyaga** » Thu Mar 28, 2002 6:45 pm

I am confused, DV8. Can you provide some specific examples of the Good Ol' Boys oppressing the masses around here? I confess I don't read the Bulldrek forum at all, so maybe I'm missing it, but what injustice is taking place here that would be better served under a different system of moderation?

You've provided the example of Gunwitch, which is an old example from the last board. It may still be relevant, but from what I've heard, Gunny didn't make many friends around BD (I don't know Gunny at all, but I heard that she displayed many unlikable qualities)--I'm guessing that she made her own bed.

And you haven't brought it up, but the only other example I've seen discussed is Buddha. Buddha's big obnoxious (questionable) images bothered people and they spoke out against him, and told him in no uncertain terms that they thought it was out of line. Many people (yourself included) spoke out on his behalf, and Buddha himself responded by not changing his behavior in any way (good for him). End result: Buddha still pulls the exact same shit, and no one says anything about it. His cryptic (sometimes pointless) images dropped incongruously into the middle of a thread still annoy the crap out of me, but I also recognize that they don't harm me in any way, so I just ignore them. Where's the injustice in that whole procedure? What should moderators have done to make that better? Ban obnoxious images? Outlaw complaining?

Seriously, Deev, list some of the current injustices, and how you think some other system might handle them better.

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Thu Mar 28, 2002 6:58 pm

Pistons wrote: Yes it is, isn't it? But if that's a comment on what 32 is saying, I think that's inaccurate.
That's Bulldrek isn't anarchic. Perhaps in the strict sense that there is no government, it is, but since there are people here and there - volunteers, regulars, whatever you want to call them - enforcing whatever rules or commandments have been made up (for example: double posting), no matter how loosely, then there isn't anarchy. There is order, however tough to discern that may be.

Of course. That's why I called it "idealistic," because it's an idea/concept, not an reflection of what's actually going on. Anarchy only lasts until two people agree on something.

Sludig · Post by **Sludig** » Thu Mar 28, 2002 7:02 pm

Flame: What you've described is a implied set of behaviours that aren't codified, or traditions. This is the closest thing I could think of for your description. Bulldrek has evolved to the point now, that there has been developed some unwritten standards for posting, and behaviour.

Okay, so I broke out the sociolgy and teacher hat again, sorry about that. There will be more of these unwritten rules as time goes on, or even some might be codified if someone goes overboard, this place is evolving, and will continue to.

Cash · Post by **Cash** » Thu Mar 28, 2002 8:10 pm

We beg, coerce, and convince them until they agree.

Forgot bully.

Cash telling me to stop going too wild with lack of quality posts once in BD...because I was mimicking Bull's Drive-By. I promptly stopped.

To make one of 32's points...I asked you to stop because it was annoying me as a person and not as a moderator.

FlameBlade · Post by **FlameBlade** » Thu Mar 28, 2002 8:24 pm

Exactly. I knew that. Few other people were expressing the exact same greivances as you did. But you stood up, and told me as a "friend" and as a "person". That's what 32 wanted us to do. If there's something bothering you, stand up and talk. That's how things get done.

The Mighty Buddha · Post by **The Mighty Buddha** » Thu Mar 28, 2002 8:41 pm

Bah, standing up and voicing your opinion is just a faster way of getting shot down by someone else who is much better at this debating type thing. Here, look at some funnys.

FlameBlade · Post by **FlameBlade** » Thu Mar 28, 2002 8:45 pm

But however, Buddha, you can simply look around for support, and that person who is much better at debating can help you out. So basically, you cannot know this until you voice up.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Thu Mar 28, 2002 9:04 pm

Maybe I have the wrong idea here, but here is how I feel, no BS, just real Paul feelings:

1. Elitism- You might think you are elite, I could care. Typing faster and clearer than I , does not a debater make. Nor does it make you any more correct, right, good or smart. It just means you choose to spend more time refining your typing skills, where as I would rathe rpaly with my kid. Gee sorry.

2. I could care less what any person here thinks of me. My self esteem is not based on your acceptance. I have been berated by better people who I respect more.

3. Although I have come to know some of you, and I really like most everyone here-you are all very smart and have something to offer in your own way-you are all just names on a screen. None of you cash my check, fuck my wife or play with my kid.

Don't get me wrong, I like posting over here in Bulldrek, and I like the ideas and things you people have shown me, exposed me to. I like chatting on mIRC and I like the personal conflict and personality clashes. They help me refine my own ideas and thoughts.I like that, because to be honest I don't get enough exposure to other view points.

I like the madness, and I certainly don't have any malice towards anyone, even the Elf, and I hope people can stick around and play in the mud with me.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Thu Mar 28, 2002 9:47 pm

The Mighty Buddha wrote: Bah, standing up and voicing your opinion is just a faster way of getting shot down by someone else who is much better at this debating type thing.

Well, okay. Then don't. But decisions are made by those who show up. If you never stand up, and never voice your opinion, you will never amount to anything. Someone is handing you the freedom to speak your mind, and you're going to discard it because it's too hard to be right and show it? Then don't. Fail.

Don't let Buddha discourage you. We're not all so stupid as to mistake rhetoric for correctness, and it's insulting to assume we are. If I debate Paul, and he's right and I'm wrong, even if I'm the superior speaker, I don't think it's fair to assume you will all think I'm right and he's wrong. Personally, I give you all more credit than that.

Olibarro · Post by **Olibarro** » Thu Mar 28, 2002 9:57 pm

If I debate Paul, and I'm right and he's wrong, even if I'm the superior speaker, I don't think it's fair to assume you will all think I'm right and he's wrong. Personally, I give you all more credit than that.

Let me guess, you meant to say "...even if I'm wrong..." but subconsciously, you couldn't even type it.

It's like watching Fonzie apologize.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Thu Mar 28, 2002 10:00 pm

Thank you. Fixed.

It's just so hard to remember a time Paul was right and I was wrong! Okay, except for every time we talked about World War II. Or, frankly, anything involving history. Or roleplaying. Or government...

Huh. It's a damned good thing we usually agree.

DV8 · Post by **DV8** » Fri Mar 29, 2002 9:08 am

Bethyaga wrote: I am confused, DV8. Can you provide some specific examples of the Good Ol' Boys oppressing the masses around here? I confess I don't read the Bulldrek forum at all, so maybe I'm missing it, but what injustice is taking place here that would be better served under a different system of moderation?

You've provided the example of Gunwitch, which is an old example from the last board. It may still be relevant, but from what I've heard, Gunny didn't make many friends around BD (I don't know Gunny at all, but I heard that she displayed many unlikable qualities)--I'm guessing that she made her own bed.

Yes, it's an old example. And if I remember correctly, when I presented this to the old moderators of Bulldrek v0.2, you were the only one to bother to react to my email and you said; "Sorry, it doesn't fly like that here." Now, is the problem that Gunwitch is gone? No. My problem is the fact that she was bullied into leaving by Thorn and whoever jumped on the bandwagon at the time. Thorn would've never gotten her to leave it would've just been her against Gunwitch. I'm convinced that she left because everyone was siding with Thorn. Why did everyone sided with Thorn; because Thorn is a popular person on Bulldrek and aparently throws that weight around with quite some ease. The atmosphere I picked up was; "the bitch needs to go." So she and her little band of followers made that happen. I don't like elitism. I don't like clique forming. I don't like ganging up on someone. Especially when it's absolutely not necessary. Especially when you can simply ignore someone's posts.

Do you remember when JohnnyRico thought it was necessary to threaten me right after the 9/11 attacks? My first reaction was to stay away from the next Gathering; Not only don't I want to ruin the mood by being there [not for him, not for myself, not for anyone around us] but it really isn't important enough.

It's a fucking bulletin board for fuck's sake. There is no need for odd politics, especially when you're out to cause someone discomfort. You can simply read over the posts and be done with it. Don't like Gunwitch drekking in SST; leave the thread the fuck alone.

There was no need to go that route. That's what fucks me off.

And you haven't brought it up, but the only other example I've seen discussed is Buddha. Buddha's big obnoxious (questionable) images bothered people and they spoke out against him, and told him in no uncertain terms that they thought it was out of line. Many people (yourself included) spoke out on his behalf, and Buddha himself responded by not changing his behavior in any way (good for him). End result: Buddha still pulls the exact same shit, and no one says anything about it. His cryptic (sometimes pointless) images dropped incongruously into the middle of a thread still annoy the crap out of me, but I also recognize that they don't harm me in any way, so I just ignore them. Where's the injustice in that whole procedure? What should moderators have done to make that better? Ban obnoxious images? Outlaw complaining?

First off, I'd like to apologize for the way my brain works; I'm terrible on details. The only real example I could think of is Gunwitch. Now that you mentioned Buddha's thing, you're right...that was about as stupid as people ganging up on Gunwitch, although for different reasons. I'm glad you can ignore his pictures, I really am, he's still around because of it. And I do enjoy his pictures. Just like some people might have enjoyed Gunwitch's drekking in SST. Thorn had no right to throw her weight around, and within the convines of EZBaord's TOS I don't think Buddha was out of line with the picture in question. But what if someone rallied the masses and got rid of Buddha? Is that fair? No. Is it a little pathetic to let yourself get worked up like that? Yes.

I'm guilty of getting worked up as well. Hell, I withdrew from doing anything for Bulldrek and TTF because I didn't want it wasting my time if it wasn't appreciated. But each time I get worked up I feel fucking stupid because it's only a bulletin board. It's only words. It's not worth getting so worked up over. It certainly isn't worth throwing your weight around to bully someone into leaving.

Seriously, Deev, list some of the current injustices, and how you think some other system might handle them better.

I can't list any other injustices, I'm sorry. Another system; live and let live.

DV8 · Post by **DV8** » Fri Mar 29, 2002 9:09 am

The Mighty Buddha wrote:

I love you, Buddha.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Fri Mar 29, 2002 10:05 am

Well, that's a valid point. Cliquism - in this case, we're really talking about cliquism, and not elitism - can lead to exclusion. [It can lead to inclusion, as well, but that's not the subject on the table.]

So, what to do? Now, Moderators here have never been about keeping the downtrodden from being excluded; here, you always have had to stand on your own two feet. Half the criteria for survival have always been managing to survive the first month; it shows a particular amount of strength, determination, and personal masochism that means you'll fit in nicely.

Now, what's being proposed here is a system under which the board has a staff whose purpose - at least partially - is to make sure that no one has their rights to post impugned, that no one's voice is not heard.

I say, where's the freedom for the old member of the board who doesn't like the new one? I say, who's watching out for their right to speak up in opposition? I say, deliver me from clever--

Sorry. That picture's getting to me.

At the end of the day, the playing field's not level. Some people are better than others, some people are better liked than others. No amount of forced niceness is going to change that. I think freedom isn't a forced level playing field. I think freedom is personal responsibility, not making sure that there's some authority making sure that you never have to impress anyone, that you never have to defend yourself. I think a world of forced equality is a world of weakness, where all authority and responsibility is handed over to someone else. And when you want to make a change, you find you can't, because all your rights are in the hands of someone else.

If you don't like someone's bullying behavior, make them stop. And I know you try. But I think the freedom of speech - for everyone - is more important than the freedom from offense.

DV8 · Post by **DV8** » Fri Mar 29, 2002 10:37 am

3278 wrote: At the end of the day, the playing field's not level. Some people are better than others, some people are better liked than others. No amount of forced niceness is going to change that.

Where's your "can't we all just get along" speech now, 32?

3278 · Post by **3278** » Fri Mar 29, 2002 10:40 am

DV8 wrote:
3278 wrote: At the end of the day, the playing field's not level. Some people are better than others, some people are better liked than others. No amount of forced niceness is going to change that.
Where's your "can't we all just get along" speech now, 32?

In the same place it always was: in my heart, not in the hands of an outside authority. Kindness is meaningless if it's forced.

Olibarro · Post by **Olibarro** » Fri Mar 29, 2002 2:34 pm

Bethyaga · Post by **Bethyaga** » Fri Mar 29, 2002 2:37 pm

Just like some people might have enjoyed Gunwitch's drekking in SST. Thorn had no right to throw her weight around

So if I have a problem with someone and their words and actions, I have no right to speak up? After all, I'm as "Good-Ol-Boy" as it gets around here, and I'd have all sorts of people backing me. I have no right to speak up if someone's being obnoxious?

Because that's what you're saying, Deev.

Another system; live and let live.

How is that different from what we're doing now?

The alternative is to have some authority to step in and enforce the "live and let live" philosophy. In which case, the philosophy applies to everyone but the administration who can do whatever they want to anyone. Great, I suppose, if the admin is a benevolent dictator, but even the nicest of admins (witness Dvixen) causes many to chafe under the restrictions and viewed some of her actions as the same "unfair bullying" you condemn in Thorn.

spudman · Post by **spudman** » Fri Mar 29, 2002 6:35 pm

3278 wrote: Now, Moderators here have never been about keeping the downtrodden from being excluded; here, you always have had to stand on your own two feet.

In my experience (not here necessarily) it is surprising how many people fail to understand that particular point.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Fri Mar 29, 2002 6:40 pm

spudman wrote:
3278 wrote: Now, Moderators here have never been about keeping the downtrodden from being excluded; here, you always have had to stand on your own two feet.
In my experience (not here necessarily) it is surprising how many people fail to understand that particular point.

I emphatically agree.

And please, god, tell me you had nothing to do with IMPS.

That is a little too damned funny.

spudman · Post by **spudman** » Fri Mar 29, 2002 6:56 pm

3278 wrote:
spudman wrote:
3278 wrote: Now, Moderators here have never been about keeping the downtrodden from being excluded; here, you always have had to stand on your own two feet.
In my experience (not here necessarily) it is surprising how many people fail to understand that particular point.
I emphatically agree.

And please, god, tell me you had nothing to do with IMPS. That is a little too damned funny.

Alas, while I wish I was that good, my jokes are never so well-timed, detailed or widely distributed. I saw a link somewhere that listed a bunch of funny RFCs, and everyone loves monkeys, so I co-opted it for my .sig.

The Mighty Buddha · Post by **The Mighty Buddha** » Fri Mar 29, 2002 8:01 pm

[

[/list]

DV8 · Post by **DV8** » Fri Mar 29, 2002 10:41 pm

Bethyaga wrote: So if I have a problem with someone and their words and actions, I have no right to speak up? After all, I'm as "Good-Ol-Boy" as it gets around here, and I'd have all sorts of people backing me. I have no right to speak up if someone's being obnoxious?

Because that's what you're saying, Deev.

No, it really isn't what I'm saying; what I'm saying is; those who are backing you simply because you're you, shouldn't.

How is that different from what we're doing now?

Now we bitch about others where we could also simply turn away and find entertainment in a different thread.

FlameBlade · Post by **FlameBlade** » Fri Mar 29, 2002 11:32 pm

From what I'm understanding...

Deev, you're saying that people shouldn't back people up just because of popularity?

In other words...you believe that people should back other people up if their opinion are in accord to each other?

Am I correct, Deev?

FlameBlade · Post by **FlameBlade** » Sat Mar 30, 2002 12:38 am

Deev wrote:My problem is the fact that she was bullied into leaving by Thorn and whoever jumped on the bandwagon at the time. Thorn would've never gotten her to leave it would've just been her against Gunwitch. I'm convinced that she left because everyone was siding with Thorn. Why did everyone sided with Thorn; because Thorn is a popular person on Bulldrek and aparently throws that weight around with quite some ease. The atmosphere I picked up was; "the bitch needs to go." So she and her little band of followers made that happen. I don't like elitism. I don't like clique forming. I don't like ganging up on someone. Especially when it's absolutely not necessary. Especially when you can simply ignore someone's posts.

I read that several times and tried to...understand it.

But something doesn't make sense.

Deev, what I'm feeling right now, in a sense you're singling Thorn out, and trying to turn masses against her. You see, you're doing exactly what you claimed that Thorn are doing.

Thorn just simply got annoyed at something and spoke up. People joined her by their choice. More often than not, Thorn has courage to stand up, and say, "Hey, enough" and turns out that people agreed with her, and they did what they did. 32 would be proud of Thorn because she stood for her beliefs. People simply joined her by their own choice, and went with flow. It just happened that there is tremendous pressure by the mass, NOT THORN, but rather, by masses.

What amazed me was the Sorrow incident. You see, Sorrow just expressed his disdain for that gerbil sex picture by Buddha, and he got chased off just because he stood up for his beliefs, and my question is, what he did to deserve the harassment and chasing off?

I have to admit one thing. I'm very nervous about putting this up, because this could end up people alienating other people, but then I remembered what 3278 said about standing up for its own belief. I believe that Thorn DID not goad people into siding with her. It just happened that people believe the same thing as Thorn did.

Cash · Post by **Cash** » Sat Mar 30, 2002 2:08 am

Flame:: Ok, I'll say it. I really don't give a fuck.

Deev:: I think you're siding with the "underdog" just because without really thinking about it. Yes, cliquism and elitism are bad but I think you're chasing demons where there are none.

With Thorn-Gunwitch-whatever: Thorn posted her displeasure with Gunny. Many, me included, did not agree with Thorn just because of a massive popularity contest. Gunny was annoying and Thorn was the first one to speak up about it. Now, I've heard from a few different people that how she acted online is completely differnt than how she acts IRL. Great. How she acts online bugs the fuck out of me and I do find it annoying. Would I find her annoying if she acted the way she does IRL? I don't know. From what I've heard, probably not. See?

Now with Buddha's pic and Sorrow. It's not a matter of picking on Buddha because we like to do it or because we want to or because Sorrow is a better person. Deev...you're not understanding that some of us can lose our jobs because of that. Sorrow was just pointing that out and asked Buddha to not post images like that. A few responded that the images were questionable and they could be construed to violate the ToS. Shoot. I love my job and don't want to get fired over a pic that Buddha (or anyone else for that matter) posts.

I'm convinced that she left because everyone was siding with Thorn.

Great. Have you asked Gunny why she's no longer posting here???

Why did everyone sided with Thorn; because Thorn is a popular person on Bulldrek and aparently throws that weight around with quite some ease.

Sorry Deev. Way off the mark.

Do you remember when JohnnyRico thought it was necessary to threaten me right after the 9/11 attacks? My first reaction was to stay away from the next Gathering; Not only don't I want to ruin the mood by being there [not for him, not for myself, not for anyone around us] but it really isn't important enough.

Then JohnnyRico just bullied you. Congrats. Personally, I'd rather have you there than JR.

JR:: No offense. I happen know Deev a lot better than I know you.

Thorn · Post by **Thorn** » Sat Mar 30, 2002 2:24 am

So I feel like I need to respond to this thread. But I don't know how.

What if I defend myself and people side with me - will I be accused of being a bully again?

What if I let others do my defending for me? Will I be treated like some kind of evil mastermind, manipulating Bulldrekkers into doing her foul bidding?

Hell, let the record show that I was upset by all this and some other things and went on IRC. There I confided in my friends FlameBlade, Bull and Eva. FlameBlade, having heard some of what I was thinking/feeling, decided to make his post. I did not ask him to, and in fact refused to read over his post before he posted it. I also made sure he realized that he didn't have to do anything on my behalf. He insisted.

But so... I really feel stuck here. The whole Gunwitch thing:

She was shitty to me. I was shitty back (or maybe I started it - I don't trust my own perceptions on this at this point) There was lots of shittiness. Somewhere in there everyone decided to be shitty at Gunwitch as well. She was really really shitty to me, I was really really shitty to her. That was the last I saw of her.

I'm not proud of what happened, but at the same time, I take exception to being held responsible for the actions of others.

I had no way of knowing how everyone else was going to respond. I don't have a crystal ball. I have no way of seeing into the future. I don't have the Sharper Image's Super-Secret Mind Control Ray. (Sometimes I wish I did - don't you?)

I can't make anybody do anything. Hell, I haven't made the SMITE!™ shirts happen more than once, and I don't know of anyone particularly opposed to those.

I didn't like someone. And I wasn't nice to her. But I didn't intend to make her leave. I figured we'd have us a nice little catfight, we'd retreat to our respective corners, and then avoid each other as best we could.

Also, to clarify (though I could swear I've told you, at least, this before, Dennis): my issue was not with Gunwitch Bulldrekking on SST. If you were to look over old threads, I'm usually pretty bad about letting 'drek into SST. She'd hacked me off in a lot of different places, and so when she took the game about hitting cats personally, I decided to deliver some 'friendly advice' in a not-so-friendly way. Was it the nicest decision I've ever made? Certainly not. But I didn't realize I was obligated to be nice all the damn time.

RE: Me throwing my weight around.

First of all, I'm going to assume that's not a fat joke.

Secondly - I've been a nobody most of my life. I've never had weight (other than literal) to throw around. The whole Gunwitch thing was my first experience in it. I've never been "popular". I've frequently been the kind of person to finally say what everyone else is thinking, but most often in those situations, everyone has left me holding the bag.

Was I gratified to see people taking up my side? Sure, who wouldn't be? But I didn't expect it to turn as ugly as it did. And once it had... I still don't know what I should have done.

Should I have turned around and kissed Gunwitch's heiny and begged her to come back? It would have been false of me, and I expect she would have seen through it.

Should I have apologized? I don't see why I should apologize for getting angry when someone accused me of throwing "used douche water" on them. I also don't see why I should have ignored that.

Should I have told everyone not to say what they chose to say? I have a problem with that too - just like I don't ask people to post certain things (though if someone has something to say, I invariably encourage them to say it), I don't like to ask people /not/ to post.

So, here's where I'm at:

I've always thought it important to fight my own battles. That's part of the reason you don't see Caz much on SST - he used to read it, and then he'd get mad at someone for something they said to me, and I would refuse to let him leap to my defense. Made him crazy, so he opted to go all Bulldrek, all the time.

But apparently if I do that, and other people support me... that's bad. Then I'm a bully "throwing her weight around".

But if I don't... well, then I'm a wimp in my own eyes, and I couldn't give a fuck what the rest of you think on that score.

And what about if I'm on IRC and am hacked off at something someone said? Am I not allowed to tell my friends that so-and-so hacked me off, on the off chance they'll decide to get hacked off on my behalf? Or that I'll have pointed them at something they didn't already know about, and now they're hacked off as well??

The way I'm reading all this, it looks like I'm not allowed to defend myself, and nobody's allowed to back me up if I do, and I'm not allowed to talk to my friends about the things that might be bugging me. All of which spells "Bullshit" in my book.

I mean, why be here if I'm not allowed to have friends? Why be here if I'm not allowed to speak my mind when someone pisses me off? Why be here if I have to walk on eggshells because someone might get offended?

I thought the entire point of SST was we all got to say our piece. I thought the entire point of having a place without a TOS was so we could say what we needed to say without some e-Big Brother peering over our shoulders.

Incidentally, I would point out that I have /learned/ from my experience with the Gunwitch thing. About a month or so ago, when someone accused me of being unhelpful and self-righteous, someone else defended me before I even saw the accusation. And instead of defending myself (to someone who's been hacking me off for some time now), I thanked my defender, said I couldn't post appropriately, and let it slide.

You know why? So there'd be no chance of past bullshit getting repeated. I played the wimp and let someone else fight my battle for me. It went against a lot of what I think is important, but I did it.

*shrug* I don't know what the hell I want to prove there... I guess it's just a pathetic attempt at making sure everyone realizes that I'm not evil, and I don't go through life trying to manipulate or bully people into doing what I want.

Fuck. I don't know what else to say. Well, except to point out, one last time, that I really take exception to being held responsible for what everyone else did. Did I start it? Well, if I didn't start it, Gunwitch did. But since I'm the one still here, I'll take the responsibility, since I certainly didn't let it slide. Wasn't nice of me, I admit it. But I didn't make all those other posts. I didn't ask a single other person to make a post. I asked people to read what I wrote and tell me what they thought. But they made their own choices.

(NOTE: Before I posted this, I pvt msg'd it to Cash and FlameBlade, to make sure I didn't get over-emotional or whatever.)

Bull · Post by **Bull** » Sat Mar 30, 2002 5:25 am

Not that anyone asked my opinion on the subject... But... (And note this isn'ts pecifically aimed at anyone, it's just a general statement)

You've created a society around thec oncept that people are free to do what they want, and now you don't like the consequences because it doesn't mesh with yourview of what Bulldrek is supposed to be.

It doesn't matter what you do, Deev, or you 32, or Paul, or Thorn, or Beth, or Buddha, or Elf, or anyone else. People are people. Society is society. And it's human nature to stick up for friends or people you respect, and to just naturally agree with them.

Seems to me if you start mandating anything here, especially how someone should treat someone else, or how people should react when someone else says something... Well. You're setting rules, then, aren't you?

<shrug>

Bull

Bull · Post by **Bull** » Sat Mar 30, 2002 5:32 am

As a note, I really hate the Preview button. This SHOULD Have been posted 4 hours ago, but instead it sat in "Preview" because I had to dash off the compy...

Bull

DV8 · Post by **DV8** » Sat Mar 30, 2002 6:06 am

FlameBlade wrote: Deev, you're saying that people shouldn't back people up just because of popularity?

Indeed. I know there will never be any objectivity, but siding with the friendlies regardless of their actions or their opinions makes you a sheep, and that's not what I perceived bulldrek is about. I guess it's all human, but I was hoping for a better response.

Deev, what I'm feeling right now, in a sense you're singling Thorn out, and trying to turn masses against her. You see, you're doing exactly what you claimed that Thorn are doing.

Well, Bethyaga asked me for examples, sadly I could only give one I could remember [and that was because he brought it up.

] I'm not singling Thorn, at all. I don't think she made any mistakes, I'm saying that those who simply sided with Thorn just because it was Thorn are the ones that were in the wrong.

People simply joined her by their own choice, and went with flow.

And that's where your perception differs from mine.

What amazed me was the Sorrow incident. You see, Sorrow just expressed his disdain for that gerbil sex picture by Buddha, and he got chased off just because he stood up for his beliefs, and my question is, what he did to deserve the harassment and chasing off?

No, Sorrow left because he didn't get the support he was counting on. He's still gone because not one person on this board has sent him an email asking him how he's been doing.

I believe that Thorn DID not goad people into siding with her. It just happened that people believe the same thing as Thorn did.

No, Thorn didn't goad anyone into siding with her. However, I don't think those people necessarily were of like minds with Thorn.

Cash wrote: Deev:: I think you're siding with the "underdog" just because without really thinking about it. Yes, cliquism and elitism are bad but I think you're chasing demons where there are none.

Perhaps you're right. Perhaps I'm over sensitive to the matter.

Many, me included, did not agree with Thorn just because of a massive popularity contest.

That's very cool. I mean that. You must be the person on this board - besides Caz - that is closest to Thorn. I am jealous of the integrity you posess.

Now, I've heard from a few different people that how she acted online is completely differnt than how she acts IRL.

Well, I happen to have met her twice, and I would say completely the opposite. But then again, I don't know her well enough to make such a statement with any accuracy.

Great. How she acts online bugs the fuck out of me and I do find it annoying.

Then ignore her posts and leave them for those people who like her inane banter. Live and let live.

Deev...you're not understanding that some of us can lose our jobs because of that.

I'll say it again; don't come on bulldrek then.

Also, about the picture; let's get one thing completely straight; the picture showed nothing but fur. Nothing else. Nothing rancid, nothing questionable; nothing. However, there was one word that stood out, and I can't remember if that was "sodomy" or "anal" or some such. But that was the only thing.

In a place where you have regular ANAL SEX threads, that's not such a big deal, is it?

Great. Have you asked Gunny why she's no longer posting here???

No, admittedly I haven't. I'll rephrase: "I have the strong feeling that she left because everyone was siding with Thorn."

Sorry Deev. Way off the mark.

Convince me, brother.

Then JohnnyRico just bullied you. Congrats. Personally, I'd rather have you there than JR.

Upon reading the bit of my post that you quoted, I realized that I wasn't being very clear about things;

You told me explicitly that I had no seniority over JonnyRico in the matter. He had as much right to come to the Gathering as I did, and there would be no favoritism. I don't want to be in a situation where I'm ruining the moods of myself, him, nor anyone around us...therefor I was seriously considering dropping out of the Gathering. I chose another way, I contact Johnny privately to talk things out. However, if that hadn't been possible, I wouldn't have gone to the Gathering. First of all, you saw how drunk I got the last time, I'm not ready to get my teeth kicked in at the Gathering and waking up with a hangover and 17 stitches in my gums. Second, if there are any more threats from Johnny [because I think everyone who's known me for even the slightest bit knows that I don't react well to threats] then that will ruin my mood, the Gathering [at least for me] and would be a waste of my invested money. So far, two people have deemed it necessary to threaten me; JohnnyRico and Paul, both of which I'll be avoiding at the Gathering.

I'm not here to make anyone uncomfortable, cause anyone any pain or displeasure. I'm not here to cause problems. Live and let live. That's my point.

Thorn wrote:What if I defend myself and people side with me - will I be accused of being a bully again?

I'm not saying that you are a bully, I'm saying that when you and Gunwitch butted heads, people should've left you to it as long as they didn't have an opinion of their own. I got the distinct feeling a lot of people were siding with you because you are a much loved and respected individual in this community, not so much that you had any valid points to your argument. I'm not saying that you didn't have valid points to your argument - although the "argument" did devolve in flinging of vaginal backwash, if I remember correctly - you must probably did...it's just that I had the feeling that the people who were siding with you didn't do it because of your arguments you had.

What if I let others do my defending for me? Will I be treated like some kind of evil mastermind, manipulating Bulldrekkers into doing her foul bidding?

Dramatic much?

She was shitty to me. I was shitty back (or maybe I started it - I don't trust my own perceptions on this at this point) There was lots of shittiness. Somewhere in there everyone decided to be shitty at Gunwitch as well. She was really really shitty to me, I was really really shitty to her. That was the last I saw of her.

Yeah, and that's why it really isn't you that did the bullying, or at least that's how I perceived things, but I seem to be the onliest motherfucker. If it would've stayed a one-on-one thing, I'm fairly sure that Gunwitch would've still been here. I'm sure she wouldn't leave just because one person didn't like her, even if that person did make supreme posts that would make Cazmonster proud and jealous at the same time.

I think she left because it seemed like a group effort; and I'm not saying that you could somehow influence that, or that you intentionally made that happen. I think a lot of people just got lost in a moment.

Also, to clarify (though I could swear I've told you, at least, this before, Dennis): my issue was not with Gunwitch Bulldrekking on SST. If you were to look over old threads, I'm usually pretty bad about letting 'drek into SST. She'd hacked me off in a lot of different places, and so when she took the game about hitting cats personally, I decided to deliver some 'friendly advice' in a not-so-friendly way. Was it the nicest decision I've ever made? Certainly not. But I didn't realize I was obligated to be nice all the damn time.

Yeah, you are probably right. I'm really sketchy on the details. Sucks to be me.

First of all, I'm going to assume that's not a fat joke.

Of course not. I wouldn't dare. It's hard to get vaginal backwash out of your clothing.

Was I gratified to see people taking up my side? Sure, who wouldn't be?

No, you're right. That's why I'm saying that it's not your responsibility at all. I'm saying that those who sided with you should've been a bit more...I don't know; objective?

Should I have turned around and kissed Gunwitch's heiny and begged her to come back?

Hell no! You had legitimate problems with her. You slammed her like a toilet seat. Good for you.

Should I have apologized?

Nope. There was nothing for you to apologize for.

Should I have told everyone not to say what they chose to say?

No, that's not your responsibility either.

But apparently if I do that, and other people support me... that's bad. Then I'm a bully "throwing her weight around".

I just realized that I fucked up; I made it seem as if you were rallying the masses, and on second that, that's not what I was hoping to say [although I did a really good job in doing that[/sarcasm]]; I'm assuming you had no way of knowing what others were going to do or say, nor what they were thinking about the issue. Therefor I can't really say that you were throwing your weight around, at least I don't remember you standing on the barricades ordering the slaughter of Gunwitch.

Am I not allowed to tell my friends that so-and-so hacked me off, on the off chance they'll decide to get hacked off on my behalf?

Of course you can tell your friends, and perhaps they'll feel slighted on your behalf, I just don't think it's right to pile on to someone out of a misplaced form of loyalty when you are doing a fine job of tearing Gunwitch from limb to limb. And let's face it, you were doing a mighty fine job.

The way I'm reading all this, it looks like I'm not allowed to defend myself, and nobody's allowed to back me up if I do, and I'm not allowed to talk to my friends about the things that might be bugging me.

I hope I've made myself a bit more clear by now.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Sat Mar 30, 2002 7:12 am

Dramatic Much?

Funny I am thinking the exact same thing about this entire topic.

Jestyr · Post by **Jestyr** » Sat Mar 30, 2002 10:37 am

That's what happens when you have a close-knit community that means a lot to many of the participants, and then a perceived threat to the stability of that community is identified.

Twisted Sister · Post by **Twisted Sister** » Sat Mar 30, 2002 10:48 am

*waits for the dust to settle and steps into the ring*

Right then people...about the Sorrow "thing"...

Now I am not going to drag up old threads from Boards of yore, but I really want to address this.

Here's my problem. I am relatively new here, I lurked for a while before I started posting properly, I watched how things went down and thought this could be kinda fun. What impressed me most of all is that there is a community here. One made up of total individuals don't get me wrong, but a community of likeminded people nevertheless.

If people had problems they wanted to share, then that was ok. Others rallied round and offer what support they could. I realize the juxtapositioning of this statement with the Thorn/Deev thing of the last page is a little odd, but I trust everyone is adult enough to know what I mean here. Anyhow I digress...

Now I, like Sorrow, and from the sound of it, many others, peruse the Boards at work. Yes that is my descision, no I shouldn't be surfing the net on company time, yes I have had the lecture, no I don't want it again. However this is the case. Now then...Deev brings up a point..

" In a place where you have regular ANAL SEX threads, that's not such a big deal, is it?'

Yes you're right. However when you cast your eyes over the the list of threads available from the vantage point of your lovely open plan office [god those things suck arse], you avoid clicking through on the topic whose title may give cause from some alarm. I wouldn't even click through on the "Blantently Sexual Thread" in BD proper, purely because I can't guess as to what you sick puppies will come up with next.

I realize that this is my choice, to read on or not to read on, and for the most part that's worked out okay. People post links to things they want to share and life is good. Occasionally people will put pics up in threads that while in actual fact cause not offense, could be perceived as not suitable material for office hours. And yes we come back to responsibility and all that good stuff.

However, my point is this...Sorrow had a valid position, but from what I gather, no one has bothered to drop him a mail to say hi. No one has asked him if he's ok. No one has bothered. From what I understand he was a valued member of the community, its not like there was a communal sigh of relief when he left. There have been mutterings and ''where are they now' threads but from what I can see, nothing has been done about it. Can you tell me why that is? And more to the point are you ready to do something about it? Or should we simply sit around here posting and reposting accusations, denials, rebuffs and rebuttals for a bit longer?

The Eclipse · Post by **The Eclipse** » Sun Mar 31, 2002 4:57 am

Sorry if this sounds disjointed as all hell, but I just read through the whole topic and want to touch on a whole bunch of things.

The first thing I note is concerning what this forum is, what it will be, or what it isn't. There is the preconcieved notion that this is anarchy. It will never be this way, because regardless of intentions we all have our own ideas about what is and is not acceptable here. and am I wrong but isn't this the way that it should be? We are a community, so shouldn't we, as a community be able to find a common ground where we can all keep order without infringing on the rights of others?
To illustrate that, I bring up the idea of self-policing. Even if we say that we do not self-police, it is happening anyway. I bring up my post pumping from the first few days of this board, Caz, in particular came down pretty hard on me about it. My first reaction was to get pissed off as hell, but I realized that my posts of late were kindof lacking in content and I modified my actions as needed.
As I see it, we are all friends here for the most part and I feel that ninety-nine percent of the time, anyone who comes to this board who has a problem with restrictions imposed upon them by the community as a whole will either conform to live within the restrictions, or leave the board. I find both of these to be acceptable.
The only major question I've had is what happens when we get a poster on this board who has no purpose here other than to make trouble? flash back to 'thedrunks' from DRF who didn't have any interest in the board, he only spammed threads with hundreds of posts that served no purpose but to deny others the ability to read the thread. How do we handle those people?

Concerning Thorn and the Gunwitch incident, I'm sorry, I just don't understand how this can be construed as Thorn's fault. It has never been a rule here that we are forced to like everyone, and If thorn had a beef with Gunwitch, it was completely within her rights to express her feelings on the matter. In the most extreme viewpoint, it's possible to blame everyone who jumped on the bandwagon and participated in the attack on Gunwitch.
But is it even then?
Personally, if I had been there, I would have backed Thorn up as well, why? because I know and trust thorn and I don't know Gunwitch, it's that simple. It's not being mindless zombies and automatically being yes-men for thorn, it's backing up one of our own.

Thorn · Post by **Thorn** » Sun Mar 31, 2002 8:58 am

Personally, if I had been there, I would have backed Thorn up as well, why? because I know and trust thorn and I don't know Gunwitch, it's that simple. It's not being mindless zombies and automatically being yes-men for thorn, it's backing up one of our own.

While I appreciate that, Eclipse - it's always nice to be loved, after all - I think Dennis' point is that that's exactly the kind of thing we ought to avoid. I mean, if I launch a full-out attack on someone who hasn't done a single thing to warrant/provoke such an attack, then I'm the asshole. And backing me up just because it's me doesn't do me, or the community, any good.

For one thing, maybe I've seen an attack where there is none - as my friends, I would hope some one of you would say, "Hey, uh, Thorn? I don't think Vic Tim there meant anything by that." Which would give me the opportunity to perform an emergency recto-craniectomy and apologive to poor Vic Tim for my Sybil-like performance.

The way I see it, that's the other point of Bulldrek - that we're friends here, and by and large we trust each other (in varying degrees, I'm sure, but still), and so we can (gently, I hope!) let each other know when we're making asses of ourselves in public.

The Eclipse · Post by **The Eclipse** » Sun Mar 31, 2002 9:16 am

Which would give me the opportunity to perform an emergency recto-craniectomy and apologive to poor Vic Tim for my Sybil-like performance

Coyote · Post by **Coyote** » Sun Mar 31, 2002 9:29 pm

shrugs.

Elitism. Cliquism. So what.

I always just kinda accepted it as a potential "bad" of a closely-knit board.

Tolerate the next paragraph. It's not just whining.

I've been posting here, there, everywhere for well over 2 years (under one name or another

) and I still feel like an "outsider", and not like an "Old Guard" (in spirit, at least).

Thank you.

To go along with that paragraph, now; I've taken no less than 3 hiatuses from the boards/IRC in 2 years, ranging from 3 months to 6- not talking to a single person during those times. I've never been to a Gathering, or tried to go. Or a Gencon. I know one person on the board IRL, and I brought him here with much encouragement and prodding.

So, I deserve what I get, from this view. You get out of something what you put in.

Also, I'm reminded of a line I said in a conversation I had with Szech just last night:

"Bulldrek is closeknit, but clannish. Intellgent, but clique-y. It's just what happens when you have a bunch of people that know each other in real life, and are good friends to boot. I'll never know, say, 32 the same as others; I just plain don't have as much access to feedback and experience regarding him as, say, Marius or Paul. But, then again, they will probably never know you the same way I do, (Szech). It's just a fact of life in Bulldrek. They'll gang up, they'll defend each other- sticking together is what good waffles do."

Ka0s 0verdrive · Post by **Ka0s 0verdrive** » Mon Apr 01, 2002 2:49 am

:cry

damn that's heart wrentching. I'm crying in real Life too...

I'm feeling the same way.. i've only known you guys for like a few whiles, and i've always taken little bits of hiatuses for while at a time, and if you dont stay on the board/room 24/7, it's hard to get accepted...
I'm not pointing any fingers of judgement, but it's true....

I probably never will have the money to go to GenCon, nor will I possibly be able to go to a gathering... but you guys are going to be able to, or at least get to see one another, and that makes your relationship with each other stronger, while we have to stay behind and listen to your stories and go "Really? cool!" like 5 year olds around their grandfathers.

It's a feeling of friendship I kinda like, and I get it almost here. at least alot more than some other places where I've been, where everybody was a number, and didn't have any personality (and 3278, the only number here, you've got more personality in those 4 digits than any of us could fill a dictionnary with) .

The point i'm trying to express is that Instead of flamming one another on issues, then we should probably try and help each other out.. i'm not talking a fucking sissy assed support group or anything, but still, ya know? someone says "I think i'm going to go kill myself. I mean it." shouldn't be replied with: "hey Flameblade! I've got 40 bucks that says he's not dead by tomorrow!"

just Crying/sentimental ramblings, i guess...

The Eclipse · Post by **The Eclipse** » Mon Apr 01, 2002 2:58 am

thanks kaos, i'm all ready to go sing some campfire songs now....

But I do understand where you guys are coming from, I was once one of the very core bulldrekkers, do I feel that way anymore? not really.
Why? because of a couple of reasons I guess, first, because I too have seen the need to take a couple extended hiatuses from the board, and also because I have always been, for one reason or another, unable to attend a gathering to date.
Am I out of the clique? possibly, i tend to overreact.

In conclusion....

I seem to have forgotten what i started writing this thread

Eliahad · Post by **Eliahad** » Mon Apr 01, 2002 3:35 am

Cycles, this board is full of them. It's a constant ebb and flow of individuals getting caught up in things, and then leaving them behind. Noticing something, then missing it the next day. I've always felt that certain aspects of the board are not condusive to inviting new members in, it's just the nature of this place. Hazing happens on all levels here, and in different forms, and sometimes it grows out of control.

I haven't always been fond of that, but I believe Eclipse will remember a time where some of us stood up and said "HEY YOU'VE GONE TOO FUCKING FAR" Then we got booted, because it was at a moment too late.

That cycle came again in the new v0.2 and we talked about it, ironed things out and the place started over, and at the time, it felt like a new group had been brought into the fold, LDH and Overlord pop readily to mind. Then, about six months later it happened all over again, but the board didn't move, we just stayed here and talked about it.

Now we have a new home, and I was oblivious that Rag (Coyote) felt this way at all. I thought that he had been accepted long before, and hearing this now made me pause and think. Were we truly alienating people and not being aware of it? Of course we are, some people probably don't even post here because of what they read, that's their choice...but Ragnaroc was a posting member who was active in board and in chat, I thought he had been clearly accepted in the community.

So we're at another stage in the community, another cycle begins. Friends are made, enemies too, but on the whole, the community is generally supportive, exceptionally analytical and highly-intelligent. We've isolated a few cases, Gunwitch and Sorrow, and now Ragnaroc, three in three years or so? I don't know if those are bad odds. But if you feel they are, what can be done differently? I don't think anything needs to change, just keep counting to ten before you post, and think things through before you hit submit.

Self-Policing

Self-Policing

*looks over thread*

looks over thread