Diane and all,

You go away from the forum for a day, and all hell breaks loose! While I by no means have done a comprehensive survey of the events on the forum in the last 24 hours, it does not at all look good. I think that a version of my worst fear has been realized...

I checked in yesterday afternoon, and saw an instance where it appeared that someone posted personal info, and it was edited. I think this was the right thing to do. After that, I'm not clear on what happened, but it seems to have gotten out of hand.

It's difficult to get a truly clear picture, as it crosses threads, and even forums. (From postings at Biffy, it looks as though the info posted was correct) You know what you did, what I see is a couple of posts from "Quiet Observer@Watching.Them" and maybe another name saying that so and so is also such and such, etc...

From there, screams of "censorship" run rampant.

I think that posting info on who's who, under the guise of an "observer" was the wrong thing to do. Obviously, it wasn't done "officially," and that left things open to even more speculation. Still, the polly/trolls know it was done by the new moderators, they are pretty savvy afterall, and that gives them just the ammunition they've been looking for. They'll never let this one die.

Now, the conversation on the forum will be compromised forever, IMHO. After Ed's Sayonara, things were (again, IMHO) amazingly civil. I didn't see anything outside the usual (wide) range of trollery, and considering the sensitivity of the times, I thought things were going extremely well. I thought that, despite a few waves of garden-variety and expected trollery, we were going to get throught it just fine.

Now, however, I feel differently. The first dictum of dealing with trollery has always been if you ignore them, they'll lose their power and go away. In my experience, this has generally worked. The only problem with this is that it's very difficult to ignore them. While RESPONDING to them has always caused them to come back for more, EXPOSING them takes it one step further, it actually gives them a twisted sort of righteousness.

The essence of the Polly/Doomer "debate" needs to be about information. There's a lot of posting on both sides of information that supports either perspective. If you take a broad sweep of information posted, (and not just on the forum, but everywhere) the Doomer info is more powerful than Polly info. Unfortunately, the polly "meme" (I hate that word, but it's been bandied about a lot lately, and is good shorthand) is much stronger in the world, as it supports the status quo. Therefore, it's up to the Doomers to provide better information in order to break through that status quo meme. When that is the way the forum moves along, the Polly trolls tend to be quieter.

However, right now, we're in a time period where information supporting the more "pessimistic" outlook is kinda dry. I think that will change, but for the time being, the conversation is largely emotional. I think that limiting (and exposing is a form of limiting) the Polly "meme," it allows them to use their emotional "advantage" as information. ("The Doomers know they don't have a leg to stand on, so they "censor" us.) And giving them this advantage removes a lot of the credibility of the information that we try to provide.

Anyway, I don't think this was articulated as clearly as I'd like, but hopefully, you get my point. I think that in the rush of finding a new techie toy to play with, exposing "them" for who they are, gives "them" an advantage in this whole stupid thing. And, the idea should be to remove any advantage, by giving clear and credible information.

I am, and have been for a long time, something that I would describe as being a "communal anarchist." Anarchy, being Democracy in its purest form, where everybody needs to realize that they have a stake in society, inform themselves, and act on that information. Communal being the fact that people need to realize that one's enlightened self-interest includes "looking out for the other guy," that one can not be truley secure in society unless one's neighbors are also, and that the best way to be secure is to help inform one's neighbors. Through sharing information, communities of like-minded individuals can form around common interests, and act upon shared information. Ideally, communities with differing opinions can debate perspectives, and LISTEN to each other, and hopefully come out of it with a synthesis of the the differing perspectives. At the very least, they can agree to disagree.

I know that's a lot to ask, but I think that otherwise, forces of control seep in (or take over), and then information is comprimised. I think it's clear that's what's happening in society at large, and I don't like it. Maybe on the other side of the rollover, individuals will take more responsibility to inform themselves. Maybe not.

In the meantime, I've always thought that this forum was an interesting microcosmic experiment in Communal Anarchy. Maybe it wasn't intended to be that from the beginning, but it evolved into it. I do believe that people who want to discuss Y2K (or anything else for that matter) should certainly have a controlled place in which to do so, if that's what they want. True, the forum often devolves into childish namecalling, but I believe that there is value in allowing that to happen. Why? Because that is a snapshot of part of the attitude in society, and I think it's important to view attitudes as they are. The larger Y2K issue, which includes economics, politics, war, personal responsibility, everything in the mix that could lead to a radical shift in the next few years has become fodder for this forum. To back away from that using a force of control, ON THIS FORUM, in my mind would be mistake. If the moderators want to impose control on this forum, that is certainly their right and privilege, but again, I think that would be a mistake. However, for interested individuals to abandon the forum and go somewhere else to discuss a narrower range of issues in a controlled environment, would be a fine example of Communal Anarchy.

I'm rambling, aren't I?

I don't have much more time at the moment, as I have to leave shortly fot the day, but I do want to make one more point. I'm running the Sanger's website, the mission of which is to provide objective information about Y2K. While I certainly let my own perspective come through in the editorial choices that I make, and the way that I present it at times, I get a lot of feedback from readers that they appreciate the fact that I generally do not cross the line into opinion. Sometimes I have a hard time NOT putting my perspective into it, sometimes I feel that I do cross the line, but I've never had anyone say that I've boldly crossed the line. I feel that it's important for me to continue trying to be as objective as I can in presenting information. And, as small as it may be, I guess I have a reputation. I don't know what I'll do with that reputation in the future, I don't know where this all will go, but I think, on my site anyway, I need to keep that reputation as it is. I've gotten e-mail from people saying that they've read my site and read comments of mine on the forum, and they think it's good that I separate the two. I try to keep the "reporter" separate from the "opinionator," and I don't know if that's going to be possible as a "moderator/sysop" on the forum. If it gets out that I have the power to alter/delete posts, or check IP info, even though I haven't done those things, and feel strongly that they should not be done, that could kill the reputation that I'm trying to build.

Therefore, I feel that it would be best for me to back off as one of the "moderators" and alternate sysop of the forum. I'll still "moderate" as a participant, by sharing information and perspective, but I think it's best for me not to be involved in an "official" capacity. Therefore, Diane, could you please select one of the many other able-minded moderators to be your sysop back-up? After you do so, you should also change the edit password to something else. It's not like I'd even done anything as the alternate sysop. But I don't agree with imposing contol on this forum in this way (looking at IP's and posting names from that info, ) so I think it best, to preserve the teeny-tiny reputation that I have off the forum, not be associated with that. It's a philosophical disagreement, don'tcha know...

Anyway, cheers for now, and I'll check in tonight for any responses...

(Just read TECH32's post on the "Notice" thread. VERY interesting! Adds a whole new twist I hadn't even considered...)

-- Anonymous, June 06, 1999

Answers

Patrick,

I hope you'll reconsider about your decision to not be co-moderator.

How do we make this thing work? So it's productive?

I personally have NO desire to edit and delete unless warranted, and I'm more than willing TO POST for the Forum participants what the moderators WILL and WILL NOT do. If that will help.

Past times, when Ed was known to be moderating, have changed now as has the increased trolling action. Like kids who test the boundaries in school, with a new teacher, the Debunker and Biffy trolls have decided to use spray paint and trash the Forum. OutingsR (not me) has amply shown that to be so.

How do we keep the forum on Y2K track? While still encouraging freedom of speech?

Yes, I'm making mistakes.

Some work and some don't. That's part of learning "how" to do this thing.

So HOW to do it suggestions would really be appreciated.

Thanks,

Diane

-- Anonymous, June 06, 1999

Seems we have a problem here.

Tech32's post may have some relevance.

Unfortunately Chuckie is a real problem. And he has some how nailed a point across that is in the American way of life. Freedom of speach and the restrictions of the poster. I have not followed the polly - troll posts lately (if ever) but he has a point (Gag)

Even though I am a Canadian it would seem that these are serious waters to tread.

Of course it is a Sunday morning :o) There is also the fact that the forums are set up to edit. HHHMMMMM It would appear that we would have to rely on the intelligences of the members to figure out what is right and what is wrong.

We are all adults.

-- Anonymous, June 06, 1999

Hardliner's doing a good job.

Diane

-- Anonymous, June 06, 1999

Agreed, ref Hardliner. Popping the IP info may have been a mistake. WHOOPS! We all learn a lesson. We may have to set up the "new" configuration with a lot less thought than we might like.

Much though I hate the thought, we may have to set it up as we learn.

Seriusly consider our options, as the time is short and the water rises.

Chuck

-- Anonymous, June 07, 1999